By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 4 at 6:28 am ET The final outcome of Tuesday’s spaceport tax referendum in Donña Ana County, New Mexico, won’t be known until Thursday, although the tax had a narrow lead late Tuesday night after all official ballots were counted. In the simple yes/no vote, there were 204 more yes votes than no out of over 17,000 ballots cast, with all of the county’s 109 precincts reporting in. However, there are 541 provisional ballots—those cast by people who don’t show up on the list of registered voters, or who went to the wrong voting location, for example—that have yet to be counted. Those will be counted starting Thursday, and officials said it could take several days to review those ballots and add them to the count. The referendum was on a quarter-percent gross receipts tax, three-quarters of which would be used to help fund development of Spaceport America in southern New Mexico (the remaining quarter would be reserved to support educational programs). Spaceport backers, including New Mexico governor (and presidential candidate) Bill Richardson, said that the project would be in jeopardy if the tax wasn’t approved.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 4 at 6:24 am ET An issue that is not new, but had not gotten a lot of attention, burst to the surface this week when several members of Congress called for the dismissal of NASA Inspector General Robert Cobb. The letter, signed by Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), chair of the investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House Science Committee, and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chair of the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, came in response to receiving a report on an investigation of alleged misconduct by Cobb, (a summary of which is posted on the web) including claims of an abusive work environment and a lack of independence, performed by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE). A cover letter included with the report concluded that members of the PCIE’s integrity committee believed that “disciplinary action up to and including removal, could be appropriate.” A proposal by NASA administrator Michael Griffin for Cobb to develop an “individual leadership/management plan” while attending a training course was deemed insufficient by the committee.
The House Science and Technology Committee followed that announcement late Monday with one on Tuesday asking for unredacted copies of the PCIE report and continuing to call on President Bush to remove Cobb, hinting that hearings on the subject could take place in the near future otherwise. The press release cites “press reports” where the Bush Administration endorses Griffin’s proposal (one such report apparently being this Florida Today article), but, as you might expect, Miller, Nelson, and committee chairman Bart Gordon “respectfully disagree” with that assessment.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 2 at 6:57 am ET In this week’s issue of The Space Review I review a book about space weaponization, War in Heaven. The book is from two anti-weaponization advocates, so the arguments in it are predictable, including criticism of the new national space policy and efforts by the US military perceived as moving towards using and/or stationing weapons in space. The book’s biggest flaw is, to some degree, beyond the authors’ control: the book went to the printers before China’s ASAT test was announced, which undermines a lot of the arguments they put forward. There are also some odd arguments (like where they claim that the any country that attacked US satellites faced “their own nuclear annihilation”), not to mention some factual flaws. While it’s a timely topic, this book isn’t likely to change that many minds, particularly those with conservative or even moderate political beliefs.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 2 at 6:48 am ET The United States isn’t the only country where launch vehicle manufacturers look to the government for financial support. The Yomiuri Shimbun reported Sunday that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Ltd is seeking subsidies from the Japanese government to cover the costs of the H-2A rocket. MHI, according to the article, is seeking 2-3 billion yen ($17-25 million) from the government per launch, which costs an estimated 10 billion yen ($85 million) each. The subsidies, which would technically cover “the cost of inspecting launch facilities and repairing the damaged launch pad after blastoff”, according to the report, would make the vehicle more competitive on the commercial launch market, according to MHI, by allowing it to charge customers as little as 7 billion yen ($59 million). A government official contacted by the newspaper did not appear to be particularly disposed to giving MHI any financial support.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 29 at 12:48 pm ET Tucked away in the Missile Defense Agency’s 2008 budget request is a small amount of money dedicated to beginning study of space-based missile defense component. Air Force Lt. General Henry “Trey” Obering III, director of the MDA, included this passage in his opening statement before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this week:
Finally, I am deeply concerned about future threat uncertainty and worldwide ballistic missile proliferation. I believe the performance of the BMD system could be greatly enhanced by an integrated, space-based layer. Space systems could provide on-demand, near global access to ballistic missile threats, minimizing the limitations imposed by geography, absence of strategic warning, and the politics of international basing rights. A space layer would apply pressure on launches from land or sea, depriving the adversary of free rides into midcourse with advanced countermeasures. While deployment of such a system must be preceded by significant, national-level debate, that debate must be informed by science. To that end, we are ready to begin a focused investigation of the feasibility of having an integrated space-based layer, and I am requesting $10 million for FY 2008 to begin concept analysis and preparation for small-scale experiments. These experiments will provide real data to answer a number of technical questions and help the leadership make a more informed decision about adding this capability.
This got major play in an article by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti yesterday, but little else, primarily because it’s a small part of a much larger program, with more concern about the status of near-term terrestrial elements. (And because the Russians have been beating the drum pretty hard recently about US proposals to place regional missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.) Space-based missile defense has been a sensitive issue for years, out of concern by some that the same system that could be used to knock down enemy missiles could also be used to disable or destroy satellites, hence the statement by Gen. Obering that any space-based system “must be preceded by significant, national-level debate.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 28 at 6:30 am ET The space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing this afternoon about “Transitioning to a Next Generation Human Space Flight System”. Speakers include William Gerstenmaier of NASA, Ron Dittemore of ATK, John Karas of Lockheed Martin, Allen Li of the GAO, Johnny Walker of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and Michael McCulley of USA. The hearing should be webcast on the committee web site.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 27 at 7:24 am ET Congressman Nick Lampson (D-TX) is recovering well from quadruple bypass surgery he underwent on Sunday. The surgery, performed in Houston, took place after he reported experiencing chest pains last week; tests found a blockage in a key coronary artery. Lampson is expected to remain in the hospital for nearly a week and be away from Congress for at least a few weeks, although after this week Congress will be in recess for two weeks. Lampson serves on the House Science and Technology Committee; his district includes JSC.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 24 at 10:38 am ET The Space Access ’07 conference is filled with talks from a variety of individuals and companies involved in the development of new space transportation systems. However, like seemingly every other space industry meeting these days, there was also a session about export control (aka ITAR). Export control is a major issue for many of these small ventures, which don’t have the resources of larger aerospace companies to deal with the regulatory process and run the risk of running into problems. So there was a useful presentation by export control lawyer Kerry Scarlott about the ins and outs of ITAR and questions about what is and isn’t covered, plus the usual exchange of “horror stories” about companies than ran into unexpected ITAR problems.
That presentation was followed by a panel featuring Scarlott, Randall Clague of XCOR Aerospace, Jim Muncy of PoliSpace, and Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings. A major topic of discussion was this: is there any realistic chance of getting some sort of export control reform passed in the near future to lessen the regulatory burden on the space industry? The panel was skeptical, in part because while the Democrats are in control of Congress, Republicans need to take a leading role in pushing through change to avoid having any reform effort being criticized as evidence that the Democrats are weak on national security issues. “Unless we can find a way to get some Republicans to take the lead and inoculate Democrats from any flanking maneuvers by other Republicans, I don’t see anyone taking the lead and actually trying to fix this in a serious way,” said Muncy. Scarlott, in his presentation, said, “There are a lot of changes potentially afoot in ITAR. I emphasize ‘potentially’ because it’s unlikely significant changes will occur in the next couple of years.”
But it could be worse. As Simberg put it, referring to a noted critic of export control reform: “I’m very glad to see Duncan Hunter running for president. I hope he does it for a long time. I hope he doesn’t win, but as long as he’s running for president he might be too distracted to keep us from doing something useful.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 23 at 11:20 am ET I’m at the Space Access ’07 conference in Phoenix, a meeting popular with the entrepreneurial (aka NewSpace) space transportation community. One person who stood out was someone who is at the other end of the spectrum: Steve Cook, director of the Exploration Launch Projects Office at NASA Marshall, who talked about the status of the development of the Ares 1 and Ares 5 vehicles. Early in his presentation he said the following about the overall space community:
You are all here because you are all space advocates. We’re all space advocates or we wouldn’t be in this business. Space, in the grand scheme of things, is a small community, relatively speaking. We all need to work together if we’re all going to be successful… This is such a small, but such an enthusiastic community. If we’re going to be successful, this is really a watershed time for all of us.
Cook said this in the context of various government and commercial space access efforts in progress at the moment, but some got the impression that he was talking about some of the criticism of the Ares program from within the community in recent months. Part of that criticism has been that NASA should have instead selected a human-rated EELV derivative for at least the Ares 1. Cook said that during the ESAS study effort the Defense Department “had a lot of interest” in using the EELV, but after looking at the idea for a couple months, “that they came to the same conclusion that we did, that that did not make sense from a cost, safety, or reliability perspective.” In response to a question later in the presentation, he said they didn’t pick an EELV because “it wasn’t intended to be a human-rated launch vehicle.” (Ironic, since Lockheed Martin is currently studying human rating an Atlas 5, although they are looking at the smallest version, the 401, and Cook said they were looking at much larger versions given the size of the CEV.) Cook also said that the marginal cost of the Ares 1, excluding the Orion spacecraft (as well as all the sunk development and infrastructure costs) will be $100 million, which led to a lot of discussion of what the real price of each launch would be, which Cook said he wouldn’t have a good handle on until the preliminary design review.
Much of Cook’s talk focused on technical issues with the Ares development, including some of the changes they made after settling on the initial Ares 1/Ares 5 design (like use of RS-68 and J-2X engines in place of the SSME). But what about the Ares 4 concept that leaked out early this year? We’re “not doing anything right now” with the idea, but he has a small advanced concepts team looking at various ways to “mix and match” Ares stages.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 22 at 2:39 pm ET Pity the poor Florida state legislator who ventured outside his or her office at the wrong time Wednesday, the Tallahassee Democrat reported, as “representatives from NASA, Lockheed-Martin and the city of Titusville, among others, focused on tracking down and buttonholing the Legislature’s newest lawmakers.” It was “Space Day” in the Florida Legislature, and about 60 “space delegates” were meeting with legislators as well as the state’s lieutenant governor, Jeff Kottkamp, trying to win support for measures to support the state’s space industry, such as workforce training, funding for the state’s new space agency, Space Florida, and a life sciences “center of excellence”. Or, as one United Space Alliance lobbyist bluntly put it, “Send me money.” Hopefully they were a little more diplomatic in their meetings with legislators, buttonholed or otherwise.
|
|
