By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 27 at 7:09 am ET A couple of articles in this week’s issue of The Space Review focus on some cutting-edge issues in military space policy. Matthew Hoey takes an extensive look at the latest developments in space technology, including small satellites and responsive launch, and wonders if this is the first step towards anti-satellite weapons and other space weaponry. Hoey believes that would be an unsettling development: “Many people believe that a deployed anti-satellite capability and an ability to attack targets on or near the Earth’s surface from space would create a global climate of insecurity both by enhancing current risks and by creating new problems.” However, given the reliance of the US military on space systems, and the growing capabilities of other countries in space technologies, including those discussed in Hoey’s article, there has been strong motivation in some quarters for at least a “defensive counterspace” capability to defend space assets. How realistic such capabilities are in the near to medium term, and how likely such systems could be developed into offensive systems, is a subject of considerable debate.
Meanwhile, Taylor Dinerman argues that the US would be best served by transferring most space systems into a separate “US Space Force”, a new military service. Such a service “will insure that when the Joint Chiefs and their civilian superiors meet to plan an operation, someone with four stars will be there to make sure that the capabilities and limitations of US and enemy space forces are taken into account.” This has come up from time to time, but there have been few champions of such a move either in the Pentagon on in Congress, particularly after Sen. Bob Smith, the biggest proponent of a separate space force, left the Senate after the 2002 election. Also unclear is how such a move would solve the severe procurement problems Air Force space programs have suffered in recent years, which, as Wayne Eleazer argued in a TSR article last week, have deep roots.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 27 at 6:51 am ET After viewing this Florida Today editorial cartoon, it’s clear that people in Florida’s Space Coast region don’t feel like they’re getting much support from the state government, including governor Jeb Bush, to help the state’s space industry compared to biotech ventures. However, given that the state legislature is starting to take up tax incentives designed to help space companies, one wonders if this view is a bit premature.
Update: The Orlando Sentinel weighs in on the topic: in an editorial Monday, while congratulating the state for its work to date, argues that the legislature should spend more on space industry incentives. “With a projected $3 billion in additional sales-tax revenues, the state can afford it.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 24 at 1:06 pm ET It looks like the administration and Department of Commerce are finally serious about reviving the Office of Space Commercialization, which has been in stasis the last couple of years. Early this month the DoC named Ed Morris, formerly of Orbital Sciences Corporation, as the office’s new director, and the office now has issued a job posting for three program analysts. What initiatives the office plans to undertake haven’t been announced, but I’ve heard indications that there may be more of a focus on existing service industries—such as communications, remote sensing, and navigation—than on some of the more emerging fields, like space tourism and other suborbital space applications. If that’s the case, I’d argue that the emphasis be reversed: smaller, entrepreneurial ventures might benefit more from the office’s promotional efforts than larger established companies, which can afford (and do) a lot more on their own—especially if the office’s budget is relatively small, as appears to be the case at least for FY06.
What, if anything, do you think the office should do to help established or emerging space businesses in the US? (Note that I have no plans to work in the office myself, so I’m not trolling for ideas; I just want to throw this out there for debate.)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 24 at 6:52 am ET At the end of a 90-minute panel discussion last night in Washington about international perspectives on space exploration, organized by Women in Aerospace, moderator Ian Pryke asked the panelists—representing China, the German space agency DLR, ESA, and JAXA—how their countries had reacted to the Vision for Space Exploration, both within their space communities and their nations in general. Some responses:
- Mengxing Sun, First Secretary for Science and Technology at the Chinese Embassy, said the VSE has not had any effect on his country’s space program. “My country… will carry out its space program as planned.”
- Juergen Drescher, head of DLR’s Washington office, said that the “common idea [of the VSE] was understood” in Germany when it was announced, and see it as a “promoting tool for the world space community.” However, “we had some concerns about what are the rules of the game, and how do we proceed.” A particular concern has Europe’s big investment in the ISS, and explaining to politicians the shift in priorities from the ISS. “For this reason it’s very necessary to make a clear road map, what we are doing in the near future… and what can we do in a long-term perspective.”
- Hitoshi Tsuruma, Deputy Director of JAXA’s Washington office, said the Japanese people were excited in general by the VSE concept, but their near-term concern is the ISS. “The first thing of the exploration vision is the completion of the ISS,” he said. Many people in JAXA and academia are concerned about making the most of their investment in the ISS.
- Frederic Nordlund, head of ESA’s Washington office, noted that things have changed considerably since international partners were first invited to join NASA’s space station program back in the mid-1980s. “Those agencies have grown in certain ways” and have much greater capabilities. Like his German and Japanese colleagues, “ISS is step one.” A broader issue, he said, is the need “to work on the justification of exploration, which will be based on different values” for different countries. “If you use the wording ‘back to the Moon’ in Europe, it’s a no go. No one will give a single euro to invest in these activities because it’s ‘back to the Moon’… Now we have to convince the public that there are European values and interests attached to human space activities on the Moon.” He said there needs to be a “general consensus” on the justification for the VSE, and then each nation can build up the case “based on our own values”.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 23 at 6:42 am ET The House Science Committee is planning a hearing of the full committee on Thursday, March 2, at 10 am to discuss “NASA Science Mission Directorate: Impacts of the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal”. The witnesses scheduled to appear are:
- Dr. Mary Cleave, Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NASA);
- Dr. Fran Bagenal, Member, National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Decadal Survey for Heliophysics (Sun-Earth Connections), The Sun to the Earth and Beyond, and Professor, Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder;
- Dr. Wes Huntress, Member, NAS Decadal Survey for Solar System Exploration, New Frontiers in the Solar System, and Director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington;
- Dr. Berrien Moore, Co-Chairman, NAS Decadal Survey for Earth Sciences, Earth Observations from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future, and Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire; and
- Dr. Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., Co-Chairman, NAS Decadal Survey for Astrophysics, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium. Dr. Taylor is also is a Nobel Laureate and Distinguished Professor of Physics, Princeton University.
To say this should prove to be an interesting hearing is probably at least a mild understatement.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 23 at 6:34 am ET The crew of the STS-114 shuttle mission paid a visit to the White House Wednesday, getting their picture taken with President Bush in the Oval Office. Don’t worry if you didn’t hear about it: NASA didn’t publicize the event in advance, issuing a brief press release late yesterday after the event. Likewise, the only evidence on the White House web site of the visit is a single photo of the crew with the president and administrator Mike Griffin, who is not even acknowledged in the photo caption. (The same photo, with a more detailed caption, is also on NASA’s web site.) There’s no report of what, if anything, the president said to the astronauts or Griffin.
This is not the first time the administration and/or NASA has played down a White House visit: in July 2004 the crew of Apollo 11 visited the White House to mark the 35th anniversary of their historic mission, but made no public appearances other than participating in an online chat. This, despite concerns at the time about Congressional and public acceptance of the Vision for Space Exploration.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 23 at 6:19 am ET Overlooked in last week’s discussion of the NASA budget was a statement by The Planetary Society on its solution to the agency’s budget constraints. The society’s solution boils down to a single statement: end the shuttle program now. Simple, yes, but fraught with problems. What about domestic politics? “Starting other programs earlier, such as the Mars-related heavy lift launch development can mitigate economic dislocations.” And the international implications? “Instead of the partners being asked to wring their hands and deplore American attitudes, let’s ask them to join with us to develop international solutions and programs to advance our human space-flight ambitions, as well as their own.”
There is, of course, a grain of truth to all this: the shuttle program, and to a large extent the station program as well, constitute a pair of millstones around the neck of NASA: they are the programs that are keeping NASA from spending more on science and exploration programs. Yet to think one can simply wave a magic wand and have the shuttle program go away is a bit naive. In addition to entrenched political and business interests, there are issues like workforce retention and infrastructure that would have to be addressed by any plan to shut down the shuttle program early. Would international partners be willing to spend significant additional money to find alternate means to launch and assemble their station components—assuming such alternatives are technically feasible? Or is the US willing to go it alone on the exploration plan, at perhaps a higher cost down the road?
It’s easy to see how compelling the notion is of ending the shuttle program now, rather than in 2010. What’s more difficult is to see is the path needed to carry out that notion, and just how effective it would be in the long run.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 22 at 12:56 pm ET The Florida legislature is making progress on a bill that would provide tax breaks for space industries in the state. The bill, which “sailed” through its first hearing in the state House on Tuesday according to the Tallahassee Democrat, would extend a sales tax exemption for space- and defense-related industries. The bill as it currently stands would provide sales tax exemptions for any kind of research and development, “from new medicines to toothpaste”, according to the article, but backers want to ensure that any bill at least covers space, as part of a state effort to bolster the state’s space industry as the shuttle program nears its end.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 22 at 6:51 am ET I normally don’t pay much heed to letters to the editor, but this one from a Mr. Weaver E. Gore, Jr., which appeared in Tuesday’s edition of the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, caught my eye:
I notice that the government is sending a probe to Pluto at a cost of $700 million (“Unmanned NASA craft blasts off on mission to Pluto,” Jan. 20). Divide that amount by $150,000 and one would be able to build 4,666 houses on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
The only reason that I can see why NASA keeps squandering money is to support Boeing, Pratt and Whitney, General Electric and other people who contract with the government at inflated prices.
We have wasted two probes to Mars when the robots would not work. Is that proof there is no intelligent life on Earth?
President Bush is now asking for $150 billion to further put innocent people in danger and getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hmmmm… three paragraphs complaining about a $700-million Pluto mission (take that, advocates of robotic missions), and just one sentence tacked on to the end to complain about something that costs more than 200 times as much. But everyone’s got their own priorities.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 21 at 6:33 am ET As an experiment, I’m making available here recordings from some recent space policy-related events. I’ve started with a couple of breakfast events: a speech by OSTP associate director Richard Russell on commercial space transportation policy on February 9, and a speech by Rep. Tom Feeney on China’s space program on February 16:
These are necessarily the most scintillating of speeches (and the sound quality is so-so, a limitation of my recorder), but this offers an unfiltered take on their presentations and may trigger some additional discussion. I may do this in the future depending on reader (listener?) interest, as well as bandwidth and disk space availability.
|
|
