By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 19 at 10:08 am ET A Reuters article last week reported that a new overall national space policy—something that has been anticipated for months, if not a year or more—may soon finally be released. According to the article, “The White House is due to announce a new space policy this month, the first overhaul in a decade.” However, the article doesn’t provide any other details about the timing of the policy nor its contents.
The statement was included in an article about a speech at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva by John Mohanco, deputy director of the office of multilateral, nuclear and security affairs. In his speech Mohanco suggested that the US was interested in “the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting our assets” in space against possible attack. While nearly all of the 65 countries participating in the conference, with the exception of the US and UK, want some sort of ban on space-based weaponry, Mohanco said there is no need for such steps. “There is no — repeat, no — problem in outer space for arms control to solve.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 16 at 8:08 am ET An editorial in yesterday’s Boston Globe raises a key question about NASA and the projects it should undertake. The editorial, based on an article that appeared in the Globe last Friday, argues that NASA should be spending more, not less, on Earth sciences programs:
Trips to the moon or Mars, which the president also favors, fit the better-known part of NASA’s mission to explore space. But at a time when climate change, in particular, is threatening the well-being of the planet, NASA should be increasing, not decreasing, funding for projects like the canceled satellite mission to measure global soil moisture. A climate observatory in deep space, which would monitor this planet’s solar radiation, ozone, clouds, and water vapor, has also been dropped.
If you read the editorial and article, you might think that NASA was abandoning Earth sciences research. While there are some notable delays and cancellations, there are several missions still in active development in the near term alone, including AIM, Aquarius, and OCO, not to mention the fleet of Earth-observing spacecraft already in orbit. The overall “Earth-Sun System” theme at NASA, which includes both Earth observing and solar science projects, will get $2.2 billion in the proposed FY07 budget, slowly rising to $2.4 billion by FY11.
On the other hand, the “climate observatory in deep space” mentioned in the editorial (officially known as the Deep Space Climate Observatory, and previously—and better—known as Triana) has had a long and controversial history. And the “canceled satellite mission to measure global soil moisture”? That is apparently a reference to Hydros; however, oddly, neither the editorial nor the original article mention the spacecraft by name. Moreover, neither mention that Hydros was selected as a “backup” mission in the event either Aquarius or OCO ran into problems, and thus “was not confirmed for development” when the other two missions passed their confirmation reviews (although there was apparently some confusion about this between the project team and NASA headquarters.)
Thus the question: how much money should NASA be spending on Earth sciences research? Yes, it is important research—few would deny that—but how much of that should the space agency should be supporting, versus other agencies? Some have advocated in the past removing Earth sciences entirely from NASA, seeing such research as a distraction to its renewed focus on human and robotic space exploration, but that seems unlikely, in part because it’s not at all clear who should take up the burden, or would even be qualified to do so. What is clear is this: despite modest budget increases, NASA’s budget pie is not growing large enough to match the voracious appetites of everyone who wants a slice.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 15 at 7:57 am ET The science, state, justice, and commerce subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, whose jurisdiction includes NASA, marked up their appropriations bill on Wednesday. Details about the bill are scant, based principally on this statement in the press release about the bill:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration receives $16.7 billion, $462 million above the FY06 base level. Funds the President’s vision for space exploration at $3.8 billion; provides full request for the Space Shuttle; and restores $100 million above the request to aeronautics research, and $75 million above the request for space science.
$16.7 billion is about $100 million less than the President’s original proposal, and it appears that the exploration program suffered the biggest cut, losing about $200 million, with most of that going to aeronautics and space science. (That suggests that other programs also lost month to account for the overall $100-million cut, but the full appropriations bill is not yet available on Thomas.) The Planetary Society, in a statement, notes that $50 million of the additional space science funding will go to research and analysis programs, while $15 million would be used start a new Europa orbiter mission. (As the press release notes, one of the members of the appropriations subcommittee, John Culberson, has been perhaps the strongest Congressional proponent for a Europa mission.)
In his opening statement, subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) said that despite the cut to exploration programs, “This level ensures that the President’s vision for space exploration is adequately funded while at the same time restoring a portion of the damaging cuts that were proposed for NASA’s aeronautics research and science programs.” The full appropriations committee has not announced when it will take up the bill.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 14 at 12:53 pm ET What do they have in common? They’re three of ten ways human civilization might meet its demise, according to a documentary airing on the Sci Fi Channel tonight. An article in today’s Washington Post recounts a discussion about those topics, organized by the channel, held yesterday on Capitol Hill. The topic of death by asteroid impacts attracted both astronaut Ed Lu (a member of the board of directors of the B612 Foundation) and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who has long had an interest in the threat posed by near Earth objects:
“Why haven’t we suffered more terrible destruction?” [moderator Linda] Douglass wanted to know.
“Space is big,” said Ed Lu, a NASA astronaut.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) mentioned an asteroid called 99942 Apophis, which he said might hit the Earth in 2036. There was discussion of something called a “gravity tractor,” which might fix these sorts of problems.
Given the same event also debated the threat posed by “machine rebellion”, it’s not clear this actually helped raised awareness about NEO hazards or not.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 13 at 7:17 am ET Reuters reported yesterday that Boeing and Lockheed Martin are still waiting for the Federal Trade Commission to approve the formation of the United Launch Alliance, contrary to a report published Saturday by US Space News, which claimed that the FTC had rejected the merger. (The Reuters article primarily covers separate negotiations between Boeing and the Air Force on a launch contract like the one between Lockheed and the Air Force; that contract is not expected to be finalized before June 30, although that doesn’t appear to play a role in the ULA approval process.) US Space News, meanwhile, published a two-sentence denial of its original report provided by Lockheed Martin, although the site still claims that it has “creditable [sic] data that the FTC rejected the ULA proposal”, although neither the data nor the sources of the data are specified.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 12 at 7:12 am ET The site US Space News reported this weekend that the FTC has turned down the proposed United Launch Alliance merger of the Boeing and Lockheed Martin government EELV operations. These is no confirmation of this from any other source, including the FTC or either company, so this should be treated as an unverified rumor and nothing more at this time. (The site has a mixed record with breaking news.)
In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman examines the ULA and the effect it will have on the EELV program. One problem with the drawn-out review of the merger (which was announced over 13 months ago) is that it’s stuck a lot of people in career limbo, and some have given up and left the industry rather than wait and see what happens with ULA and their jobs. Dinerman still anticipates a positive decision on the ULA, which he believes is a first step towards long-term stability for the program, although he is more optimistic about the number of EELV launches that might occur than most (for example, he identifies COTS as a potential new market for the vehicles, although it appears most of the COTS finalists plan to use their own vehicles instead.)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 12 at 6:50 am ET The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee is holding a hearing this Tuesday titled “The NASA Workforce: Does NASA Have the Right Strategy and Policies to Retain and Build the Workforce It Will Need?” (10:30 am, Rayburn 2318). Witnesses scheduled to appear include:
Ms. Toni Dawsey, Assistant Administrator, Human Capital Management, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
Dr. David Black, Co Chair, Committee on Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration, National Research Council;
Mr. Gregory J. Junemann , Director, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; and
Mr. John W. Douglass, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association.
Meanwhile, as previously noted here, there will be an AIAA-organized forum today at 11:30 am in Rayburn 2325 on “Making the Business Case for Space – Where’s the Value?” The subject of the forum is to discuss how to make NASA’s programs more relevant to the general public.
A timely editorial that addresses this issue appears in today’s edition of the Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle. In the opinion of that paper’s editors, NASA should be spending more money on Earth sciences programs at the expense of the exploration vision (which the paper has criticized in past editorials):
This one is a no-brainer. Abandon the JFK-era program to the moon and beyond. Stop pouring good money after bad into the space station. Invest in satellites that may help us save our planet, as well as unmanned probes to explore our neighboring planets. Unfortunately, NASA is a no-brainer as well.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 9 at 7:24 am ET South Africa isn’t considered a “space” nation, per se, but the country is in the process of developing a national space policy, one that may involve the private sector to a significant degree, according to an article in the South African magazine Engineering News. Responsibility for a national space policy, according to 1993 legislation, belongs to the country’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), not the Department of Science and Technology (DST). DTI, though, is working with DST and other offices on a proposed policy, with DTI maintaining responsibility for developing the policy but giving DST the responsibility for implementing it. The scope of a space program is uncertain: the nation’s astronomy efforts may or may not be included, and communications, including any proposals for a dedicated communications satellite system, would remain with a separate government department. Also, there’s the suggestion that a South African space program take the form of a public private partnership (PPP), to ensure benefits of any coordinated space efforts flow to South African companies. However, as one person put it, “how this would work, no one is currently sure – we’re still early in the process: the details will come in the months ahead.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 8 at 6:19 am ET This afternoon the full House Science Committee is holding a hearing on the status of the NPOESS satellite program, in the wake of the completion of the Nunn-McCurdy preview. (2:30pm, Rayburn 2318; the meeting will be webcast) According to a committee media advisory, the hearing will tackle these issues:
- Are the new launch dates and cost estimate for NPOESS realistic?
- What capabilities are lost in the new NPOESS program?
- Are critical weather forecasting capabilities maintained and/or improved in the new NPOESS program?
- What are the underlying assumptions (technical, cost, and schedule) that support the new NPOESS program design?
- Are there better alternatives than the one chosen in the Nunn-McCurdy review, especially for fulfilling civilian needs such as climate science?
Another thing to keep in mind is that two leading Democrats on the committee, ranking member Bart Gordon and David Wu, ranking member of the environment, technology, and standards subcommittee, have publicly called for the dismissal of NOAA administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr. and his deputy, John J. Kelly Jr. They reiterated those demands in a letter by Rep. Wu and an op-ed by Rep. Gordon in this week’s issue of Space News. Lautenbacher is one of the three witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 June 7 at 6:55 am ET In case you missed it, here are the lineup of witnesses scheduled for today’s Senate Commerce Committee space subcommittee hearing on “NASA Budget and Programs: Outside Perspectives”:
Dr. Roy B. Torbert
Director
University of New Hampshire, Space Science Center
Dr. Peter Voorhees
Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Northwestern University
Dr. Jim Pawelczyk
Associate Professor of Physiology and Kinesiology
The Pennslyvania State University
Major General Charles Bolden, Jr. USMC (Ret.)
Chief Executive Officer
Jack and Panther, LLC
The hearing will be webcast.
|
|
