By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 13 at 7:07 am ET One of the key issues that Congress has debated regarding the Vision for Exploration is the gap in manned spaceflight capability between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the introduction of the CEV, no later than 2014. Now that efforts to accelerate development of the CEV to shorten that gap seem to have been set aside because of budget problems, the gap may become an issue again. The Houston Chronicle reports that Rep. Tom DeLay and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison brought it up during ceremonies at the Johnson Space Center yesterday marking the 25th anniversary of the launch of STS-1:
At the same panel discussion – held in conjunction with other seminars at the nearby Johnson Space Center – Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who chairs a NASA oversight committee, and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, urged the audience of NASA workers to fend off a space challenge from China by either accelerating work on the Crew Exploration Vehicle or delaying the shuttle’s retirement.
“I think we can do a little of both and close that gap,” said DeLay, whose work on the House Appropriations Committee that funds NASA will come to an end when he leaves the House in late May or early June.
John Young and Bob Crippen weighed in as well:
“I didn’t think much of that gap between Apollo and the shuttle,” Young said.
“Build it small, build it reliable, build it cheap, build it fast.”
Crippen agreed.
“I don’t think the United States wants to be a second-rate country. The space program is an excellent mechanism ensuring we don’t become that.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 12 at 7:07 am ET Louis Friedman, executive director of The Planetary Society, published an essay on the TPS web site earlier this week condemning NASA plans to curtail some of its planned long-term robotic exploration of Mars. Citing a front-page article in last week’s edition of Space News, Friedman wrote, “NASA has not only eliminated work on a sample return from Mars, but now plans no more rovers after 2009. All that remains are one small lander and a communications orbiter.”
Well, that’s not entirely accurate. After the Mars Science Lab (MSL) rover mission in 2009, there is a Mars Scout-class mission (which could be, but does not necessarily have to be, a lander) in 2011 and a telecom orbiter—presumably similar to one planned for 2009 but cancelled last year—for 2013. However, there are still tentative plans for another rover mission, the Astrobiology Field Laboratory, circa 2016. Given the RTG-powered MSL should be able to operate on the Martian surface for several years, assuming it makes it there successfully (look at the track record of Spirit and Opportunity), it suggests that the fate of Mars exploration isn’t nearly as dire as Friedman suggests.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 11 at 5:56 am ET Yesterday’s announcement that NASA will fly an impactor probe to the Moon as a secondary payload on the rocket that will launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was, in some respects, allegorical: NASA’s long-term lunar exploration plans also appear to be on a collision course with technical and budgetary realities. NasaSpaceFlight.com reports that both the CEV and the LSAM lunar lander are now too heavy to carry out the mission architecture in the original ESAS study. NASA is reportedly either looking at descoping the LSAM into something that closely resembled (at least in performance) the original Apollo lunar lander, or a radical new architecture that involves parking the CEV at the Earth-Moon L2 point rather than in lunar orbit. On top of that are reports that the cost of the Crew Launch Vehicle, the SRB-derived launcher for the CEV, is, well, skyrocketing: US Space News reported that the cost to develop the CLV first stage may increase $800 million to $2.1 billion, as a result of going to a five-segment SRB.
These changes are certainly going to add to NASA’s near-term budget squeeze, and even raise questions about the exploration program in general. As NASA deputy administrator Shana Dale said last week at the National Space Symposium:
We find ourselves at a critical juncture in the nation’s
space program. We – and when I say “we” I’m not just
talking about NASA, I’m talking about every community
represented in this room and other communities we have
yet to tap into – “We” need to lay a strong and enduring
foundation for the Vision for Space Exploration, through
demonstrable progress with programs and hardware and
through effective delivery of our message to the American
public and to citizens of other nations. Developing the
strategic message is critical to building broad-based
understanding and support and it is something I will be
actively engaged in, with the help of all offices and
Centers within NASA and the help of many of you here
today. We have two years to set this solid foundation so
that the Vision can endure through future Administrations
and Congresses.
Right now, that foundation appears a little less solid than might be desired.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 10 at 6:27 am ET A few articles of note from this week’s issue of The Space Review:
- I recap a lot of the hubbub regarding a space race with China, and the comments made last week by Chinese space official Luo Ge in Washington. In particular, I note that while building up a space race with China could yield some benefits in the near term in the form of additional funding for NASA, it could have some adverse long-term events should the race actually not materialize, which is the most likely outcome given China’s announced plans and capabilities.
- Chris Carberry provides a primer on how space advocates can effectively lobby Congress in support of space policy. Noting how many people decline to get involved, he writes, “Interestingly, the refusal to take part in political outreach is often not so much about hating politics as it is about fearing politics.” He goes through the various options, from writing letters to meeting with staffers.
- Wayne Eleazer offers a stinging critique of past efforts by the federal government, particularly the Air Force, to commercialize launch services, as perhaps best exemplified with the EELV program. He cites a lack of cost savings, as well as some reliability problems, as the primary reasons that the Air Force is going back to a model of more government oversight.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 10 at 6:11 am ET Wednesday marks the 25th anniversary of the launch of Columbia on STS-1, the first shuttle mission. In recognition of that milestone, Congress passed late last week a resolution congratulating NASA for the anniversary. The resolution, H.Con.Res 366, also honors the crew of STS-1, John Young and Robert Crippen, and “commends the men and women of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and all those supporting America’s space program for their accomplishments and their role in inspiring the American people.” The resolution was approved by the House on a 422-0 vote on Thursday, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on Friday.
The House Science Committee issued a press release about the passage of the resolution, but since it’s not yet available on the committee’s web site, I’ve included it below after the jump.
Continue reading Congress recognizes 25th anniversary of first shuttle flight
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 10 at 5:59 am ET Presidential science advisor John Marburger appeared before the science, state, justice, and commerce subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee last week to discuss the proposed overall FY2007 science and technology budget. According to a summary of the hearing provided by the American Institute of Physics, the topic of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and NASA’s exclusion from it came up:
When [Rep. Bud] Cramer asked why NASA was not included in the ACI, Marburger replied that historically NASA funding has been “much closer to what it needs.” Additionally, while NASA funding enables important scientific discoveries, they are “not as impactful on competitiveness.”
The summary goes on to state that Rep. Dave Weldon “somewhat disputed Marburger’s characterization of NASA’s research, pointing out that many children identify human space flight as a motivator for their interest in science.” Nevertheless, there doesn’t appear to be any sign that ACI will be expanded to include NASA, thus qualifying the agency for larger budget increases.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 7 at 6:54 am ET The University of California Berkeley issued a press release this week where several of the university’s scientists argued that planned cutbacks in NASA’s science budget would be detrimental not only to their research programs, but to the nation in general. One scientist quoted in the release, Robert Lin, tried to make it clear he wasn’t trying to raise the old argument of robotic versus human spaceflight. “I’m actually a supporter of manned space,” he said. “I think it’s something the country should do. But I’m concerned about the balance between science and manned exploration… I think the problem from our point of view is not so much going with manned exploration, but trying to keep a reasonable balance between the two sides.”
Exoplanet hunter Geoff Marcy, though, is a little more pessimistic, believing the space agency “has backed away from the two most philosophically compelling questions to face modern physical science: ‘What is the history and destiny of the universe?’ and ‘Are we alone?'”
Unfortunately, the UC Berkeley press office should have subjected their release to peer review before publication. At one point, talking about the shuttle program, the release claims, “No shuttles have been launched since the Columbia disintegrated while returning to Earth in February 2003, killing all seven astronauts aboard.” Uh, STS-114? Remember that shuttle mission from last summer? Later, talking about the indefinitely-delayed Terrestrial Planet Finder mission, the release states that “The Caltech-led TPF was scheduled for launch between 2012 and 2015.” That’s highly optimistic, to say the least, even for the less-ambitious TPF-C mission, given that JWST, already well underway, is not going to launch until 2013. The more complex interferometer mission would not fly until well after 2015, even in the most optimistic budget scenarios.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 7 at 6:37 am ET Checking in on Mr. Lasker
You might recall a little over a month ago John Lasker wrote an article for Wired News about space weaponization. That generated a lot of controversy for its skewed portrayal of ProSpace, the grassroots space lobbying group, prompting a strong rebuttal from ProSpace and an eventual correction from Wired News, although not after the online publication lost some credibility.
Mr. Lasker is back, writing another article on space weaponization for the “Inter Press Service” and published on Antiwar.com. The article starts out okay, but later veers off in odd directions familiar to those who read the Wired News account: that the Air Force and NASA “collaborated to monitor and plant moles within an international space-peace activist group” and a mad rush to the Moon by the US, Russia, and China (which “has a manned moon mission in the works for the next decade”, Lasker claims) to seize helium-3:
The advent of a well-guarded moon base that’s mining for the ultimate energy source may sound laughable to some, [Bruce] Gagnon concedes. “[But] then why is Halliburton building a drill for Mars?” he asks.
Actually, Gagnon’s right: the whole concept, as Lasker presents it, is laughable.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 6 at 7:14 pm ET The House Appropriations Committee’s Science, State, Justice, and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing Thursday afternoon to take testimony from members of Congress. (Or, at least, that’s the gist from a barebones hearing description on the committee’s web site.) One of those providing testimony was House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert. In his opening statement, he called for full funding of NASA’s proposed FY07 budget, as well as other science-related agencies and the new American Competitiveness Initiative.
“If you can find any additional funds,” he requested, he had a list of programs that he felt could use the money. The top two were programs at NSF and NIST, but the next two were at NASA:
A close third as a priority is the Science Mission Directorate at NASA. The FY07 budget provides sharply reduced funding for science compared to earlier projections. This will sideline important scientific work that not only would increase human knowledge, but that would require the development of technology that could promote U.S. security and competitiveness. Following the recommendations of the scientific community, we urge you, at a minimum, to restore funding for the Research and Analysis programs in the Directorate and to permit additional smaller missions to be launched. Those items are more of a priority than any flagship science mission.
A fourth priority is the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at NASA. I share your support for NASA’s aeronautics programs. While NASA is revamping its aeronautics programs a major increase in funding may not be necessary. But the U.S. must maintain its leadership in aerospace and the projected cuts over the next five years are too severe.
On the other hand, Boehlert felt that, unlike some members of the appropriations subcommittee, the CEV did not need additional money to accelerate its development:
Finally, let me make clear that I do not think it is a priority to add funding above the request to the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) program at NASA. I support the President’s Vision for Space Exploration, but I do not see any great advantage to be gained from launching the CEV in 2012 rather than 2014. Too many other items are of
greater concern.
No one has described any actual threat posed by the additional two-year gap – even taking into account Chinese space efforts – and the U.S. should be able to maintain an adequate aerospace workforce as long as it is clear that work on the CEV is proceeding according to schedule. Our priorities should not be skewed by emotional appeals.
[Emphasis above in original.] One wonders what reaction Boehlert got from the committee, if any, about his China comment, given all the hand-wringing they were performing a week ago about a space race between the US and China.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 April 6 at 6:05 am ET Congressman Tom DeLay’s resignation announcement came at the same time than many of the movers and shakers in the space community were in Colorado Springs for the Space Foundation’s annual National Space Symposium. According to a SPACE.com article, those in attendance heaped praise on DeLay, even those from the other side of the aisle. Take this comment from Rep. Mark Udall, the ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee: “Tom DeLay, in whatever areas you might have a disagreement with him, was very active in [space]. We saw that in the NASA authorization process… the seniority and the clout he has will not be easily replaced.” NASA administrator, who was caught in a minor controversy last week when he appeared to endorse DeLay’s reelection effort, noted in a brief statement that “I very much appreciate the support NASA has receive from Congressman DeLay and wish him well in the future.”
Even though DeLay will be leaving Congress before the FY07 budget is completed (or even started in earnest), Udall believes that DeLay’s influence will linger: “He still has influence, he still has friends, and he is still, I believe, committed to the space program. There will be sentiments in the House to do the right thing by Mr. DeLay.”
|
|
