By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 22 at 5:53 am ET The Associated Press issued a list of major candidates’ positions on key Florida issues, which includes, as one might expect, “NASA Funding”. These are brief summaries, typically one sentence, and sometimes as short as one word. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton gets a one-word summary on the subject: “unclear”. Technically, that’s correct, since Clinton’s science policy makes no mention of specific funding levels, short of promising to “fully fund” earth sciences work and “make the financial investments” in aeronautics R&D to “shore up and expand our competitive edge”. Those AP judges, they’re tough graders.
Or are they? John Edwards also gets an “unclear”, perhaps more deservedly so since he has said little about space policy during the campaign. Barack Obama, though, is credited for saying that “space program funding would be a priority” but is dinged for his November statement about delaying Constellation. On the Republican side, the AP notes that Mike Huckabee supports “robust spending on space” (but not that he’s unsure on supporting human Mars exploration) and that Mitt Romney “supports current funding levels” for NASA. Rudy Giuliani, though, is noted for only wanting to “re-energize” human spaceflight, and John McCain for supporting “future funding for the space program” without specifying a level. Those statements sound a little wishy-washy, perhaps even “unclear”. The AP’s grading appears to be a little inconsistent, not tough.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 21 at 11:46 am ET In an op-ed last week in the Los Angeles Times, former MirCorp CEO Jeffrey Manber argued that the US should allow China to participate in the International Space Station project. Allowing China to cooperate would have practical benefits (another means to access the ISS, another country to help pay for it), as well as political (as an enabler of “frank discussions on strategic space issues” like anti-satellite weapons).
In an essay in today’s issue of The Space Review, Dwayne Day critically examines that proposal. Day is skeptical of some of the claimed advantages of including China in the project, given the lack of flight experience with China’s Shenzhou spacecraft as well as doubts that including China would do much to defray the costs of the existing ISS partners. Day does take note of one feature of Manber’s proposal that has not previously been discussed in past suggestions to include China in the ISS: including China would “moderate the Russians”, in much the same way that the US-China rapprochement during the Nixon years ended up improving US-Soviet relations as well. Just don’t expect anything to happen soon: it’s highly unlikely the Bush Administration will take any steps in this direction during its final year in office. “It will not require another Richard Nixon to improve relations with China,” concludes Day, “but it will require someone other than George W. Bush.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 21 at 11:33 am ET The radio show The Space Show features an interview today (5 pm EST) with former astronaut Jay Buckey, who was a payload specialist on the STS-90 shuttle flight in 1998 and is now a professor of medicine at Dartmouth. Besides that, though, Buckey is running for the US Senate from New Hampshire, seeking the Democratic nomination against former governor Jeanne Shaheen. His web site doesn’t include any policy statements about space (not surprising; New Hampshire is not a major space state), but you could always pose a question about that on the show…
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 21 at 11:07 am ET That’s the claim the Orlando Sentinel makes in a blog post about Mitt Romney’s visit to KSC today, which will be followed by a meeting with the same industry officials that Rudy Giuliani met with on Friday. In between his KSC tour and meeting, Romney will hold a press conference at the KSC Visitors Center, something Giuliani didn’t do; Romney had wanted to have the press follow him on his tour but KSC officials, recalling memories of John Kerry’s 2004 visit and the ensuing Bunnysuitgate. (Notably, there are no photos of Giuliani’s visit Friday on the KSC Media Gallery site.)
“This electoral one-upmanship is exactly the kind of competitive behavior that space fans have been praying for,” Block writes. No doubt that’s true, but that one-upmanship might be running out of steam: none of the other Republican candidates have committed for similar meetings with the Space Coast’s Economic Development Commission (and John McCain has turned down their invitation, citing scheduling conflicts, according to the Sentinel), and the Democrats are not campaigning in Florida. And, Block notes, “none [of the candidates] have been willing to talk in specifics about funding levels, which is ultimately what it is all about.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 18 at 8:43 pm ET Rudy Giuliani wrapped up his space policy roundtable Friday afternoon on Florida’s Space Coast with this goal, according to the AP: to “narrow and possibly even eliminate” the shuttle-Constellation gap. “A strong NASA and a revitalized space program will be a priority for a Giuliani Administration from day one,” he said, calling the gap “not acceptable”. The officials Giuliani met with called the problem a “money issue”: “You just can’t lay out a vision like President Bush laid out, and not fund it,” said Mike McCulley, former president and CEO of United Space Alliance. Giuliani didn’t specify any other space policy goals, such as continuing the Vision for Space Exploration or other initiatives for military or commercial space, according to the reports by the AP and Florida Today.
Giuliani is hardly the first to endorse the concept of reducing the gap in some fashion. Unfortunately, it’s his bad luck to speak about it the same day NASA confirms that it’s grappling with a serious “thrust oscillation” issue with the Ares 1 as well as word that Ares/Orion test flights will be delayed because of budget shortfalls. So, good luck, Rudy, closing that gap…
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 18 at 7:21 am ET ProSpace has released its agenda for its March Storm lobbying blitz in early March, with two major themes: “Developing Space Resources” and “Develop Commercial Space Infrastructure”. The former calls for support of space-based solar power and NEO detection and risk mitigation efforts. The latter calls for expanded funding for COTS and the passage of the Spaceport Equality Act and Aeronautics and Space Prize Act. March Storm 2008 will take place March 8-12, a week later that previously planned.
March Storm isn’t the only lobbying effort planned for the coming weeks. The Space Exploration Alliance has its 2008 Legislative Blitz planned for a month earlier than March Storm, February 10-12. That’s prompted “space cynic” Shubber Ali to propose an anti-blitz blitz at the same time to “counter the voices of the hucksters and their gullible followers” who support the Vision for Space Exploration. Then there are new efforts like “Political Action for Space” that has a four-step plan to make space policy “impacted for good”. Meanwhile, people are excited that space questions are at the top of Politico.com’s list of most popular debate questions, without any information about just how many votes have been cast for those questions, nor any guarantees any of those questions will be used in the debates.
And people still wonder why space policy activism isn’t more effective.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 18 at 7:20 am ET Last week’s announcement that Canadian company MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) was selling its space business to US firm Alliant Techsystems (ATK) has not gone over well in Canada. A former president of the Canadian Space Agency, Marc Garneau, decried the sale and blamed it in part on a lack of a national space policy that could have funneled more contracts and money to MDA. A day after the sale was announced, the Canadian government announced that CSA president Laurent Boisvert had stepped down, a move that some linked to the MDA sale (although Boisvert actually announced his plans to retire before Christmas, and left on January 1; it took over a week before a formal announcement was made.)
Now, a new, diverse group of people are protesting the sale on other grounds: it violates an anti-landmine treaty. The Canadian Auto Workers, a union that represents some MDA employees, and former Canadian foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, are demanding the Canadian government block the sale because ATK manufactures landmines as part of its armaments business. Canada is a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, which bans anti-personnel mines (the US is not). Axworthy and the CAW argue that since the treaty bans the transfer of public funds to companies that produce landmines; MDA’s assets, of course, includes spacecraft and equipment paid for by the Canadian government. Joining the protest is an American-born engineer who quit MDA the day after the sale was announced because of ethical concerns. MDA said that only one employee has quit the company since the sale, and ATK officials said their landmines, sold only to NATO countries and other allies, have features that make them compliant with the convention.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 17 at 6:46 pm ET At the end of a blog post about a new campaign ad, the New York Times reports that Rudy Giuliani will be holding a “space policy roundtable” Friday in Cape Canaveral. No other details about the event are provided, and the campaign web site doesn’t have any information yet about the event. (Presumably it will show up on the site’s list of events by tomorrow morning.)
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 17 at 6:45 am ET In an editorial in this week’s issue, the journal Nature wades into the debate about funding for various astronomy missions within NASA triggered by NASA administrator Mike Griffin’s AAS speech last week. In that speech, Griffin warned that Congress’ decision to provide extra funding for the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)—the result of what he called “external advocacy”—could force NASA to delay or cancel a number of other missions. “I hope this is what you want, because it appears likely to be what you will get,” he said.
Nature spreads its criticism of the current process for identifying and funding missions broadly. Astronomers, the editorial argues, need to revise their approach to the decadal surveys that identify the highest priority missions, including the addition of a “use-by date”: “after a certain time, perhaps as little as five years, it is reasonable to ask whether a given mission is still the best way to achieve its stated goal.” Griffin, though, is warned to avoid the zero-sum arguments he used in his speech: “if astronomers thus threatened successfully lobby for a significant transfer of funds from human spaceflight to science, his position will be weakened” (So, presumably, would be the positions of human spaceflight supporters within Congress, who would fight any such shift.) And Congress, the editorial concluded, “should, when exercising its powers, open up a public debate on all the issues involved – which may often go beyond the merits of a single mission.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 January 17 at 6:25 am ET Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has long had an interest in prizes for motivating advances in spaceflight, among other areas, and that interest is apparently still strong. In an interview with Human Events he had this to say about a Mars prize:
I had a very senior member of the Air Force say to me, if we had a $5 billion tax-free prize for the first team to get to Mars — think of it as the 21st Century America’s Cup, ’cause, you know, there are millionaires and billionaires out there who spend an amazing amount of money on yachts in order to compete for the America’s Cup.
If we had a 21st Century America’s Cup in space, this particular expert in the Air Force said to me, they thought we’d get there in about five years and save about $220 billion dollars in federal spending over the next generation. So, you look at that sort of thing, and I don’t want to try to fix NASA, I want to try to create a competitive, prize-based system.
Unfortunately, Gingrich doesn’t disclose who this “very senior member” of the Air Force is, and how this person made that rather optimistic determination.
Gingrich’s interview is timed with the publication of his new book, Real Change. One chapter of that book is titled, “NASA versus the Culture of Competitive Entrepreneurship”.
|
|
