By Jeff Foust on 2008 July 9 at 6:29 am ET NASA officials, and the agency’s supporters in Congress, have argued that adding up to $2 billion to the agency’s budgets over the next two years would allow NASA to accelerate the introduction of the Orion crew exploration vehicle to as early as late 2013 (although noting that more money would not close the gap any further.) However, Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley appeared to backtrack from that yesterday, Florida Today reported, indicating that additional money would not substantially close the gap:
Jeff Hanley, manager of the NASA moon-shot program, said he is encouraged by Congress’ move to increase the agency’s funding.
However, he doubts increased funding can accelerate the rockets and spaceships envisioned to replace the retiring shuttles.
Even with extra money, a gap would remain between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the first crewed flight of the Orion spacecraft, which is targeted for 2014 at the earliest.
[…]
“There’s only a limit to which I can accelerate things once I’ve slowed them down,” Hanley said.
It’s possible that Hanley was repeating earlier statements and simply noting that even more money wouldn’t further reduce the gap. Of course, given the failure of previous efforts to win additional funding for NASA, and the likelihood that NASA will spend a substantial part of the next fiscal year on a continuing resolution, this may all be a moot point.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 July 7 at 7:30 pm ET The presidential campaign of Republican Senator John McCain released its economic reform plan today, including its proposals to trim federal spending to help balance the budget by 2013. Part of the proposal would be a one-year freeze on non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending:
A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs.
That is not surprising, since the McCain campaign made a similar proposal earlier this year. The campaign does go into a little more detail about how exactly that review would be performed:
McCain could use the bi-partisan commission structure used for the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). Such a commission could be required to report to the President who would then submit the recommendations to the Congress for a straight up or down vote.
The statement goes on to promise to “eliminate broken government programs” (what he means by “broken” isn’t defined) and to “reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs”. Overall, this does not look promising for those hoping to increase NASA’s budget beyond FY2009 as the implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration ramps up.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 July 2 at 9:41 pm ET Since late last year a group called Science Debate 2008 has been trying to get the presidential candidates to participate, as their name suggests, in a debate devoted exclusively to science issues. Those efforts haven’t panned out yet, so instead the group released a set of 14 questions for the presidential candidates on science issues. One of the 14 is devoted to space:
11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?
Compare that to the discussion in the previous post about the “ideal” questions for the candidates, which are a little more sophisticated than this one.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 July 1 at 8:17 pm ET Let’s say you’re in a town hall meeting with a presidential candidate, itching to ask a question about space policy. If you get your chance, some advice: don’t blow it by rambling on and on, as one person did at a John McCain town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, according to the BBC:
At first he [McCain] listened patiently as one man dragged out a long, arcane question about funding for space exploration, then just as the audience was getting restive, he broke in with an interruption.
He had read the mood of the crowd, his timing was right – and he won an enthusiastic round of applause.
Unfortunately, the BBC article doesn’t mention what McCain said in his interruption, or if he said anything substantive at all on the topic (or, for that matter, what specific “arcane” issue the questioner was asking about.)
By Jeff Foust on 2008 July 1 at 7:41 am ET Like presidential candidates, sometimes even space advocates get unsolicited, presumably undesired endorsements from people out on the fringes. Take Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who told the The Sunday Telegraph that “he intends to lobby Barack Obama and John McCain” for “sufficient” NASA funding so that the agency can carry out the Vision for Space Exploration. Otherwise, he said, “we’re going to have to live in a secondary position in human space flight for the rest of the century.” (Rest of the century? Really? That’s an awfully long time.)
Besides being concerned about ceding the lead in human spaceflight to China and/or Russia, he’s also critical of design decisions regarding Orion that will have it splashdown in the ocean rather than come down on land: “In particular, it will not be suitable for short flights into low orbits, of a kind that could be used for space tourism – potentially a valuable new source of revenue for Nasa,” the Telegraph article claims. (Nevermind that it seems highly unlikely that NASA would or should get involved in space tourism.)
Aldrin tells the British newspaper that he “is joining forces with other space campaigners to give his unvarnished views to the presidential candidates.” The article doesn’t indicate with whom Aldrin is working with, but he does have an endorsement… from Lyndon LaRouche. “Lyndon LaRouche today gave his full endorsement to Aldrin’s statement” published in the Telegraph, according to a statement in LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. That’s sure to help…
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 26 at 7:10 am ET The full House Appropriations Committee approved yesterday the Commerce, Justice, and Science funding bill, which includes $17.8 billion for NASA. The text of the legislation is not available online yet, and a press release about the bill offers only a few details. The press release does include one ambiguous statement: “Requires NASA report to Congress the full costs of retiring the Space Shuttle by November 2009, and 2 shuttle flights to complete work on the international space station before NASA can retire the Space Shuttle.” Are they talking about retiring the shuttle by November 2009 (a year ahead of schedule), or simply a report due by November 2009? Of course, it may be a moot point depending on how the appropriations process plays out this year.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 26 at 7:04 am ET That’s a direct quote from an unusual op-ed in Thursday’s Orlando Sentinel penned by two former senators—Jake Garn and John Glenn—and current senator Bill Nelson. The three say they don’t know for certain why the White House has failed to provide the appropriate guidance and funding needed to implement the Vision, “though we suspect it can be explained by Bush not knowing all the facts about what the real impact of NASA’s annual budgets has been since the loss of the Columbia in 2003.”
And what doesn’t Bush know? The three believe he’s not aware that NASA has not been reimbursed for the costs returning the shuttle to service after the Columbia accident, forced to come up with the $2.8 billion by raiding other programs. They believe Bush doesn’t know that the budget requests for the Vision his administration has submitted “have been on average a half-a-billion per year less than he projected” when the Vision was unveiled in 2004. He may also be unaware, they claim, that his directive in his 2004 speech about the Vision calling for completing the station and then retiring the shuttle by 2010 “has been turned into a mandate to end the shuttle program in 2010, whether or not the space station is finished.” (See some earlier discussion on differing interpretations of this deadline.) And, they say, Bush isn’t aware his budgets are creating a five-year gap in “U.S. human-spaceflight capability” (correct only if we exclude any US commercial alternatives that may arise during the Shuttle-Constellation interregnum.)
Fortunately, Congress is coming to the rescue because it “knows what it seems that Bush doesn’t” and is pressing ahead with authorization legislation that addresses many of these issues. (The op-ed ignores that current versions of appropriations bills are funding NASA at levels much lower than what is authorized—and the situation may only get worse if legislative gridlock forces NASA and other federal agencies to spend a significant part of FY2009 on a continuing resolution.) “Congress should reject the administration’s position on the NASA reauthorization bill, because to accept it is to surrender America’s leadership in space exploration” when other countries, including everyone’s favorite bogeyman, China, “are waiting in the wings”.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 25 at 1:01 pm ET The Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration, which was established a couple months ago as a PAC “devoted to the promotion of a robust American space program”, has issued its first endorsements of the 2008 campaign. The group has formally endorsed the reelection of Reps. Nick Lampson (D-TX) and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), both members of the House Science and Technology Committee.
In its statement, the committee noted that both Lampson and his Republican opponent, Pete Olson, are strong supporters of space. however, the fact that Lampson is in line to take over as chairman of the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee gave him the edge because he “will be in a much stronger position to positively influence space policy than Olson would be.” Giffords, a freshman perhaps best known as being the wife of NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, is also “a champion of the space program”, in the words of the committee; moreover, her opponent, Tim Bee, “has not demonstrated any particular interest in space exploration as an issue”.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 25 at 7:23 am ET In a very brief markup session Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee approved its version of a NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 2009. The full text of the legislation isn’t posted yet (nor is even a bill number provided), but the press release does confirm one key provision that would prevent NASA from retiring the shuttle in 2010 if there were still missions left on the manifest, and also report to Congress on what would be needed to recertify the shuttle to fly beyond 2010. The bill also authorizes an additional $150 million, above and beyond the $20.2 billion in the House version of the bill, for development of a commercial crew transfer vehicle (the House contained similar language, but included the $100-million authorization within the $20.2 billion for the agency overall.) Given that appropriators don’t feel inclined to fund NASA at anywhere near that level, and apparently even take money away from COTS, that provision is little more than academic.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 24 at 7:50 am ET The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to markup its version of a NASA authorization bill, among other non-space legislation, during a session this afternoon. There aren’t many details about the legislation itself: the hearing notice doesn’t even include a bill number for the authorization bill. CQPolitics reported yesterday that the bill will be similar to what the House approved last week, which is what Sen. Bill Nelson, chairman of the committee’s space subcommittee, said in remarks last month. There may be one key difference, though:
According to a Senate Democratic aide, the draft also contains language that would prevent NASA from retiring the shuttle fleet in 2010 if scheduled missions remain on its flight manifest. The administration decided to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010 and develop a new craft that could take astronauts farther into space.
The aide said the measure would require NASA to report on the steps, costs and schedule for recertifying the shuttle fleet beyond 2010 if that becomes necessary.
The House version, HR 6063, contained language not nearly as strong as what this article suggests: while it added a mission to fly the ISS, it states that the shuttle will be retired after completing that and the other missions on its manifest, “events that are anticipated to occur in 2010.” The House version also contains no language about shuttle recertification. Given that the White House had a strong negative response to the addition of the AMS shuttle flight in the House version, this language will likely provoke a similar, perhaps even stronger, response—perhaps even a veto threat?
|
|
