By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 17 at 5:57 am ET Today is the first public hearing of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine Committee), to take place at the 400-seat auditorium at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, DC. NASA published the agenda for the meeting yesterday and shows that this meeting will look at both the current status of Constellation as well as various alternatives, including EELV and DIRECT, as well as the status of COTS and ISS commercial resupply. (And it is a full day: only a half-hour for lunch, and no other breaks during the full-day meeting.)
A couple of recent (or recently released) studies will likely come up in the committee’s deliberations today. On Monday Aerospace Daily revealed that an Aerospace Corporation study for NASA found EELVs could be cheaper than Ares 1 in some circumstances. Specifically, a human-rated Delta 4 Heavy could be cheaper than the Ares 1, but only if the heavy-lift Ares 5 is deferred. Going with the Delta 4 could also extend the post-shuttle gap by up to two years, according to the unreleased study obtained by the publication.
Yesterday the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the status of NASA’s COTS program, The report finds that the two funded COTS companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, have met most of the milestones in their agreements on time but “both companies are working under aggressive schedules and have recently experienced schedule slips that have delayed upcoming demonstration launch dates by several months.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 16 at 6:01 am ET This week the full House is scheduled to debate and vote on the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill (HR 2847), beginning as early as today. Also available now is the text of the committee report with some more details about the spending plan. For example, this is how the report explains the creation of the new construction account in the bill:
The Committee proposes establishment of a new construction account to fund all institutional and programmatic construction. As shown in the Committee’s review, the longstanding arrangement of funding construction within other accounts without specifying an amount for construction has resulted in a lack of discipline in NASA’s planning for programmatic construction and a lack of transparency in presenting and justifying construction projects. The new account will fund discrete construction projects, minor revitalization and construction projects, facility planning and design, demolition, and environmental compliance and restoration. Appropriated funds shall be available for five years, as requested.
If debate remains on schedule, the House will vote on (and likely approve) the bill by tomorrow. On Thrusday, though, the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing titled “External Perspectives on the FY 2010 NASA Budget Request and Related Issues”, which seems a bit oddly timed given the schedule for the passing the appropriations bill. The scheduled witnesses are:
Mr. John C. Marshall
Member
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP)
Dr. Kenneth M. Ford
Chair
NASA Advisory Council (NAC)
Mr. Robert M. Hanisee
Chair
Audit and Finance Committee
NASA Advisory Council (NAC)
Dr. Raymond S. Colladay
Chair
National Academies’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB)
Dr. Berrien Moore III
Member
National Academies’ Space Studies Board (SSB)
Mr. J.P. Stevens
Vice President for Space Systems
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), chair of the subcommittee, briefly discussed the budget during a Space Transportation Association luncheon last week. “I trust [approprations subcommittee] Chairman [Alan] Mollohan. I think he’s a very strong supporter of NASA and space,” she said, referring to comments made by Mollohan in the approprations bill markup earlier this month about giving exploration funding a “time-out” in the FY10 spending bill but continuing to express support for the overall effort. “I think his perspective is, yes, we had a mission, we had a vision, but we didn’t have adequate funding to go along with that.”
Later: “We are now entering a very difficult period of at least five years. We’re going to have think very creatively and strategically about how we explain that to the American people,” many of whom, she thinks, don’t realize that the shuttle is about to be retired, leaving NASA without its own access to the station for the next several years.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 12 at 7:34 pm ET The House Appropriations Committee document earlier this week that appeared to show a $113.9 million rescission in NASA’s FY9 budget for COTS got a lot of people up in arms and wondering exactly happened. The committee hasn’t provided any additional information, such as the report to go along with the actual appropriations bill, to clarify exactly what has gone on. But as it turns out the cut might only be imaginary.
As Jim Muncy explained in an email late today, COTS got $153 million in FY09 (plus $150 million in stimulus funding, if and when Sen. Shelby relents). The FY10 budget request included $39.1 million for COTS, which the committee apparently fully funded (it does not show up in the list of programs that got cuts in the FY10 bill). What’s $153 million minus $39.1 million? $113.9 million, or exactly the amount of the “reduction” that appears on the committee’s list.
While this explains the amount and the rationale (“program phase out”, as COTS is winding down), one problem with this logic is that this doesn’t really represent a cut: the funding was supposed to go down as SpaceX and Orbital completed work on their funded Space Act Agreements with NASA under the program (and also because NASA was not funding any Capability D, or crew transportation work, as a part of COTS.) Would the committee really take credit for a $113.9 million “reduction” of a program that was supposed to go down by that much anyway? Stranger things have happened…
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 12 at 12:55 pm ET The Associated Press published today an interview with former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, settling into his new position as a professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville. Some highlights, starting with what he thinks of the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine committee):
“This review is not, in my judgment, necessary from a technical point of view,” he said. “But it does seem to be necessary if we are going to quiet some of the criticism of what NASA is doing, and if we are going to get the new administration on board.”
[…]
Griffin said he doesn’t think the administration’s review will mean any major changes for Constellation, “unless someone moves the goalpost” away from completing the space station, returning to the moon and then sending people to Mars.
But such studies can lead to funding uncertainties and a loss of momentum, he said, and NASA underwent a “seminal change” after the Columbia disaster in 2003, one that led to the current plan to astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars.
“The space agency had its change you can believe in,” said Griffin, referring to Obama’s campaign theme. “What it needs now is to be left alone to execute well.”
Griffin also offers praise for his nominated successor, Charles Bolden—at his own expense:
Griffin was pleased with Obama’s selection of former astronaut Charles Bolden as his successor. Griffin — who was sometimes faulted for what some described as a prickly personality — said Bolden has the experience, smarts and people skills for the job.
“It would be very hard to think more highly of him,” he said. “He’s way better with people than I am.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 12 at 7:43 am ET If you thought Esquire was only about fashion and women and lifestyles (or supermodels on the cover wearing only the opening lines of a Stephen King story), think again. In an essay on the magazine’s web site, Thomas P.M. Barnett (described as “a top Washington policy expert” although one who focuses more on foreign policy issues) offers his prescription for getting the US out of its current space rut and engaging the private sector. His approach boils down to three key points:
- Support a treaty to ban weapons in space, as desired by Russia and China (thus ending “pointless demonstrations of China’s growing military capabilities” in space);
- Working with Russia, China, and Europe “in a joint effort to retake the moon as a quasi-launching site” for future missions to Mars and beyond, avoiding duplicity of efforts and engendering “mutual transparency” between the US and China in particular;
- With NASA focused on deep space exploration, “do everything possible to open up all nearer space (up to and including the moon’s surface) to commercial ventures”.
The first point is actually closely aligned with current administration policy to seek a ban on space weapons (which Barnett notes in his essay). However, one of the issues that has come up in debates on the topic is what exactly is a “space weapon”; it’s possible, for example, that a ground-based interceptor like the one used by China in its January 2007 test might not qualify. Moreover, there are concerns about verification of such a ban that would have to be addressed.
The second point is also not that different from NASA’s plans (now in limbo thanks to the Augustine committee review) to return to the Moon and (maybe) establish an outpost there, only this would explicitly include China and Russia. The idea of engaging with China has been discussed before, typically with near-term options like ISS cooperation, but that assumes that both China is interested (versus focusing their efforts on indigenous capabilities) and that technology transfer and other issues can be overcome.
The third point no doubt strikes a favorable chord with the NewSpace industry and other commercial space advocates (particularly an earlier comment where he claims that “if not for the Cold War and the ‘race to the moon’ and ‘star wars’ and so on, we’d have a far larger and more accessible private-sector space industry than the puny one we’ve got now.”) Unfortunately, he falls short on any specific approaches to “open up all nearer space” to the private sector. Is he seeking regulatory changes? Export control reform? More support for COTS and commercial ISS resupply? More funding for Centennial Challenges? It’s all very vague, and not very actionable should someone in the White House or Congress decide he’s right—assuming they notice this in Esquire without getting distracted. By Stephen King, of course.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 12 at 7:01 am ET If all goes well, the space shuttle Endeavour will lift off Saturday morning on the STS-127 mission to the International Space Station. Among those planning to watch the launch is a bipartisan Congressional delegation led by Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL). Those members planning to attend the launch with Kosmas are:
Mike Conaway (R-TX-11)
Jim Costa (D-CA-20)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ-8)
Parker Griffith (D-AL-5)
Ralph Hall (R-TX-4)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX-19)
Pete Olson (R-TX-22)
Aaron Schock (R-IL-18)
“With so few launches left before Shuttle retirement, I want my colleagues to fully grasp what it would mean for our country to have a prolonged period of time without direct access to space or the International Space Station,” she said in a statement. “I am confident that after this experience, many more will join in my fight to minimize the gap and ensure that we continue to have a robust human spaceflight program.”
Speaking at a Space Transportation Association luncheon Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Giffords discussed the challenges in getting members to take time from their schedules to attend a launch. “I was not happy to see so few members at the Hubble launch” last month, she said. “We can’t do this for every launch, but I’m really pleased to get a critical mass for members coming down.”
“If we’re going to get people excited about space, trust me, there is no easier way, with all the demands on our time and all the people who come to see us, than to go to a shuttle launch,” Giffords added. “It’s amazing.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 11 at 1:29 pm ET A reader pointed out this list of programs cut or terminated in the House Appropriations Committee’s version of a FY10 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. This list includes not just programs in the FY10 bill but also rescissions in the FY09 appropriations (something easy, at least for me, to overlook). One of the biggest rescissions is a $113.9 million cut in NASA’s commercial crew and cargo program, with an odd reason given: “program phase out”. No further details are available; while the text of the bill is now on the committee’s web site, that level of detail would be in the committee report and not the bill itself.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 11 at 7:15 am ET Since commercial ISS resupply has become a relatively hot topic in space circles recently thanks to comments and actions by one member of Congress, plans by the AIAA for an event on the topic are partocularly timely. “Innovations in Orbit: An Exploration of Commercial Crew and Cargo Transportation” is scheduled for the afternoon of June 18th in Washington, and features both industry and government panels, like a similar event on export control reform organized by the AIAA on April. And no, Sen. Shelby is not one of the speakers.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 10 at 8:25 pm ET NASA administrator nominee Charles Bolden is taking the next step towards confirmation by starting to meet with senators. Bolden met Wednesday with at least two members of the Senate: Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jim DeMint (R-SC), both members of the Senate Commerce Committee. In a press release after the meeting, DeMint praised Bolden, a native of Columbia, SC. “I was impressed with his knowledge of NASA, and I am confident he will provide valuable leadership to the agency at a critical time in its history,” DeMint said in the statement. “I look forward to supporting General Bolden’s confirmation and working with him to improve NASA in the years to come.”
Hutchison, who heaped praise on Bolden the day the White House nominated him, kept that up in comments after her meeting with the nominee, saying he should be “easily confirmed and quickly confirmed”. She added, according to Florida Today: “He has a great history as an astronaut, and he know NASA, and he knows what can be done. He’s also been a manager, and I think that he will be an excellent administrator of NASA.”
Hutchison also used the opportunity to criticize cuts to NASA’s budget approved yesterday by the House Appropriations Committee, calling them “destructive”. “Having people in space is how we have come so far and have really been able to dominate space,” she said. Hutchison also noted that she supports extending the shuttle to deal with the US government human spaceflight gap, but “she acknowledged Bolden does not agree with this suggestion,” according to the AP.
According to The Hill article linked to above, Hutchison said that the Commerce Committee will “likely” vote on Bolden’s nomination next week, although no hearing has been scheduled (the two “Nominations Hearings” currently on the committee’s online calendar for the 16th are for other positions.)
By Jeff Foust on 2009 June 9 at 9:13 pm ET Lost in the discussion of budgets and blocked stimulus funds is the status of the NASA administrator and deputy administrator nominations, announced on May 23. There were a couple of minor notes on those topics today, though. In the Huntsville Times Sen. Richard Shelby calls administrator nominee Charles Bolden “a capable man” but unlike some of his colleagues doesn’t give the nomination an outright endorsement. “The confirmation process will have to take place, and I’m not making any predictions or judgments, but (Bolden) certainly is a capable man and has the qualifications,” Shelby said. “We’ll have to see what the Senate thinks and move from there.”
Meanwhile, former astronaut and deputy administrator Fred Gregory issued a rebuttal to a New York Times editorial last week that raised some questions about both Bolden and Lori Garver, the deputy administrator nominee. “The Times editorial… demonstrates a lack of knowledge of NASA’s history and past leaders who have energized this country’s space endeavors for five decades,” he writes on the blog of the Coalition for Space Exploration. “Indeed, the president’s choices bring different strengths, but diversity is key to the creation of a thriving, innovative environment.” Later: “President Obama’s decision to fill the top two posts with a charismatic leader and space veteran, along with a polished policy strategist makes for a winning combination.”
As for when the Senate might hold confirmation hearings for Bolden and Garver, no date has yet been announced. It’s looking less and less likely that it can be wrapped up this month because of crowded schedules. Congress goes on recess after the 26th for a week for the Independence Day holiday, so it might not get done until early or even mid July.
|
|
