By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 10 at 7:09 am ET In The Space Review this week, Taylor Dinerman calls for another attempt at an “Invest in Space Now” bill to promote the development of RLVs. The bill, also known as the Calvert-Ortiz bill after primary sponsors Ken Calvert (R-CA) and Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), was introduced in 2001 to provide tax credits for investors in launch vehicle developers. The bill had over 20 co-sponsors, but was never taken up by the House Ways and Means Committee, reportedly because of the high “scoring” the bill got by the committee staff. (A similar bill was introduced in 2003 but also died in committee.) “They estimated that it would cost several billions in tax revenue over the short run,” Dinerman writes. “Of course, a successful US RLV industry would return tens of billions in revenue to the US treasury over a couple of decades, not to mention the gigantic increase in economic activity that would naturally follow from the opening up of the space frontier.”
Dinerman argues that a new version of the bill would held foster the development of vehicles that could enhance the economy in much the same way that support for the development of transcontinental railroads in the 1860s that made the US “an economic as well as a political whole”. Left unanswered, though, is who in Congress would be willing to take up a new version of the legislation, and how they would get it pushed through Ways and Means (let alone the full House, as well as the Senate.)
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 9 at 10:36 pm ET I noticed on the English-language version of the Interfax web site today an interview with Sen. Bill Nelson about US-Russia space policy issues. There’s no date on the interview, but it just appeared on the Interfax web site within the last few days. The Russian news service’s reporter asked a curious set of questions, including two about the prospects of the US Congress passing a ban on US use of Soyuz spacecraft, something that was an issue last year but appeared to have been resolved after September’s approval of an extension of the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) waiver. In both cases Nelson said it was “extremely unlikely” that Congress would approve such a ban. (The repeated questions made me wonder if this was, in fact, an old interview, but references to the Obama Administration and “last year’s conflict in Georgia” suggest that this is indeed a recent interview.)
Some other questions ask about international cooperation on the ISS and whether the Georgia conflict might jeopardize other areas of space cooperation, like “Sea Start” (actually Sea Launch, the multinational commercial launch venture) and US purchases of RD-180 engines for the Atlas 5. The interview then ends on another bizarre note, asking if Russia could participate in a planned US “protection system” against asteroids, noting that such a system “could be used against sattelites [sic], ballistic missiles, space ships”. Nelson had to break it to the interviewer that the US, in fact, is not actively developing such a system.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 9 at 10:21 pm ET As Space News [subscription required] noted late today, there’s a slight tweak in the compromise stimulus package in the Senate. While the topline figure remains the same as the previous compromise version, $1.3 billion, the $200 million cut from the original bill has since been distributed evenly across science, aeronautics, human spaceflight, and NASA facility repairs; previously the entire $200 million was going to come out of science. A Senate Appropriations Committee press release has similar numbers. What’s not clear is whether this was a change after the compromise version was announced Friday night, or if the original figures were in error. (A reader noted as early as Saturday a CNN article with a similar structure of cuts, but the article was rather confusing: what does it mean to cut “$50 million for NASA”, followed by $50 million for aeronautics, exploration, and Cross Agency Support?)
Meanwhile the full stimulus package passed a “test vote” Monday evening on a 61-36 margin. The AP article reporting the vote mentions NASA funding but only makes matters more confusing: it claims that the “Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House.” In fact, assuming what they mean by “exploration” is human spaceflight, the House version contains no money (and only $600 million in total for NASA, $400 million of which is allocated to Earth science.)
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 9 at 1:01 pm ET Last week the Baker Institute in Houston issued a report on space policy recommendations for the Obama Administration. Since two of the lead authors were George Abbey and Neal Lane, the conclusions they suggested should not be surprising for those who have followed their previous work: extend the shuttle to continue support of the ISS, and refocus the agency to more in energy and environment research. They would cancel the Ares 1 and some other elements of Constellation, but preserve the Ares 5 for eventual missions to asteroids and comets, and if necessary, the Moon.
in today’s Houston Chronicle, the paper sought feedback on the proposal from a number of former astronauts. Their feedback is mixed. John Glenn agrees with the plan’s renewed emphasis on the ISS, and Sally Ride supports the focus on energy and the environment. However, Franklin Chang-Diaz thinks the problem is that NASA “was given a bad deal” but not being properly funded. Walt Cunningham also thinks that the agency has been “ridiculously short of money for years now” and, while supporting bypassing the Moon, doesn’t like the emphasis on the environment (apparently because of his skepticism about climate change.) Kathryn Thornton worries that a focus on energy and the environment would be “a permanent re-direction” given the scope of the problem, and Gene Cernan thinks other organizations—or billionaires—would be better suited to tackle the problem: “We have other agencies, environmental groups and oil companies, auto companies and T. Boone Pickens to figure out how we can survive and save the world.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 7 at 7:59 pm ET Friday’s Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, featured an op-ed on the economic stimulus package from a surprising source: Robert Zubrin, best known in the space community as perhaps the most dedicated (zealous?) advocate for human Mars exploration. Zubrin, identified in the piece not as founder of the Mars Society but instead as “a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies“, offered a three-point alternative to the current stimulus plans being discussed in Congress. Two of the items, making down payments on home purchases tax-deductable and requiring all new cars being sold in the US to be flex-fueled, have nothing to do with space, but the third most certainly did: “initiate a program to send humans to Mars within eight years”. His conclusion:
We can reach Mars within eight years, and we should. In doing so, we will make it clear to the world, and to ourselves, that we are a people whose can-do spirit can defy any limit, that we are living at the beginning of our history, not at its end, and that henceforth, our greatest deeds will continue to be celebrated in newspapers and not just in museums. We can not only beat the current recession, but soar far beyond it, into a wide-open future truly worthy of the promise that is America.
Given the difficulties getting even a modest bit of NASA funding in the stimulus package, the odds of this proposal getting considered, let alone enacted, are roughly zero—which may be true for his other proposals as well.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 7 at 11:36 am ET Late Friday evening the office of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who had been working to trim some spending from the Senate’s economic stimulus bill, released a statement with details on a compromise he and other senators reached on spending cuts. The $1.5 billion for NASA that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) advocated, including $500 million to reduce the Shuttle-Constellation gap, had in the crosshairs of Ben Nelson, Susan Collins (R-ME), and other cutters. The compromise, though, leaves that $500 million intract, instead cutting $200 million of the $500 million sought for Earth sciences research:
|
House |
Senate Original |
Senate Compromise |
| Science |
$400M |
$500M |
$300M |
| Aeronautics |
$150M |
$250M |
$250M |
| Shuttle Replacement |
$0 |
$500M |
$500M |
| Cross-Agency Support (Construction) |
$50M |
$250M |
$250M |
| Office of the Inspector General |
$2M |
$2M |
$2M |
Assuming this compromise does pass the full Senate, keep in mind that the Senate version will have to be reconciled with the House version, which provided $600 million for NASA, and none of that for human spaceflight.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 7 at 11:11 am ET An article by Andy Pasztor in today’s Wall Street Journal (one that does not appear to require a subscription) reports that retired general Lester Lyles is under consideration to be NASA administrator by the Obama administration. That Lyles is being considered isn’t necessarily new—NASA Watch reported the rumors about Lyles over a week ago—but the Journal article does note that Lyles’s name “has circulated widely on Capitol Hill and his credentials have been examined by White House aides.” The article doesn’t mention, though, what sort of timeframe there might be for finally coming to a decision on Lyles or someone else.
An extended delay in naming the next administrator, Pasztor speculates, “could strengthen the position of Sen. [Bill] Nelson and others who support the current space program and the thousands of jobs it provides in Florida and elsewhere” since it would take a new administrator months to carry out a review of NASA priorities, and the new administration hasn’t made its space policy priorities clear (although to be fair, they’ve been in office only two and a half weeks and have been a little preoccupied with other matters.) And while Bill Nelson was strongly critical of Gration (enough, reportedly, to put a halt to plans to nominate him last month), the Journal does note that “[s]ome industry and government officials say Gen. Gration is still in the running.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 6 at 5:20 am ET When the incoming Obama Administration picked Ray LaHood to be Secretary of Transportation in December, many commercial space advocates breathed a sigh of relief, as they had been concerned that Congressman James Oberstar, who opposed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, might get the job. LaHood, though, was something of a cipher to the commercial space community: he never really dealt at all with space issues of any flavor during his tenure as a Republican congressman from Illinois. What were his opinions, if any, on commercial space transportation?
A partial answer—one that was unsurprising but encouraging—came Thursday at the FAA’s annual Commercial Space Transportation Conference in Crystal City, Virginia. Keynote speaker Thomas Barrett, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation (and a holdover from the Bush Administration), apologized to attendees that LaHood could not be there in person: LaHood was, in fact, at a train station in Maryland with Vice President Joe Biden, promoting funding in the stimulus package for mass transit. However, Barrett said that he had brought up commercial space transportation with LaHood shortly after he became Transportation Secretary. “It’s on his radar. He’s interested in commercial space,” Barrett said. “I told him about my experience with this program and my enthusiasm for it and for the people who are in it. And he said, ‘I don’t know a lot about that. I’d really like to learn more.'” Barrett added that he found that attitude “refreshing” and “very positive”. “He wants to learn, and he’s a quick learner.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 6 at 4:59 am ET Ah, the headline writer’s dream: a battle between not only two senators of the same party, but also with the same last name. As Florida Today and Orlando Sentinel both report, Bill Nelson (D-FL) is trying to convince Ben Nelson (D-NE) to support the $1.5 billion in NASA funding in the Senate version of the economic stimulus package. Bill Nelson is a strong supporter of the agency and has been pushing for the extra funding, while Ben Nelson (not related to Bill) is concerned about the existence of “non-stimulative items” in the bill—including, apparently, that NASA funding Bill Nelson is seeking.
In an effort to preserve the NASA money, Bill Nelson has asked for support from Sen. Daniel Inouye, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In a letter to Inouye, Bill Nelson cites a wide variety of benefits NASA research provides, adding that the upcoming Shuttle-Constellation gap is “shameful” and appreciating any additional funding Inouye can help provide “to help address this problem.” A vote on the stimulus package, with or without the NASA funding, could come as early as today.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 February 5 at 4:59 am ET We don’t know who the next NASA administrator is going to be, nor what the new administration’s space policy plans are, nor what sort of budget the administration will request, but that’s not stopping some advocacy groups from pressing their agendas on Congress. The National Space Society is planning its annual Legislative Blitz in conjunction with the Space Exploration Alliance on February 22-24. As in past years, this event will feature teams of space activists meeting with Congressional offices to push the theme that “space must be a national priority”, although they have not disclosed any policy specifics.
The Planetary Society is also stepping up its Congressional outreach in support of “Beyond the Moon”, its space exploration roadmap released in November that deemphasizes a human return to the Moon while making Mars the ultimate long-term goal for human spaceflight. The organization plans to distribute copies of that report to all members of Congress early this month. “By reaching out to Congress early in its term,” the group notes, “the Society is making sure that its voice and that of its members will be heard when the time comes to make difficult budgetary decisions.”
|
|
