By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 21 at 9:10 am ET The Canadian government on Thursday delayed for 30 days a decision on approving the sale of the space business of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) to US company Alliant Techsystems (ATK). The $1.3-billion deal was announced in January, and Industry Canada had until Saturday to approve the deal, but exercised its right to extend that deadline 30 days. No reason for the delay has been given. MDA shareholders recently approved the sale by an overwhelming margin.
In the days leading up to the original deadline, various groups in Canada had expressed their opposition to the sale, concerned about giving up the country’s leading space technology company to foreign ownership. Two Canadian political parties not currently in power, Liberal and NDP, issued statements Thursday in opposition to the sale. A Canadian think tank, the Rideau Institute, issued a press release in conjunction with the Canadian Auto Workers (a union that represents some MDA employees) arguing that the sale could restrict Canadian access to RADARSAT-2 radar imagery because the MDA-owned satellite would now be under the control of a US company. Even the National Post, a newspaper that tends to be supportive of the ruling Conservative party, published a column opposing the sale earlier this week, drawing parallels to the decision 50 years ago to end the Avro Arrow fighter program.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 19 at 6:57 am ET Houston has a big interest in the fortunes of NASA, given the presence of the Johnson Space Center. The Hampton Roads area of Virginia also has a similar interest because of the Langley Research Center. So it’s not surprising that newspapers in both areas are pleading for more money for NASA—although taking somewhat different angles on the issue.
In Monday’s Houston Chronicle, an editorial claims that it is “unfortunate that our nation’s leaders have allowed a vital program essential to our national security to reach such an impasse”. The Chronicle is not referring to Space Radar or FIA or other milspace programs usually associated with “national security”, but rather NASA’s manned spaceflight capabilities. The Chronicle is concerned about the “humiliating prospect” of purchasing Soyuz rides from Russia as well as the specter of China getting to the Moon before NASA.
“With national resolve, it is possible to prevent an irreversible slide into U.S. space mediocrity,” the editorial offers, saying that COTS could provide a “shortcut” while pressing for more money to accelerate the development of Constellation. “Congress should heed U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and other lawmakers who are pressing for an additional $2 billion to speed up the construction of the Orion vehicle.”
The Hampton Roads Daily Press is also concerned about NASA’s funding, but is concerned about too much of an emphasis on the Vision for Space Exploration, rather than too little. While the editorial does note the “setback in prestige, capacity and security” caused by the impending gap, it complains that NASA’s focus on “manned missions to the moon and Mars” has hurt other NASA programs, like the aeronautics work at Langley, since the Vision’s unveiling in 2004. “The president hasn’t pushed the Mars idea since then, or fully funded it, but billions have been spent. And the initiative may be shunted to the back burner by the next president. Because it is expensive. And it’s not popular with either the public or those scientists who think unmanned exploration makes more sense.”
The editorial leads off with the lament that “Virginia doesn’t have anyone on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees funding for NASA” who could champion additional funding for the center. It hopes in conclusion, though, that Virginia’s Congressional delegation can “restore the rationality and the investment in pragmatic goals that the Bush NASA budget lacks.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 16 at 9:53 am ET Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL), who is retiring from Congress, is still hoping to get his legislation that would extend the life of the shuttle after 2010 passed before the end of the year. Weldon tells a local newspaper that he hopes the SPACE Act will be “passed and enacted” this year. The bill, HR 4837, would authorize funding for additional shuttle flights (at least two a year) through 2015. So far Congress has not taken action on the bill other than to refer it to the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee.
Mike Griffin, in his Houston Chronicle interview, made it clear he does not support a broad extension of shuttle flights: “Given that our inherent risk assessment of flying any shuttle mission is about a 1-in-75 fatality risk, if you were to fly 10 more flights, you would have a very substantial risk of losing a crew. I don’t want to do that.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 16 at 9:35 am ET Much of the talk of a new “space race” emerging between the United States and China has been fed by comments by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin where he said that he believed China could land humans on the Moon before the US could return. Griffin reiterated that belief in an interview with the Houston Chronicle published Sunday, but also made it clear that he does not desire a repeat of the original space race between the US and USSR:
Q: Would it be such a bad thing for NASA if China or India got back to the moon first?
A: I will raise my hand and say I do not want another space race. What happens when you do that is, you tend to get a short period of intense funding, and then the attention goes away, funding dissipates, and it’s like an army dealing with a retreat. The hardest thing to do in military circles is to manage an effective retreat. What I want for NASA is stable and predictable funding and a stable set of goals. Finish the (international space) station, retire the shuttle, return to the moon, go to Mars. Those are great goals for the next 50 years. I certainly wouldn’t mind a higher level of funding, but the stability of funding is more important than the absolute level.
What the Apollo engineers did was one of the miracles of human accomplishment. But I could make a pretty good case for you that, for the long-term mastery of spaceflight by our nation as a strategic capability, Apollo did more damage than good. We built up an industrial base, we built up a set of expectations, we accomplished one of the most marvelous things that’s ever been done, and then we dismantled it all. It brings to mind the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 14 at 8:52 am ET A leading backer of NASA in Congress is retiring after this year. Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL) announced Thursday that he will not run for a tenth term. Cramer, whose district includes Huntsville and NASA Marshall, serves on the appropriations committee, although he moved off the subcommittee that oversees NASA’s budget last year.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 13 at 6:14 am ET At today’s hearing on NASA’s proposed FY09 science budget, there’s likely to be some discussion on the future of NASA’s Mars exploration program, and the perception that Mars exploration may be getting a lower priority in the years to come. After the Mars Science Laboratory mission is launched next year, the next NASA Mars mission won’t be until 2013, when a Mars Scout orbiter mission is launched (a mission planned for 2011, but delayed last year after a conflict of interest was discovered during the review process.) After that, the schedule is vague, with the possibility of a sample return mission towards the end of the next decade.
That is not sitting well with some in the planetary science community. NASA administrator set off some comments on this in a line in his speech Monday at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston. “Then, within the budget for planetary sciences, we attempted to address the major concerns as expressed by the recent National Research Council ‘report card’ for our planetary exploration efforts,” his prepared remarks read. “We received an ‘A’ for our Mars program, a ‘D’ for our outer planets program, and a ‘C’ for our Research & Analysis efforts. We have rebalanced the planetary science portfolio accordingly.”
According to one account of the speech and Q&A session that followed, several people argued that NASA’s Mars program should not be penalized financially just because it is doing better than other agency science programs. “If my child came home with an A, a C and a D, my answer would not be to lower the A. I would say get an A in everything!” one person said. Griffin appeared unswayed: “When as a golfer my putting sucks (his word) I don’t spend all my time on the driving range,” Griffin responded, according to the account.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 12 at 6:27 am ET Among the crowd that witnessed yesterday’s launch of the shuttle Endeavour was a congressional delegation led by House Science Technology chairman Bart Gordon and energy subcommittee chairman Nick Lampson (whose district, of course, includes JSC). Lampson and Gordon told the Houston Chronicle that they arranged for the tour in part to drum up support for an increased NASA budget in a bid to reduce the post-shuttle gap. “Additional funding would help to reduce that gap, and I hope we will be able to do that,” Gordon told the paper.
Will it work? Among the 20-member delegation were two St. Louis-area Congressmen, Russ Carnahan and John Shimkus. Carnahan is a member of the science committee, while Shimkus “lucked out” by getting the last open spot for the trip. Shimkus told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the trip “will definitely affect his outlook on NASA funding”, saying that the trip made clear that “there’s something important about the human spirit of space exploration”.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 12 at 6:14 am ET The space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon on NASA’s proposed FY2009 science budget. The witnesses:
- Alan Stern, NASA associate administrator for science
- Lenmard Fisk, chair of the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council
- Berrien Moore, chair of the Committee on Earth Studies of the NRC
- Steve Sqyures, Cornell University
- Jack Burns, University of Colorado
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 8 at 3:06 pm ET I exchanged emails today with Greg Zsidisin, who was not only at the Obama rally yesterday in Casper, Wyoming, but asked Obama the question about space policy that was mentioned in the previous post. Greg told me exactly what he asked Obama:
“My question is about the human space program. You say you’d delay NASA’s program to build a Space Shuttle replacement for 5 years, in order to increase the education budget a grand total of 7 percent. But everyone knows that this effectively ends the US human space program. Why are you specifically pitting the space program against education, and where’s the vision in shutting down the [human] space program?”
He wasn’t able to give the exact response Obama provided, but was able to fill in a few extra details:
He didn’t really address the space vs. education aspect – that is, why he is singling out human spaceflight to de-fund for education. He did say he was born in 1961, and that space inspired him in his youth. He then mentioned Star Trek and the other quoted parts (‘NASA doesn’t inspire now’). He also said that NASA can’t get the engineers now that the increase in education would fund (!).
He never specifically mentioned delaying a Shuttle replacement or the return to the Moon, saying he’d defer ‘certain segments’ of the space program. (Single quotes – I don’t remember the phrasing well enough for doubles.)
Later on, talking about energy issues, he did say that we needed an Apollo Program for energy. He did so rather pointedly, saying (referring to me), “And THAT, sir, should be our next Apollo Program.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 March 7 at 7:18 pm ET Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on the campaign trail in Casper, Wyoming, was asked a question about the space program during an event, according to “The Swamp”, a blog operated by Tribune’s Washington bureau. Obama responded that while he “believe[s] in the final frontier”, he thought NASA had lost focus and was no longer inspirational to youth. The report indicated, but did not directly quite Obama as saying, that he would cut NASA’s budget if elected “until the mission is clearer”. It’s language similar to what he said in a Cleveland TV interview last week, but a little more concise.
The full exchange:
During the question-and-answer portion of an event at a recreational center here, Obama was asked about the nation’s space program.
“I grew up on Star Trek,” Obama said. “I believe in the final frontier.”
But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.
“NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration,” he said. “I don’t think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn’t even pass for news anymore.”
|
|
