By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 10 at 12:45 pm ET A Reuters article late Tuesday states that Ken Kreig, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for acquisition, that he “regretted” the continued delays in government approval for the United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed Martin EELV joint venture. The ULA was announced a year ago last week, and still has not received the required approvals from the Federal Trade Commission. Kreig said the Pentagon has provided its suggestions on the terms that the ULA should operate under in order to gain approval, and suggested that the emphasis of the venture had shifted from keeping both the Delta and Atlas lines in operation to alternatives that might lead to the retirement of one or the other: “So ultimately, the question is, given how many launches there are, does the current model provide you assurance or is there a different way to do it.”
If the ULA does finally get approval and move ahead, one aspect of the merged venture will be ready, according to a Wednesday morning press release from Labwire Inc.:
Labwire Inc. (Pink Sheets:LBWR), a leading Employee Screening Solutions Provider, today announced it has completed the initial setup to provide its drug and alcohol and compliance services to facilitate a “united launch alliance” by two top Aerospace firms. Labwire is providing these services under its previously announced agreement (issued in an April 24, 2006 company news release) with a large international placement company.
Recently, two giants in the Aerospace Industry entered into an agreement to create a joint venture that will combine the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. government sanctioned launches of rockets. The joint venture will reduce the cost of meeting the critical national security and NASA expendable launch vehicle needs of the United States.
So at least we’re safe in knowing that workers will not be under the influence while building one or both families of rockets, even if the continued delays at the moment might be tempting some to seek liquid solace. Just say no, at least until the FTC says yes (unless, of course, it also says no…)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 10 at 7:04 am ET Yesterday NASA and its Indian counterpart, ISRO, formally signed an agreement whereby NASA will contribute two instruments to India’s first lunar mission, Chandrayaan-1. Sounds good, right? International cooperation in lunar exploration would seem to be a positive development. But, according to the Los Angeles Times, some people are concerned about aspects of the cooperation:
But critics see the multinational mission to explore the moon from an Indian spacecraft as a threat to the long-term U.S. strategy of preventing the spread of nuclear missiles.
India’s first rocket to the moon, called Chandrayaan-1, will be one of its towering, four-stage Polar Space Launch Vehicles, which India has used in the past to launch satellites into Earth’s orbit.
Experts have long warned that the same rocket could also be armed with a nuclear warhead and turned into an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, capable of hitting cities in Europe, China or the U.S.
Richard Speier, an author of the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary agreement among the U.S. and 33 other countries, argues that space cooperation with India weakens that pact.
“I should emphasize that the MTCR, and all of nonproliferation, is a policy of line-drawing,” Speier, a Pentagon nonproliferation specialist from 1982 to 1994, said from Reston, Va. “Weaken or erase the line and you weaken or erase the efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”
This seems like a weak argument in this case. The PSLV is not a new launch vehicle: it has been in service since the early 1990s, although typically performing only one or two launches a year. NASA’s contribution to the Chandrayaan-1 mission has nothing to do with the launch vehicle: it involves scientific instruments that will be flown on the spacecraft. Moreover, India had already committed to this mission long before signing yesterday’s agreement (also on the spacecraft are three instruments from ESA and one from Bulgaria), and had received more proposals for instruments than it had room on the spacecraft to accommodate them.
In short, it’s hard to see how this agreement either enabled this mission or would allow missile-related technology transfer. There may be legitimate concerns about sharing missile technology with India, but that does not necessarily mean that the US should avoid any kind of space cooperation with India.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 10 at 6:43 am ET While it’s still over three and a half years before the shuttle fleet makes its final flight, a scramble already seems to be developing among locations that want to be home to the three remaining orbiters once retired. California Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster) announced this week that she has introduced a joint resolution in the state legislature that would ask NASA to retire the shuttle Atlantis in Palmdale, where the orbiter fleet was assembled. The resolution, AJR 52, was actually introduced late last month, and claims that, among other things, sending Atlantis to Palmdale would “free an OPF (Orbiter Processing Facility) for NASA’s Exploration Mission Directorate, provide for a dedicated and focused workforce within ground operations at KSC to maintain and process Discovery and Endeavour to fly out the remainder of the Space Shuttle Program safely, and help to stabilize the small Space Shuttle workforce in Palmdale to be able to provide optimal preplanned as well as emergent support to the program through fly-out and termination.”
Why Atlantis? There have been suggestions that Atlantis could be retired as early as 2008, rather than go into an extended maintenance period that might not end before 2010. However, as Robert Pearlman notes on collectSPACE, the legislation “would appear to neglect existing requirements for how NASA must dispose of artifacts and its agreement for the transfer of artifacts to the Smithsonian.” Not that such issues would stop a politician from proposing a resolution like this…
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 10 at 6:32 am ET The Elmira Star-Gazette reported Tuesday that the New York State Senate unanimously approved a resolution honoring retiring astronaut Eileen Collins for her service to NASA. The resolution honoring the Elmira native was sponsored by Sen. George H. Winner Jr., R-Elmira. (The actual text of the resolution does not appear to be currently available on the web sites of Sen. Winner or the Senate, as of this morning.)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 9 at 7:13 am ET The Bakersfield Californian [free registration required] reports today that the appropriations committee of the California Senate tabled a bill that would provide Mojave Airport with an $11-million loan that would be used to provide spaceport facilities there. It appears that the committee didn’t single out the bill: according to the article the legislation was tabled “along with nearly all other bills that have significant price tags.” The committee will reconsider the bill next month when they have a better handle on the overall budget. In the meantime, spaceport supporters are planning to ask Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to put the money into a revised budget proposal he will send to the legislature later in the month.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 8 at 6:11 am ET The Sacramento Bee reports that the appropriations committee of the California Senate will debate legislation that would provide Mojave Airport with an $11-million loan to develop a spaceport terminal and related facilities. You may recall that the same bill, SB 1671 was approved by the Senate’s transportation committee last month, although not without some drama. The appropriations committee is considering the same issues that the transportation committee did: should the state provide a loan for a for-profit venture, or risk falling further behind other states, notably New Mexico, that have made large investments to gain a share of the emerging commercial space markets?
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 8 at 6:01 am ET House Speaker Dennis Hastert has appointed two additional Republicans, Randy Neugebauer (TX) and Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), to fill vacancies on the House Science Committee. Diaz-Balart will get a seat on the space subcommittee; he said in the committee’s statement that he looks forward to, among other things, “address[ing] issues facing NASA.”
The full committee has one hearing scheduled this week, Thursday at 10 am, where they will take up the “Inspector General Report on NOAA Weather Satellites”.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 5 at 10:15 am ET 
Bill Nye (left) and Louis Friedman at The Planetary Society’s press conference in LA Thursday.
The Planetary Society issued a press release and held a press conference during the International Space Development Conference (ISDC) in Los Angeles Thursday to announce its “Save Our Science” effort. According to TPS executive director Louis Friedman, “thousands” of people have signed an online petition asking Congress to restore funding to NASA’s science programs. An interesting factoid: Friedman claimed that of the $3 billion NASA plans to transfer from science programs in the next several years, “more than 95 percent of it comes out of planetary exploration. It’s not a balanced cut, it’s a specifically-directed cut at planetary programs.”
One thing the TPS doesn’t specify in its SOS effort is how the money should be restored. When asked if the money should come from increasing NASA’s overall budget, or if the money should be transferred back from other agency programs without increasing the overall budget, Friedman and Bill Nye, TPS vice president, punted. “As a taxpayer and voter, I hire those guys [in Congress] to make those decisions,” said Nye. “There are all kinds of nuances in budget discussions,” added Friedman. “I think he [Nye] has given a very good answer: they [Congress] have got to work that out” so long as science programs get more money. Such an approach certainly avoids making enemies, either among fiscal conservatives or supporters of other NASA programs, but it makes it sound a little weak to some people’s ears.
But then, other aspects of the society’s arguments could use some strengthening. Shortly after the comments above, Nye said, “To cut science now when we have these global problems is, uh, is inappropriate!”
“Try to come up with a stronger word,” advised Friedman.
“Well, crazy! All right, is that what you want?”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 5 at 9:45 am ET The Florida legislature, nearing the end of this year’s regular session, has approved legislation that would consolidate the state’s various space-related agencies into a single organization, Space Florida. There had been some opposition to provisions of the bill that would allow the current governor, Jeb Bush, to appoint its new board even though he will be leaving office after this year. The legislature did agree to an amendment that will have appointees from existing agencies make up the board of Space Florida.
Another provision of the bill provides $43 million in incentives for the space industry, including $35 million to refurbish KSC facilities to support the final assembly of the CEV. Florida Today laments in an editorial that the legislature did not approve much larger incentives that have been proposed to boost the industry. The editors note that other states and countries are spending much larger sums to attract space tourism and other nascent commercial ventures. “Up in Tallahassee, however, none of this is registering. And as a result, Florida can kiss more of its space jobs goodbye.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 May 4 at 10:00 am ET The Space Studies Board released a report this morning on NASA’s science programs, concluding that the agency is trying to do too much with too little money. “There is a mismatch between what NASA has been assigned to do and the resources with which it has been provided,” committee chairman Len Fisk said in press release. He noted that NASA’s planned cuts to its science programs in the FY07 and future budgets fall “disproportionately” on small missions and research and analysis funding. “These actions run the risk of disrupting the pipeline of human capital and technology that is essential for the future success of the space program,” Fisk said in the statement.
I had the chance to review an advance copy of the report yesterday on a flight to LA. The report has five major findings:
- NASA is being asked to accomplish too much for too little;
- There’s a lack of balance in existing programs, with too few small- and medium-class missions;
- Microgravity and life sciences programs have suffered “severe” cutbacks that could harm later plans for long-duration spaceflights;
- Costs for major missions have risen out of control, disrupting planning for future missions; and
- There has been a lack of involvement by the scientific community in the latest round of planning.
Going quickly through the report, it appeared that the committee didn’t pull any punches. For example, here’s their conclusion on the state of NASA’s planetary science programs:
The combined impact of these various factors will result in a solar system exploration program that for several years will appear robust to the outside observer, but is actually running on the investment of the past and will enter the next decade with nothing ready to fly, no technology base to support visionary initiatives, and an atrophy and erosion of the current talent base and infrastructure that make ambitious robotic missions possible. The space research community is witnessing a reenactment of the actions taken in the 1970s, when, after the start of Viking and Voyager missions at the beginning of the decade, no further planetary missions were put into the pipeline.
Let’s see what reaction this report gets from NASA—and Congress.
|
|
