By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 17 at 9:18 am ET The science policy forum held Saturday afternoon at the AAAS meeting in Boston took place on relatively short notice, so much so that the event did not appear in the program for the conference. It was only by around midday on Friday did flyers announcing the event start appearing throughout the Hynes Convention Center, which was more than sufficient to attract an audience hungry to learn more about the science policies of the top two Democratic candidates. The room the forum was held in, which can hold several hundred people, was filled to capacity, with people standing in the back and sitting in the aisles for the full 90 minutes.
The two campaign representatives appearing at the event were very different people. Tom Kalil is a former Clinton Administration official who worked on technology policy and who currently serves as a science and technology advisor to the chancellor of UC Berkeley. Alec Ross is a self-described “social entrepreneur” who is the vice president of One Economy, a nonprofit that works to bring broadband into low-income homes and provide technology training. Of the two, Kalil seemed better versed in the details of science issues than Ross, although Ross’s position in the Obama campaign is as an advisor on “technology, media, and communications”, and not science per se.
Continue reading More space policy insights from Boston
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 16 at 5:27 pm ET The AAAS meeting in Boston hosted a presidential science policy forum Saturday afternoon, featuring representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns (other candidates were also invited; the McCain campaign sent its regrets and the Huckabee and Paul campaigns did not respond, according to organizers.) Most of the 90-minute event was devoted to general science and technology policy issues, but there was a brief discussion on space policy, most of which covered ground previously announced by the campaigns or otherwise reported. The one newsworthy item came from Obama’s representative, Alec Ross, who told the audience to “anticipate some specific policies from the Obama campaign specific to NASA and specific to space exploration within the next month.” He didn’t go into additional detail, saying, “I’m not allowed to scoop anything.” The rest of his comments tended to be on the general side, identifying the need for a space program that balanced exploration with earth observation, echoing comments made by the Clinton campaign representative, Tom Kalil.
Ross did not linger after the event, needing to get to the airport, but I did get a chance to ask him if the policy that the Obama campaign was planning to release would be the same as, or similar to, the version leaked online last month. He paused, gave me a quizzical look for a second, and finally said, “no comment.”
I’ll most some more details from the event a little later; there was no other breaking news from either campaign but a few interesting insights.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 16 at 5:33 am ET The Houston Chronicle editorial board interviewed the two Democratic presidential frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on Friday, and got distinctly different comments on several issues, including human spaceflight:
“I intend to pursue an ambitious agenda in both space exploration and earth sciences,” Clinton said. “I want to support the next generation of spacecraft for a robust human spaceflight program.”
Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.
But, he said, the next president needs to have “a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment.”
Obama’s statement would not seem to go over well in Houston, but nonetheless he won the newspaper’s endorsement Saturday. That endorsement, though, did come with some caveats, including about space:
On several issues vital to Houstonians, Obama’s positions need elaboration. He recognizes the need to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in space but said he wanted to study the costs and benefits of human space exploration — an exercise that should convince him of the space program’s long history of indispensable contributions.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 14 at 1:14 pm ET AP: Pentagon to shoot down broken spy satellite. A press conference is scheduled for 2:30 pm EST to discuss this, with the deputy national security advisor, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs, and NASA administrator Mike Griffin in attendance.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 14 at 7:31 am ET NASA administrator Mike Griffin appeared before the House Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday to answer questions about the agency’s FY2009 budget proposal. During his opening statement, Griffin revealed that NASA will seek approval from Congress to purchase additional Soyuz flights beyond 2011 (the current limit as set by the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005), citing his skepticism that commercial entities will be able to provide crew transportation services starting 2012, despite the claims otherwise by companies developing or planning to develop such vehicles. “Our ability to sustain the station cannot be held hostage to hope,” he said. “Thus, given existing legislative restrictions, we will require explicit authorization by the Congress to make further extraordinary payments to Russia in order to provide crew transport on Soyuz to the station after 2011 for our astronauts as for those of our international partners to whom we have obligations.” Because of the 36-month lead time on manufacturing Soyuz vehicles, Griffin said such authorization will be required “prior to next January.”
Committee chairman Bart Gordon, responding to Griffin’s request, said that Congress would need to receive a formal request from the Bush Administration before it would act. “I have initiated those conversations within the administration,” Griffin said in response to Gordon, “and it is my intent to seek such a request,” which requires coordination with several agencies. “To be successful, you’re going to have to have this initiated by the administration,” Gordon warned.
Some other highlights from the hearing:
Chinese competition: Gordon said that Griffin, in a conversation a few years ago, “poo-pooed” Chinese space capabilities, but now seemed much more concerned about China. “A few years ago I was not particularly concerned about Chinese primacy in human spaceflight relative to that of the United States,” Griffin admitted, something that has changed based on several factors, ranging from China’s accomplishments and plans to his visit there in 2006. “I have become convinced that it is possible for China to mount a human lunar mission towards the end of the next decade and quite possibly before we are able to return.” He promised to provide a more detailed analysis on that for the written record.
AMS: Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) asked about the ability to add a shuttle mission to the ISS to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). Griffin said a report on options to deliver the AMS, requested by Congress in the omnibus appropriations bill, is waiting clearance for release by the administration. Griffin said, though, that he does not have the authority to add another shuttle flight to deliver the AMS; “if I had that authority I would have added that shuttle flight and we would not be having this discussion.” When Lampson asked who would have to provide that authorization, Griffin said, “I have neither permission from the president nor authorization nor appropriation from Congress to fly another shuttle flight.” Griffin said he needs that authorization and funding by the end of the calendar year to add another flight.
Extending the shuttle and shortening the gap: Asked about continuing shuttle operations after 2010 by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Griffin said there would be “no problem” if the last shuttle flights slip to the end of calendar year 2010 versus fiscal year 2010, a three-month difference. Beyond that, the shuttle costs need to end in order to transfer that funding to exploration efforts. In his opening statement, Griffin was adamant against extending the life of the shuttle beyond 2010: “Money spent flying the space shuttle after 2010 is not available for Ares and Orion, which causes the gap between shuttle retirement and the deployment of the new systems to grow.”
Griffin was asked later by Lampson why there was not more money in the budget proposal to accelerate the development of Constellation, when Griffin and other NASA officials said last year that an additional $2 billion could bring forward the introduction of Ares 1/Orion from early 2015 to September 2013. “NASA has had many discussions within the administration on this topic,” Griffin said. “We have many funding priorities in the nation, all of which clamor for first attention, and the priority of closing the gap between shuttle retirement and deployment of the new systems did not make it to the top.”
On Constellation and exploration: Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the ranking member of the committee, asked about the selection of Ares 1 over EELV-derived alternatives. Griffin again defended the choice, saying it was not a choice of using a new system versus an existing system for Constellation. “What has not been recognized is that there is no system today which can meet the Constellation requirements,” he said. Griffin said that a shuttle-derived architecture was the lowest risk, highest performance, and lowest cost alternative.
Hall also asked about the meeting taking place this week at Stanford looking at alternatives to the current exploration direction. Griffin was blunt in his criticism of those who believe that the Moon could be bypassed in any new exploration plan. “I cannot agree with so-called space policy experts who believe that the Moon is not an appropriate goal for our exploration efforts.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 14 at 6:15 am ET The British National Space Centre released today a new vision to “stay at the forefront of space sector”. The policy largely calls for measures to improve existing strengths in areas like satellite communications, remote sensing, and space science. Included in the policy is the creation of an “international space facility” in the UK devoted to climate change and robotic space exploration as well as “closer involvement” in international space exploration programs.
What about expanding British national space efforts into other areas, like human spaceflight? The report leaves the door open: “In 1986, the UK chose not to participate in human space missions. The publication of the Global Exploration Strategy provides a suitable point in time to review this decision. BNSC will undertake a study of programme options drawing on the findings of the 2007 UK Space Exploration Working Group taking into account the scientific, technological and economic costs and benefits, and UK’s existing strengths in robotic exploration.”
Initial reaction to the report is mixed. The BBC plays up the reconsideration of human spaceflight as well as plans for a robotic lunar mission called MoonLITE. However, The Guardian reports that human spaceflight proponents in the UK are criticizing the report for not taking a stronger stance on the issue. “The government has missed a huge trick in terms of being able to offer inspiration to young people,” Nick Spall of the British Interplanetary Society told the paper.
Oh, pish posh, says Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, in The Times of London. While Rees mentions the BNSC report only in passing at the end of his essay, he is critical of government-run human spaceflight, be it the ISS or NASA’s exploration program: “Were I an American taxpayer, I would be opposed to this: if it is done Nasa-style, it will be hugely expensive and vulnerable to delays and political setbacks,” he says of NASA’s plans to return to the Moon and beyond. (He does need to update his rhetoric a bit: he claims that “tens of billions more dollars must be spent to finish the space station”, which would be tough to do given that the station is supposed to be finished in 2010). “As a European,” he argues, “I believe we should learn a lesson from the space station, and limit our collaboration with Nasa to ‘bite-sized’ unmanned projects; we should be wary of committing ourselves, as an inevitably ‘minor partner’, to a hugely expensive manned programme.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 12 at 7:34 am ET Russia and China are planning to formally submit a space weapons ban treaty today at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva today. It’s not the first time, of course, that the two countries have tried to push for such an accord, and, as in the past, the US is expected to object to the treaty, arguing that there is no arms race in space. China’s ASAT test just over a year ago will no doubt add to the skepticism in American circles about China’s sincerity in pushing the treaty.
However, a poll last month found “large majorities” in favor of such a ban in both Russia and the US: 78 percent of Americans saying they US should negotiate a treaty banning attacks on satellites, while 65 percent of Russians said Russia should negotiate such a treaty. In an essay in The Space Review a couple weeks ago, Mike Moore argues that the US had little to lose to start such negotiations: the US already has a sizable lead over China in relevant technologies, so even if China is bluffing about their interest in a space weapons ban, the US will not be put at a disadvantage. “We are so far ahead of everyone else in the military uses of space, we could afford to spend a few years in serious negotiations. If it becomes apparent after two or three years that the Chinese and Russians were just posturing, we will have learned something important.”
Moore has a similar essay in Tuesday’s San Francisco Chronicle, in advance of a talk he is giving tonight at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California. In it, he concludes, “A good question for the remaining presidential candidates: Will you fight for such a treaty, or risk a new arms race?” (Given the difficulty of getting the candidates to commit to anything more than the basic details of their civil space policies, good luck with that.) Meanwhile, for those in the Washington area, the New America Foundation is hosting “Space Race With China? The Chinese Anti-Satellite Test and U.S.-China Relations in Space” today, an “engaging panel discussion and robust question-and-answer session” featuring Gregory Kulacki and Jeffrey Lewis.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 12 at 7:09 am ET A commenter in a post yesterday requested that I “don’t allow your astute observations about the progress of India’s space program get lost in the mix!” This was a reference to another piece in Monday’s issue of The Space Review about changes in India’s space program and how it could affect relations with the US. The article covers a speech late last month by G. Madhavan Nair, chairman of the Indian space agency ISRO, at CSIS in Washington. The speech itself didn’t have any terribly new insights, but did nicely encapsulate the changes going on in India’s space program: long focused on practical applications like remote sensing and communications, ISRO is now developing an interest in space exploration. Its first lunar orbiter, Chandrayaan-1, is scheduled for launch in a couple months, and India is making initial plans for a human spaceflight program that could be ready around the mid-2010s.
Does this mean that India will emerge as another competitor to the US in space? Not necessarily. While NASA administrator Mike Griffin mentioned India in passing during a speech last month, after discussing the ambitions of China and Russia, India appears far more interested in cooperation rather than competition. Moreover, US-India relations have been improving over recent years. Also, there’s a certain sense of awe that people like Nair have for US space accomplishments: at the beginning of his speech he said that “talking about space in this country is like talking coal to Newcastle.”
Also, an anniversary note: yesterday marked the fifth anniversary of the very first issue of The Space Review. Had I some sense of history (and planning), I should have had a big anniversary blowout issue, but, well, I let it slip. (No, I’m not married; why do you ask?) I’m more interesting in looking ahead to the next five years than the last five, anyway.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 12 at 6:43 am ET Reuters reported Monday that French president Nicolas Sarkozy endorsed an international Mars exploration effort. The report is short on details, but Sarkozy, visiting the European spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, said that Mars exploration “can only be global”, with each nation participating “with their capabilities, their strengths and their choices.” It should be noted that nowhere in the report does Sarkozy specify he’s referring to human missions to Mars, just Mars exploration in the vaguest sense.
It’s interesting to compare the Reuters report with this French-language AFP article, which also covers Sarkozy’s speech in Kourou. The AFP article makes no mention of Mars exploration, human or robotic. Instead, the article discusses more general space policy comments made by Sarkozy, covering the role of the European Union in carrying out pan-European projects like Galileo, Earth observation, and surveillance. Sarkozy called for a “reasoned and coherent” space policy that balanced European capabilities with its ambitions. Sarkozy also called for a significant increase in France’s military space budget as part of a bid for “strategic autonomy” for Europe.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 February 11 at 1:21 pm ET Amidst all the recent sturm und drang associated with NASA’s implementation of the exploration vision, er, policy—be it sour grapes from losing contractors or sincere technical concerns—is a deeper question: why are people so riled up about this in the first place? In an extended article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Bob Mahoney tries to get at the heart of the passion surrounding this topic. Much of the article delves into the history of NASA and its bold proposals for programs, from Apollo to the shuttle to the space station, but here’s a key passage:
I believe that this underlying, seething dissatisfaction we see boiling in the blogs and bubbling up into the mainstream press is a variation on [Howard] McCurdy’s thesis: reality has fallen far short of expectations. But this time, the expectations aren’t held by folks who had merely sat enthralled by von Braun’s colorful explanations on Disney television. Many in this disappointed crowd have participated in engineering analyses during the past thirty years (all reviewed by the ESAS team), they fully appreciate the political and economic realities constraining our efforts today, and they know that viable, possibly better alternatives exist beyond the three primary modes available to Apollo’s designers four decades ago. Claiming in defense of ESAS that the Apollo team “got it right the first time†rings a bit hollow in the ears of those who have themselves explored many viable alternatives that offer the potential to “make it better,†especially since future long-term outpost-oriented space exploration will be more akin logistically to today’s Antarctica research than to our initial forays to the Moon all those years ago.
In a related (but much shorter) essay, Taylor Dinerman reviews the prospects for space policy in the next administration based on discussion that took place last week at the National Space Forum. He expresses concern that yet another change in direction in NASA’s human spaceflight program imposed by a new president “might be the straw that broke the camel’s back” , threatening the whole concept. The decision point for that future, Dinerman says, citing John Logsdon, will be in the fall of 2009, when the next administration is putting together its FY2011 budget proposal, the first (according to current schedules) of the post-shuttle era.
|
|
