By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 8 at 6:21 am ET Last month the NSS conducted its Space Budget Blitz on Capitol Hill, trying to get support for increasing NASA’s budget. Blitz chairman Chris Carberry summarizes the event for Ad Astra, which features meetings with over 60 offices, including face-to-face meetings with Reps. Ralph Hall and Nick Lampson. One item of note from the report is an apparent increasing concern about the “gap” in US government space access between the retirement of the shuttle and the introduction of Orion:
It was apparent that a number of Representatives are getting more uncomfortable with the fact that the United States will be unable to launch humans into orbit for such a long period. This fear was compounded by China’s recent launch of an anti-satellite missile. It will be interesting to see if the apparent Iranian launch will even further magnify this Congressional angst over the ‘gap’.
It’s a bit difficult to understand how a gap in NASA’s ability to put humans in space would be exacerbated or otherwise affected by an ASAT test or an Iranian sounding rocket flight, but logical and rational thought is hardly in ample supply in Washington.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 8 at 6:06 am ET A few articles and items of note:
The Marshall Institute has published a transcript of its January forum “Space Issues in 2007″, which took place not long after the Chinese ASAT test became big news. The transcript of the half-day event runs more than 50 pages, including some illustrations. The institute also recently published a brief analysis of military space programs and spending levels in the FY08 budget request.
The Stimson Center, meanwhile, has a commentary by Michael Krepon on a “space code of conduct”, an op-ed that also appeared in this week’s issue of Space News. Krepon takes on the five arguments the Bush administration has made against any kind of multilateral agreements that would restrict the use of space weapons of some kind—the lack of a “space arms race”, that arms control is “a vestige of the Cold War”, a lack of agreement on what constitutes a space weapon, the need of the US to preserve its right of self-defense, and an unwillingness to constrain freedom of action in space—and finds them lacking. “Saying ‘hell no’ to new multilateral agreements for space seems particularly questionable” after China’s ASAT test, he notes.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 7 at 7:20 am ET The space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee has a hearing scheduled for this afternoon on “National Imperatives for Earth Science Research”. This hearing looks to be similar to a House Science and Technology Committee hearing on the topic in February.
One hearing that had been scheduled for today but was cancelled yesterday afternoon was one by the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee about the investigation of NASa Inspector General Robert Cobb. The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Brad Miller, cancelled the hearing after the administration agreed to turn over a report on the investigation to Congress by April 2. Miller planned to hold the hearing to issue subpoenas to key officials to testify about the investigation.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 7 at 7:09 am ET In his State of the State address yesterday, new Florida governor Charlie Crist mentioned in passing that he wants the state legislature to pass incentives to support the state’s space industry:
Finally, I ask that you give us the tools to spur economic development for the film and space industries. In my budget I have proposed 75 million dollars of tax credits to enhance Florida film making- a clean and vital industry which creates high paying jobs while spot lighting our beautiful state.
Florida is the place where America literally reaches for the stars, so we must also continue to incentivize the private space industry to retain our preeminence in this field.
The speech doesn’t offer any additional details about what sort of incentives he has in mind, although lawmakers and others in the state have previously kicked around a number of ideas, including one to provide a half-billion dollars in incentives to lure companies to the state.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 6 at 5:40 pm ET I received an email this afternoon from the communications director for Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who wanted to respond “to some inaccurate
information circulating through the Space community” about the final FY2007 NASA budget. They key points, directly from that message:
– In fiscal year 2006, Congress provided a funding level of $3.05 billion for exploration systems.
— In the fiscal year 2007 CR, Congress provided $3.4 billion. In addition, NASA also has discretion over $86 million in funding for one time projects that were not continued in the CR. Therefore, in fiscal year 2007, NASA has been provided with a $436 million increase for exploration systems.
— While Congress was unable to fund exploration systems at the 2007 requested level due to the funding constraints of a CR, they were able to provide an increase, not a cut.
— The funding levels contained in the CR are sufficient to prevent any major program disruptions in 2007. Furthermore, the legislation specifically prohibits NASA from implementing any layoffs or reduction in forces at any NASA center during this fiscal year.
The logic is clear, however, the problem is that NASA had been planning on an even bigger increase than what Congress eventually approved, hence all the discussion of a “cut”. (It is reminiscent of comments made last year by Mike Griffin, who said that science program budgets had not been cut, only their rate of growth; cold comfort for those researchers who had been counting on the bigger increases.) The message concludes that Mikulski, who chairs the appropriations subcommittee with oversight of NASA, “will continue to look for opportunities to support NASA through the 2008 spending bill.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 6 at 7:47 am ET In the comments to a post on Friday about Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed in the Washington Post, one person noted, “It would be good if a couple short letters to the editor appeared in such a national paper pointing out that less expensive and more quickly developed alternatives, such as operational Air Force launch vehicles, exist, if NASA could let go of its institutional biases and hubris.” Message received. Today’s Post includes a couple responses to the Krauthammer essay, including one with this concluding paragraph:
NASA needs to bury its engineering hubris, leverage prior investment toward a less costly and more timely vehicle for reaching orbit, and get on with creating lunar hardware before the next White House cancels the effort entirely.
I’d like to think the letter writer was inspired by reading this blog, but realize coincidence is a much more likely explanation. There’s also a not-unexpected response that goes into “spend this money on Earth instead” file:
I’m forced to conclude that Charles Krauthammer would rather listen to the “music of our time” than hear the cries of the 200,000 people who have died in Darfur because of our lack of resources to protect them, or pay attention to the quiet agonies of the 18,000 Americans who die every year for lack of health insurance.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 5 at 7:38 am ET In an essay in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Chris Carberry, political director of The Mars Society and organizer of the National Space Society’s recent Space Budget Blitz, argues that members of the space community, be they employees or just enthusiasts, need to do more politically to express their desire for a vigorous space program. A key paragraph from his essay:
The space community needs to take on more of the political burden. We have far more people than many effective political movements. If each person in our community were to write or call their members of Congress at least once a year; if they were to take the time to write to or call the presidential candidates, that would be impressive. And I tell you what, I’m sure that Congress and the candidates would notice. While we may not convince all of them to become space promoters, we very well could make them think twice about being space attackers. To paraphrase a former president, “It’s about the politics, stupid!”
Carberry argues that such increased activity is vital now, given cuts in NASA’s FY07 budget, the upcoming 2008 presidential election, and because “there are now some people in influential positions who would be perfectly happy to eliminate VSE and, perhaps, human space exploration altogether.” What do you think? Would getting more people in the “space community” politically active make a difference? Or do we risk a cacophony of different ideas that drowns each other out, since there’s arguably no such thing as a monolithic space community?
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 3 at 6:13 pm ET ProSpace, the group that bills itself as “The CITIZENS’ Space Lobby dedicated to opening the space frontier”, who be holding its annual March Storm lobbying effort this coming week, bringing dozens of space activists to Capitol Hill for three days of briefings in Congressional offices. ProSpace has posted its “2007 Citizens’ Space Agenda”, which covers the issues they’ll be bringing up in their briefings Monday through Wednesday. The key points:
- Support Introduction and Passage of The SPACE (Space Prizes for the Advancement of Commerce & Enterprise) Act of 2007
- This is a bill proposed by ProSpace that would create a National Space Prize Board that would oversee the development of prizes “as a means to accelerate the commercial expansion of economic, national security and scientific uses of space and spaceflight.” The Board would have four government officials as its members, including the heads of NASA and DARPA and the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation, as well as three outside people nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The board would be authorized to offer prizes up to $400 million and would receive annual appropriations of $100 million, which would be set aside for prizes as selected by the board.
- Support, co-sponsor and pass the Spaceport Equality Act
- This piece of legislation would give spaceport developers the same bonding authority as airports, seaports, and the like.
- Support formation of The Space Infrastructure Interagency/Industry Task Force
- This task force, featuring representation from various government agencies and the private sector, would be charged with determining “what infrastructure is needed to aid in the development of space”, how that infrastructure would be used by various civil, military, and commercial entities, and develop a framework for putting that infrastructure in place. (“Infrastructure” is used in a very broad sense here, and following in the steps of the MIT Space Logistics Project, which looked at interplanetary supply chain management issues.)
- Remove all programmatic deadlines from CEV development that are not directly related to returning to the moon no later than 2020
- Expand funding for COTS to enable the earliest possible demonstration of commercial cargo delivery and crew transfer systems. Budget sufficient funds for FY2009 and beyond to provide ample cargo and crew transfer capacity to maximize use of ISS
- Prevent NASA from diverting funds from science, aeronautics and education programs to CEV, ISS and the Space Shuttle.
- These are lumped together because ProSpace sees the requirement that Orion (née CEV) enter service by 2014 (or so) for ISS missions as a “major detour” in the overall Vision for Space Exploration. By removing that 2014 deadline, increasing COTS funding, and firewalling non-exploration funding, ProSpace hopes to keep Orion focused on exploration, not ISS applications.
How successful will these initiatives be? It does depend on how persuasive MarchStorm participants are in their briefings. Some of these ideas aren’t new—the spaceport bond bill idea has been around for a while, as I recall—and prize proponents have had to scratch and claw for even the very modest Centennial Challenges effort. But will there be more support, or at least interest, in the Orion/COTS related proposals?
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 2 at 7:00 am ET An editorial in today’s Florida Today argues that Floridian space supports have to fight a two-front battle to win support for NASA’s lunar plans. The first, and most obvious, front is in Congress, given that the recently-passed final FY07 budget cuts NASA’s exploration funding by $500 million. “NASA’s lunar exploration goals will remain a fat target as the war in Iraq and money to treat wounded veterans, bolster Medicare and fund other programs maintain a higher priority,” the paper claims. “It also raises the specter of a possible attempt to kill the program outright.” Florida’s congressional delegation, led by Sen. Bill Nelson, needs to do more to fight for the program. “We’re not seeing enough of that now, and it’s critical he continue fostering alliances with senators whose states also stand to benefit from the moon program to keep stable funding.”
The second front, according to the editorial, is at the state level; the paper would like to see new governor Charlie Crist “follow-through on his promise to help create a new generation of space jobs through aggressive business incentives.” Those outside Florida might argue whether it’s essential that Florida provide state-level incentives for space businesses; much of the work needed to carry out the Vision will be done outside of the state anyway.
In an op-ed in today’s Washington Post (among other publications), Charles Krauthammer argues that a lunar base is much more preferable to the existing shuttle and station programs. On the shuttle and ISS: “There’s nothing quite as beautiful as the space station and the shuttle that services it, and nothing quite as useless.” He says that a lunar base would have scientific and other value, while acknowledging that robotic missions have more value “pound for pound, dollar for dollar” than manned missions. His rationale is more… abstract:
If you find any value, any lift of the spirit in a beautiful mathematical proof, in an elegant balletic turn, in any of the myriad human endeavors that have no utility but only breathtaking beauty, then you should feel something when our little species succeeds in establishing new life in a void that for all eternity had been the province of the gods. If you don’t feel that, you are — don’t take this personally — deaf to the music of our time.
Mars advocates take note: why is Krauthammer supporting a lunar base over one on Mars? He says Mars would be “better” than the Moon, but “But the best should not be the enemy of the good. Mars is simply too far, too dangerous, too difficult, too expensive. We won’t go there for a hundred years.” That plume in the distance? The steam rising from Robert Zubrin’s ears.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 March 1 at 12:48 pm ET The notice of this event hasn’t been posted on CSIS’ web site yet, but as part of its “Decision 2008″ series, the organization is hosting a discussion with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) on “China’s Anti-Satellite Weapons Launch” on March 8th from 8:30 to 9:30 am. The event notice doesn’t provide any additional information, other than that the talk will be moderated by CSIS’ James Lewis and that RSVPs are required.
|
|
