By Jeff Foust on 2007 October 4 at 7:24 am ET According to a report on SpaceRef, Hillary Clinton will give a speech this morning about her proposed science policy, which may include some discussion of space policy. (The speech is taking place on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, so it would take some effort to ignore it.) The speech will be at the Carnegie Institute of Washington at 8:45 am this morning (and all the spaces in the auditorium there have been reserved); no word if the speech will be broadcast or webcast.
Update: according to CNN, “Clinton will guarantee to execute ‘a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.'” That doesn’t sound too surprising.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 October 3 at 6:39 am ET House Science and Technology Committee chairman Bart Gordon issued a statement yesterday to mark the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik this week. His statement focused as much on the need to bolster math and science education in the US, though, as it was on space exploration itself:
In 1957, space was seen as one more arena for Cold War competition between nations. However, over the last five decades, the exploration of space has evolved into an international endeavor marked by significant accomplishments that have benefited all of humanity.
We have received an impressive return on our past investments in America’s space program, and I think we need to continue to pursue a bold and productive future in space. In addition, we need to take heed of one of the legacies of the ‘wake-up call’ delivered by Sputnik and reaffirm America’s commitment to making the investments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education that are needed to ensure that our children will be able to compete in the new global economic marketplace. Enactment of the America COMPETES Act was an important first step, but more needs to be done.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 October 3 at 6:31 am ET The space subcommittee of the House Science Committee is planning a hearing for next Thursday, October 11, on “Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) – Status of the Survey Program and Review of NASA’s Report to Congress”. A variety of people both within and outside of NASA are scheduled to testify:
- Dr. James Green, Director, Planetary Science Division, NASA
- Dr. Scott Pace, Associate Administrator, Program Analysis and Evaluation, NASA
- Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Manager, Near Earth Object Program Office, NASA
- Dr. Donald B. Campbell, Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University
- Mr. Russell L. Schweickart, Chairman, B612 Foundation
This hearing comes more than six months after NASA completed the report mentioned in the hearing’s title, which concluded that significantly more money would be needed to meet the goals mandated by Congress of detecting 90 percent of near Earth objects 140 meters or more in diameter by 2020. That report, which also discussed potential deflection strategies, was criticized sharply by people outside NASA like Schweickart; that promises an interesting exchange of views at the hearing.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 October 2 at 7:19 am ET One of the more troubled military space programs, the Space Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) system, appeared to get back on track earlier this after problems got so severe the number of satellites the Air Force planned to procure was cut and the military started studies of alternative approaches. Well, so much for that process. Space News reported online late yesterday [subscription required] that SBIRS is facing a delay of up to one year and additional costs of up to $1 billion because of problems with a similar satellite. The details are a bit vague: the article cites a memo from Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne to John Young, acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology, issued last week announcing the impending delay and cost increase. “The problem is a safe hold that did not work on a current satellite, causing mission termination; and the design similarity to the [geosynchronous] satellites, which caused a no fly condition,” Wynne said in the memo, not identifying the satellite that failed. That satellite has a similar design to the SBIRS geosynchronous satellites, according to the report, requiring an as-yet undefined effort to correct the problem; a plan is expected to be completed late this month by prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
Expect some more scrutiny in the months to come of SBIRS; the Alternative Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS), a potential replacement concept whose future had appeared uncertain once SBIRS appeared to be on track; and milspace procurement in general.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 October 1 at 8:00 am ET I listened to the live webcast Saturday afternoon of the space session of Newt Gingrich’s “Solutions Day” event, an hour-long discussion led by former congressman Bob Walker. (The video of the event is supposed to be available soon, according to the Solutions Day web site.) The event was split into three 20-minute segments: an introductory speech by Walker, which covered the basics of civil, commercial, and military space; a question-and-answer session with the audience; and a discussion of “solutions”, which was similar to the Q&A session.
For those expecting some novel, incisive discussion about ways to improve America’s access to and utilization of space, the event was underwhelming. The discussion was limited primarily to the people who were physically at the event in Georgia (one question at the very end came via the Internet), and they were general space enthusiasts who asked questions about space elevators and “tritium mining” (apparently a reference to helium-3) on the Moon. A few highlights:
- “I personally believe the Chinese are embarked upon on a very ambitious lunar program, and within a handful of years we will have someone from China waving back at us from the Moon,” he said in his introductory remarks. (As some may recall, Walker said back in 2003 that China would land humans on the Moon within a decade and even cited a conversation with a “Japanese parliamentarian” who argued such a feat would be accomplished in three to four years, so weight that assessment accordingly.)
- If and when China does land humans on the Moon, Walker argues that it would pose a security threat to the US: “There are some military planners who would be worried about placing some Chinese assets on the Moon,” he said in response to a question, “in that it would make some of our satellite systems more vulnerable… So, yes, there are some potential military concerns about a permanent Chinese presence on the Moon.”
- Regarding the Vision for Space Exploration, Walker was concerned about the lack of appropriate funding for it. “It’s a visionary program, but the problem so far has been insufficient resources to do the job as necessary,” he said, which may require the Vision’s timelines to be stretched.
- Walker was also indirectly critical of one aspect of the Vision’s implementation, the development of the Ares 1. “There are a lot of people in Washington right now beginning to ask the question of why is NASA building its own new rocket to go to low Earth orbit when, in fact, there are military vehicles available, called EELVs, that could lift similar weight into low Earth orbit and might even be able to be modified in the future to go on to the Moon.”
- Walker did address prizes briefly, suggesting that a $20-billion Mars prize might be a better approach if you wanted to bypass the Moon, although he suggested that approach was undesirable since the Moon would be a good testing ground for the technology needed for future Mars missions. “If you want to do ‘Direct Mars’ [apparently referring to Zubrin’s Mars Direct], you probably don’t do it as a government program. If you want to do Direct Mars, you offer a $20-billion prize for the first humans who set foot on Mars” that allow people to take much greater risks than would be permitted in a NASA-led effort.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 October 1 at 7:20 am ET Today marks the beginning of the 2008 fiscal year, and is should hardly come to anyone’s surprise that none of the FY2008 appropriations bills, including the Commerce/Justice/Science one (which funds NASA), have been signed into law, or even made it completely through Congress. The CJS appropriations bill has yet to be taken up by the full Senate. The federal government is operating under a continuing resolution, passed last week, that runs through mid-November. Of course, that bill funds agencies at the FY07 levels, which for many agencies, including NASA, is at the FY06 levels.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 September 30 at 1:00 pm ET NASA administrator Mike Griffin is known for speaking his mind in plain language, be it in industry forums or in front of Congress. However, AFP may be taking things too far:
“When we celebrate 100 years of Sputnik, we might celebrate the 20th anniversary of man landing on Mars,” Frank Griffin, NASA’s chief administrator said recently.
[Emphasis added, of course.] This is from an article that tries to build a case that some in the US think that Asia could win a new space race (although what that space race would be, and how “winning” is defined, is apparently left as an exercise for the reader.)
By Jeff Foust on 2007 September 28 at 6:41 am ET There’s an interesting post at RLV and Space Transport News that features some comments by Democratic presidential candidates on the nation’s space vision. Armin Ellis, who attended a presidential campaign debate in New Hampshire this week, posed the question “What is your vision for America’s space program?” to several of the candidates after the debate. The three leading candidates—Clinton, Edwards, and Obama—didn’t hang around, but Ellis was able to talk with Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson.
Not surprisingly, the answers the question elicited weren’t terribly deep. Dodd said that “we’re doing okay” and left it at that. Biden professed his support for robotic programs, and when asked about human spaceflight, said, “With clear leadership we can do anything, good luck.” Kucinich said he would double spending “across the board on civilian projects and privatize where we can”, and gave a shout-out for NASA Glenn Research Center, in his district. Richardson said spaceflight was “important” and added that “we should also encourage private companies”, as he has been doing in New Mexico.
Of course, this is all largely an academic exercise: none of the four have and realistic shot of winning the nomination, barring a massive upheaval at the front of the race. (Bill Richardson, though, could be a leading vice-presidential candidate.) Nor is it unexpected, given how low space policy ranks in the long list of issues in the 2008 election. Still, the small group of people interested in space policy now knows a little bit more about where some of the candidates stand…
By Jeff Foust on 2007 September 27 at 7:37 am ET On Saturday American Solutions for Winning the Future, the organization created by Newt Gingrich to, in its words, “provide real, significant solutions to the most important issues facing our country”, will be hosting a Solutions Day featuring a number of workshops on various policy topics. (The event actually kicks off tonight with a speech by Gingrich in Atlanta.) Among the workshop sessions will be one titled “Space – The Race to the Endless Frontier”, hosted by former Congressman Bob Walker:
Future national greatness depends on leading the world in the creation of new knowledge and nowhere is the potential for new knowledge development more evident than on the endless frontier of outer space. Yet, our national space efforts and programs have become politicized and bureaucratized in ways that retard rather than enhance our access to that endless frontier. Sparking entrepreneurial, scientific and exploratory interest in space demands an agenda that recognizes the need for significant private sector involvement and investment, and further recognizes the national security imperative of space leadership. Former Congressman Robert Walker will discuss ideas for fundamentally changing our space policy.
The workshop, from 4-5 pm Saturday, will take place at the University of West Georgia, but will be streamed on the Internet. There will apparently be an option for interaction with the audience; perhaps someone can ask Walker what he thinks of NASA administrator Mike Griffin’s thoughts about prizes.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 September 27 at 7:26 am ET You probably remember that, around the time the Vision for Space Exploration was first released, a number of media reports estimated the cost of the perceived ultimate goal of the effort—a manned Mars mission—at a trillion dollars. (See Dwayne Day’s “Whispers in the echo chamber” article in The Space Review in March 2004 for a discussion about this.) Since then, fortunately, those 13-digit price estimates have faded away, especially as the focus on the Vision has narrowed on a return to the Moon.
Or maybe not. The online publication Grist (“Environmental News & Commentary”) features a blog post this week that greatly inflates the cost of returning to the Moon. Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M, takes issue with the roughly $100 billion that NASA estimates it will take to return humans to the Moon. “There is no way that setting up a semipermanent lunar base will be anything other than many times more expensive. That would put the total cost at one to a few trillion dollars.” Prof. Dessler, though, doesn’t explain his rationale for why the effort will cost many (apparently at least ten times) more.
Dessler also argues that the current level of funding for exploration programs, a few billion dollars a year, is “something like 1 percent of the money they would need to spend each year to actually accomplish this task, well short of the $100 billion or so actually required. Given this reality, there is no way we will ever actually do this.” Of course, the level of funding devoted to the exploration program is supposed to increase once the station is completed and the shuttle is retired (but will fall far short of the “trillions” Dessler thinks are needed.) Remember the sand chart?
Prof. Dessler is concerned, as are some other scientists, that NASA’s focus on exploration is depriving science programs of critical funding: “As someone who gets much of his research funding from NASA, I have seen the dollars for climate research getting harder and harder to find over the last few years.” But surely there are better ways to argue that than through hyperbolic cost estimates…
|
|
