By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 30 at 7:42 am ET Those who have been following NASA’s exploration architecture know there’s been a long-running debate about whether the Ares 1 launch vehicle under development is really a better alternative than a derivative of the Atlas 5 or Delta 4 EELVs. That discussion has become more prominent in recent weeks, given the pending change in administrations, continuing technical questions about the Ares 1, and questions President-elect Obama’s NASA transition team has been asking on this topic. This has included articles earlier this month in the Wall Street Journal and, just today, an extended piece in the New York Times
Also today, the Orlando Sentinel weighs in on the debate, and adds an interesting little bit of information about one event that generated additional friction between NASA and United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture responsible for the EELV program:
Matters came to a head Oct. 22, when ULA made a presentation to the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight, an industry show in New Mexico. Bob Walker, Brevard County’s lobbyist in Washington, who saw ULA’s presentation on its human space program, concluded that it meant that Ares I was in trouble. On Oct. 27, Walker told county commissioners; U.S. Reps. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, and Dave Weldon, R-Indialantic; and representatives of the local aerospace community that the word at the conferences was “that Ares I could be on the chopping block.”
Industry officials say that a few days later, Griffin called Robert Stevens, the CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., which jointly owns ULA together with Boeing Co., and demanded that Stevens stop what Griffin called the subsidiary’s efforts to “kill Ares I” by promoting versions of its own rockets that could carry humans to space.
I was at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight (ISPCS) in October, where Jeff Patton of ULA appeared on a panel about commercial human orbital spaceflight along with representatives of Arianespace, Orbital Sciences, and SpaceX. Reviewing my notes of the presentation, it’s hard to see what about that presentation would have raised a red flag with Walker. Patton talked briefly about the work ULA has been doing with companies like Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceDev to study how the Atlas 5 in particular could be used to launch crewed spacecraft, and some of the history of that work (which predates the Vision for Space Exploration back to the Orbital Space Plane concept of the early 2000s). The presentation, though, was entirely focused on commercial access to LEO: there was no mention of Ares 1 or Orion in the talk, which focused as much on what generic attributes a commercial crew transfer spacecraft needed as it did on ULA’s work on using EELVs for human missions.
It’s possible, I suppose, that one could read between the lines and conclude that ULA was using its commercial work as a means of keeping active any ambitions to replace the Ares 1 with an EELV-derived alternative. If true, though, that’s something that’s been clear for months: there were no new revelations or other statements in ULA’s ISPCS presentation that would have alarmed anyone who has been following the topic.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 27 at 11:02 am ET Saturday’s Wall Street Journal features a letter to the editor from none other than Neil Armstrong, in response to an article from earlier this month about deliberations President-elect Obama’s transition team is making on the future of NASA’s exploration architecture. (Both links may require a WSJ.com subscription.) Armstrong seems particularly concerned that the transition team would make a decision about accelerating Constellation, revamping the program, and/or extending the life of the shuttle:
I certainly hope that isn’t accurate, in that the transition team should play no part in such decisions. While these men and women are experienced and enthusiastic space program veterans, they are neither aerospace engineers nor former program managers and cannot be sufficiently knowledgeable to make choices in the technical arena.
It’s not at all clear, though, that the team is making any decisions, as opposed to simply gathering information and making recommendations for the new administration. Armstrong has no problems with allowing the new president to make those decisions, and states that, contrary to a report earlier this month in the Orlando Sentinel, he should have no problem getting the technical information from NASA needed to make that decision:
He should have no difficulty receiving high-quality information from NASA. Engineers are painfully honest and insist on presenting any assumptions used in their decision process. Therefore a conclusion can only be challenged when an erroneous assumption can be identified. Because this approach is somewhat unfamiliar in business and politics, its importance is often overlooked.
Finally, while not explicitly calling for Mike Griffin to remain as administrator, he does endose, in general terms, agency management:
NASA’s management is very strong and its engineering and scientific talent extraordinary. I believe they can be counted on to deliver new knowledge, excitement and inspiration as they continue their expansion of the human boundary.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 24 at 4:00 pm ET Evidently some people think so. As the Discovery News blog Free Space reported today, former astronaut and associate administrator for exploration Scott Horowitz has created an online petition calling for Griffin to be retained as NASA administrator. The key paragraph from the petition:
Dr. Michael Griffin is one of the most technically and managerially competent administrators in NASA’s history. He has brought a sense of order and purpose to the U.S. space agency, guiding decisions in all programs with the firm belief that our strength as a world power is determined in a large part by our preeminence in space, particularly in human spaceflight. Dr. Griffin has guided the Constellation Program–the goal of which is to return the United States to the moon, and then explore Mars and beyond–out of the conceptual phase and into the factory, with contracts for all of the major elements, despite severe budgetary limitations. In the process he has helped NASA regain the respect of the Congress. Mike Griffin–a true rocket scientist and systems engineer and gifted administrator–is uniquely qualified to take NASA into the next era of space exploration. The undersigned hereby petition the new administration in the White House to retain the services of Dr. Griffin, holding the firm conviction that he is the best hope for the NASA’s future and for the future of U.S. leadership in space.
As of mid-afternoon Wednesday (Christmas Eve), over two dozen people had signed the petition, including a number of current NASA astronauts.
This is not the first time in recent weeks that Horowitz has come to the defense of Griffin. After reports of a “heated” exchange between Griffin and transition team leader Lori Garver were published earlier this month, defended Griffin in an interview with Time, calling claims that Griffin raised his voice in that conversation with Garver “bulls—“, adding: “I believe that anything he [Griffin] was asked he was very honest in answering because he’s a systems engineer. And Lori Garver is not equipped to make technical judgments on the architecture of a space exploration system.” (Horowitz, the article notes, was not present at the NASA HQ book party where the alleged argument took place; his “bulls—” assessment was based on his knowledge of Griffin. Interestingly, the tone of the article was more critical of Garver and the transition team than of Griffin, unlike many of the other articles and editorials in the days and weeks following the initial report in the Orlando Sentinel, including a “leadership coach” who gave Griffin a “Act Clueless Award” based on accounts of those events.)
One person not on that petition so far, but who would seem to quality for membership, is Congressman Bart Gordon, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee. In a briefing with reporters last week, he recommended that the Obama Administration keep Griffin in office, even if only temporarily until the administration finalizes its choice of a replacement. “I’ve been pleased with the working relationship with Dr. Griffin,” he said, as reported by Aerospace Daily, adding that while Griffin can be blunt, he “understands what he’s doing, in contrast to previous administrations.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 19 at 6:59 am ET
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 17 at 7:11 pm ET Remember all that concern that Congressman James Oberstar might become Secretary of Transportation in the Obama Administration? Oberstar became infamous in commercial space circles four years ago when he attempted to block passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, and the following year passed a bill that would have rolled back some of its provisions. Well, those worried about the prospects of Oberstar leading the department whose jurisdiction includes the FAA and its Office of Commercial Space Transportation can rest easy: retiring Congressman Ray LaHood (R-IL) will be nominated by President-elect Obama in the coming days for the position, the Washington Post reported late Wednesday.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 16 at 3:52 pm ET I’ve been on travel the last couple of days so I my time has been limited. I did want to point out a few recent articles of note:
- Several local officials from Florida’s Space Coast met with President-elect Obama’s NASA transition team last week in Washington, in particular to discuss shuttle retirement and the effect the shuttle-Constellation gap will have on the region’s economy. “They advised us that the shuttle retirement was going to be their No. 1 priority,” Brevard County Commissioner Mary Bolin told Florida Today. What that means—such as whether they are considering any kind of substantial extension of the shuttle beyond 2010—isn’t mentioned, although Bolin and others quoted in the article appeared to be heartened by the discussion.
- An Orlando Sentinel article provides an overview of the cost overrun issues NASA’s programs face, from major programs like the ISS to lesser-known projects, like the science mission Glory. The article notes that over half of the 74 questions posed by the Obama transition team to NASA released to date have focused on overruns and other spending issues.
- Another Sentinel article notes that the state of Florida is looking at budget cuts to close its budget deficit, including redirecting unspent funds on construction projects “ranging from dollars dedicated to alternative-energy projects to repairs on emergency-management facilities and space-industry projects.” As FLORIDA SPACErePORT notes, Space Florida received $14.5 million in such funding to begin work on converting Launch Complex 36 into a commercial launch site.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 13 at 3:02 pm ET Friday’s speaker at the Space Transportation Association luncheon on Capitol Hill was Doug Cooke, making one of his first public speeches in his new role as associate administrator for exploration systems at NASA. Cooke’s speech was largely devoted to the highlights of the last year and the plans for the coming year for the various aspects of the exploration program, primarily the Ares 1 launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft, but also LRO, Ares 5, and Altair as well. It was information probably similar to what Cooke and other NASA exploration managers plan to discuss at a press conference next week.
Cooke did acknowledge, briefly, potential changes in the exploration program given the coming change in administrations. He noted that the future direction of NASA’s exploration program will depend on the new administration and Congress. “We do not know yet what that direction is,” he said, “but we will, of course, adapt to the changes in direction, if there are any, when we receive them.”
Cooke also mentioned criticism of the Ares 1 development in particular, mentioning the recent preliminary design review. “I attended the review myself, and despite what was said in the blogosphere and the sensational media, it was very professionally done,” he said. The number of “yellow and orange” evaluations that came out of the PDR, he said, was because the review was focused on those issues. “So we asked a lot of hard questions, and I have to say that the team was especially well-prepared.”
During the Q&A session that followed, I asked Cooke why he felt Constellation, and in particular Ares 1, was getting so much negative attention on the Internet given his and his team’s confidence in the design. “I’m not an expert on the blogosphere,” he responded, “but there are other architectures people would like to fly and there are folks who also talk about different destinations.” These critics therefore seek out audiences, including online, for their alternatives, he said. “The blogosphere feeds on itself, so it’s unfortunate.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 12 at 6:50 am ET An article in today’s Daily Press newspaper follows up on an earlier report about concerns people in the Hampton Roads region have about the future of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “About 20 people” gathered at a luncheon organized by William Harvey, president of Hampton University, to brainstorm ways to preserve the center, which they fear could be threatened by potential future cuts.
The real danger, though, isn’t clear from the article. “The downward trend in NASA Langley Research Center’s budget almost looks like a going-out-of-business sale,” reads the lede of the article, saying that was the message delivered by Harvey. However, later in the article Langley director Lesa Roe says that while “next year’s fiscal budget is the toughest the institution will face, but that there’s no longer a downward trend.” So much for that going-out-of-business sale.
Exactly what options this group came up with aren’t revealed in the article. It does note that the Harvey asked Kevin Kelly to create a set of talking points to give to the transition team. While Kelly is identified as a member of the “NASA Aeronautics Support Team”, he is also a vice president at Van Scoyoc Associates, a lobbying firm retained by the team. The article adds that Harvey “may” fly to Chicago today to meet with an unnamed official on the Obama transition team. Why Harvey would meet with that person in Chicago, and not the NASA transition team in Washington, isn’t mentioned.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 12 at 6:15 am ET The Wall Street Journal notes something that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention outside the space community: the apparent interest in Obama’s NASA transition team in space solar power (SSP). The transition web site, Change.gov, has been posting materials it has received and soliciting comments; one of those documents posted late last month was a position paper on SSP. That document was prepared and submitted by the Space Frontier Foundation and based on the 2007 National Security Space Office report on the issue. The document has, as of Friday morning, generated 287 comments, perhaps in part because it was one of the first such position papers published on Change.gov. It was also the only space-related one that turned up in a search [warning: may be only a temporary link] until Thursday, when several other briefings, from groups and companies ranging from the Association of Space Explorers to the X PRIZE Foundation, were posted.
While SSP advocates are pleased with the buzz they’re getting, the question remains open about how much real interest in SSP there is among the NASA transition team, as well as the overall transition team. One of the key issues with SSP over the years has been finding it a home: should it be in NASA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, or someplace else? On that front, one thing to keep in mind is President-elect Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, Steve Chu, a Nobel laureate physicist and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. As LBL director he has pushed alternative energy research, including Helios, a project to study “storing” solar power in the form of renewable fuels; Science described him last year as “on a crusade to make solar power work” [subscription required]. However, it appears that Chu has been silent, in public at least, on space-based solar power.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 December 11 at 1:32 pm ET If you have not already read this Orlando Sentinel article about conflicts between NASA leadership and the Obama transition team please stop and read it right now. It’s a remarkable situation, from claims that NASA is “scripting” what employees and contractors tell the transition team to reports of a “heated” conversation between the head of the NASA transition team, Lori Garver, and NASA administrator Mike Griffin at a reception last week. (I heard separately about the Garver-Griffin discussion earlier this week, an account that matches up with what was published by the Sentinel.)
One thing is clear: while there had been some discussion about whether to keep Griffin in office for some period of time after Obama takes office (something that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) had requested earlier this month, it now seems exceedingly unlikely that Griffin will be there after January 20, even if his replacement hasn’t been picked yet.
This report has also been picked up in some wider political journalism circles, including a post in The Washington Independent, which brings up another danger of this situation. “It sounds like NASA may be an obvious place for Peter Orszag, Obama’s designee to head the Office of Management and Budget, to look for multi-billion dollar boondoggles to trim from the federal budget,” writes Matthew DeLong.
Update 8 pm: Griffin has released a statement in response to the Sentinel report, calling it “simply wrong”. “We are fully cooperating with transition team members,” he said, adding that he was “appalled” of reports of intimidation of people slated to speak with the team. “The transition team’s work is too important to become mired in unsupported and anonymous allegations.”
Meanwhile, Chris Shank, chief of strategic communications at NASA, tells the Washington Post that neither he nor Griffin considered last Thursday’s conversation between Griffin and Garver to be “heated”. Shank: “He [Griffin] said to me this morning, ‘I sure didn’t think that was an argument. We were having a discussion about stuff.’ ” And as John Logsdon, who was present at the event, told the Post: “No voices were raised. No blows were struck.”
|
|
