By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 30 at 6:18 am ET Some updates about the status of various state space initiatives:
Florida: Governor Jeb Bush’s proposal to spend $55 million in the next budget on space initiatives, including efforts to lure CEV work to the state and planning for a new commercial spaceport, have met with a mixed reaction from local newspaper editorial boards. The Orlando Sentinel says that the plan “deserves support”, citing concerns about the loss of thousands of jobs once the shuttle is retired. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel also declares its support, calling the initiative “a giant step to bolster its position in space exploration”. (Quibble: while the editorial says that New Mexico is spending $225 million on its “space program”, the state itself only plans to contribute about $135 million, with the rest coming from local and federal sources.) However, the Naples Daily News expresses its skepticism, noting that a $300-million effort by the state to lure the Scripps Research Institute has foundered, in part because of concerns from neighbors of the planned biomedical center. “[I]f a nice, quiet place such as Scripps has NIMBY trouble, what will an earth-rattling spaceport encounter?”
New Mexico: Governor Bill Richardson reiterated his support for his state’s planned spaceport on Thursday. The Reuters article notes that there is some opposition from state legislators, who either believe that underused or decommissioned Air Force bases might be better choices than the greenfield site in southern New Mexico, or that the money should not be spent on the project at all. Richardson said that he believes that more legislators will come around because of the economic benefits the spaceport will create, including luring space companies to the state. [Disclosure: my employer performed a study of the potential economic impact of the spaceport for the State of New Mexico Economic Development Department; that study estimated the maximum possible impact of the spaceport.]
Wisconsin: The proposal for Spaceport Sheboygan attracted the attention of the Chicago Tribune on Sunday. If you get past the obligatory gee-whiz novelty of a spaceport in Wisconsin, you’ll read that the proposal has the backing of “plenty” of area politicians as well as former astronaut James Lovell. The article adds that the “Federal Aviation Administration has already granted Sheboygan authorization for suborbital flights”, but this is presumably for the low-level sounding rockets launched from Sheboygan by student groups; the site is still years away from an FAA/AST spaceport license.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 29 at 9:50 am ET In just over a week the Bush Administration will unveil its proposed FY2007 budget, and as the Washington Post reports, that budget may not offer as much money for NASA as what Congress anticipated or authorized. There isn’t too many additional information in the article about what the administration is planning for NASA, compared to earlier reports; most of the article focuses on how Congress gradually moved over the last two years to support the Vision for Space Exploration after some initial reservations, culminating late last year with the passage of the NASA authorization bill that includes an explicit endorsement of the VSE.
There are, though, a few notable details in the article, including word from sources that the administration has abandoned an earlier proposal by OMB to cut the number of remaining shuttle flights in half, as well as slipping the introduction of the CEV from 2012 back to 2014, the original deadline when the VSE was introduced. The latter move would reintroduce a lengthy gap in US government manned space access that some members of Congress have railed against, sometimes citing “national security” concerns (although whether such a gap is that big an issue is subject to debate). If the CEV is delayed, expect some in Congress to either attempt to reverse that decision or perhaps seek to extend the shuttle’s lifetime beyond 2010. Either move would likely require more money for the space agency.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 27 at 7:12 am ET That’s the pledge of two Republican senators, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona, who have pledged to force their Senate colleagues to vote on every earmark in the spending bills that come up this year. Earmarks have become a significant issue for the NASA budget, with dozens of small projects inserted by members for their own districts that sap money from other programs. Earmarks in the overall federal budget have nearly quadrupled since 1994, according to a CRS study. McCain and Coburn have put themselves on a collision course with many of their colleagues, particularly in the House. For example, in his Thursday column in the Washington Post, George Will writes a paean about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has not been shy about earmarks for his district. Will’s dislike for earmarks seems checked by his admiration for DeLay, particularly when the Congressman responds to “censorious” remarks about highway earmarks by channeling Madge from the old Palmolive ads: “You just drove out on one.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 27 at 6:59 am ET At last night’s premiere of the new IMAX movie Roving Mars at the National Air and Space Museum, NASM associate director Ted Maxwell noted that a few years ago the museum decided to retire To Fly!, the first IMAX movie the museum had shown, only to face criticism from museum patrons who specifically came to the museum for that movie; the film has since been restored to the lineup. “I think tonight we’re going to see a film that, maybe 30 years from now, someone will say. ‘Why did they take that Mars movie off? We came here to the museum to see it!'”
Maxwell’s introduction was followed by a few words from NASA administrator Michael Griffin. His response to Maxwell’s comment? “If, 30 years from now, Ted, you’re still showing this movie, you’ll be showing it while there are people walking around on Mars, and they won’t be the first people.” That line generated a modest round of applause, and even a “woo-hoo!” from one audience member. Later, he added, “I, for one, cannot wait until NASA sets up a permanent exploratory base on Mars. But, preceding such an event, we have many preparatory events to execute before we get there.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 26 at 6:38 am ET Thursday’s Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star features an op-ed by David Kerr, identified only as a “congressional aide”, that strongly endorses privatization of space exploration. After drawing analogies to the airmail efforts of the 1920s, Kerr cites SpaceShipOne as an example of the ingenuity and capabilities of smaller aerospace companies and then writes:
That’s why America’s manned spaceflight program, rather than pursuing an exclusive investment in heavy-duty, heavy-lift vehicles, made ever so conveniently by large and well-known contractors, needs to start pursuing more innovative alternatives, ones that ask this new and emerging sector of the aerospace industry: How would they propose putting people and material into space? And then, giving them the chance to try it.
At the very least, NASA needs to develop a vision of the future that’s not locked in the glories of its past and most of all, not developed exclusively with a big-space, big-government mentality. For one thing, as we face some of the worst deficits in the past 20 years, the days of the 1960s-style space program, with unlimited budgets are long past. Anything from this point on is going to be spaceflight on a fiscal diet.
Of course, NASA is taking steps in that direction, with COTS and Centennial Challenges (which Kerr does not explicitly mention), although likely not with the magnitude that he desires. The problem, as many critics would note, is that the alt.space/NewSpace community has yet to demonstrate many capabilities along the lines of “putting people and material into space”. That doesn’t mean that they can’t, only that it makes it harder for people like Kerr to make their case to NASA or Congress.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 26 at 6:18 am ET The front-page article in this week’s issue of Space News (not available online) summarizes some technical changes NASA has made to the Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle. Most of those changes have been publicized elsewhere, including a decision to drop the requirement for a methane/LOX engine for the CEV and lunar module ascent module. NASA has also elected to go with a five-segment SRB for the CLV and use a J-2S engine, rather than a modified SSME, for the upper stage. (The heavy-lift launcher will also use five-segment SRBs and J-2S engines for its upper stage.) NASA has also shrunk the CEV somewhat to save weight, decreasing its diameter from 5.5 to 5 meters. (That decision has, according to one source, put the two teams competing for the CEV contract into “total chaos”.)
These decision, particularly the five-segment SRB and J-2S changes, have ramifications for the NASA budget. As the Space News article notes, that propulsion combination “entailed more up-front expense and technical risks, but would be cheaper over the long-run.” That’s why NASA originally went with a four-segment SRB and modified SSME. NASA claims that the amount of technical risk remains the same since the agency has dropped the methane engine requirement, and the five-segment SRB and J-2S are not wholly untried technologies. NASA officials declined to comment on the budget implications of the change in advance of the release of the President’s FY07 budget proposal, but the last thing NASA needs right now—as it grapples with a shuttle funding shortfall of several billion dollars—is additional near-term expense for its cornerstone exploration programs, even if those decisions promise savings over time. Will Congress be willing to open its pocketbook a little wider in such an environment if NASA needs it?
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 25 at 5:37 am ET While Scott Hubbard’s departure from the top job at NASA’s Ames Research Center wasn’t a surprise—rumors that he was resigning, or being pushed out, dated back over a month—what is interesting is the support he had among members of Congress. The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that four members of Congress from the Silicon Valley area—Reps. Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda, Tom Lantos, and Zoe Lofgren, all Democrats—sent a letter to Mike Griffin expressing their “deepest concern” about losing Hubbard:
“Since assuming the directorship of Ames Research Center, (Hubbard) has proven time and again to be an invaluable public servant, guiding Ames through difficult times and inspiring confidence in everyone around him,” they wrote. “His rumored removal would send exactly the wrong signal to Ames’ dedicated workforce.
“Furthermore,” the letter continued, “among industry and academic circles, it will signal a lack of confidence in the innovative partnerships director Hubbard has forged and jeopardize their continued success.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 24 at 6:20 am ET That was the takeaway message from a town hall meeting at the NASA Langley Research Center where three members of Congress answered questions from employees about the upcoming NASA budget process, according to the local newspapers the Daily Press and the Virginian-Pilot. That “problem” is funding for aeronautics, which was threatened with significant cuts in last year’s budget proposal and is expected to see the budget knife again in the 2007 proposal. The Daily Press reports that aeronautics will get a 14 percent cut in the 2007 budget proposal; however, the same report also says that the overall budget will rise to $17.9 billion, contrary to earlier reports that NASA would see a much smaller increase, if any. While there’s no immediate danger of layoffs at Langley or other NASA centers—such measures are prohibited until March 2007 under the NASA authorization bill signed into law last month—it still won’t be easy to fund Langley’s aeronautics programs. “This last budget, we were cutting food stamps for the working poor. Medicaid, foster care, student loans were all getting cut,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA). “It’s hard to fund long-term research in an atmosphere like that.” Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) on funding NASA’s space exploration programs: “I have nothing against going into space, but I have a real problem with spending all of the millions and billions we need to go to Mars and not taking care of what we need to spend here.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 24 at 6:03 am ET Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space, lost his bid yesterday to win a seat in the House of Commons. Garneau, the Liberal candidate in the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, west of Montreal, lost to incumbent Bloc Québécois candidate Meili Faille. Garneau finished second in the five-person race, well behind Faille. Garneau’s loss echoed that experienced by Liberals as a whole, who were pushed out of power nationally by the Conservatives. As for Garneau? The former head of the Canadian Space Agency is looking for work. “I essentially had to quit my job at the Canadian Space Agency,” he told the CBC (via the Globe and Mail) “To put it bluntly, I’m unemployed right now and will be looking for a job obviously because I still have a young family.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 January 23 at 7:15 am ET Who knew that state space policies would become such a hot topic? Monday’s Los Angeles Times takes a look at Florida’s new plan to increase support of its space industry (as discussed here last week). The article primarily focuses on Florida’s efforts, and only late in the article does it bring up California’s activities—in part because there is very little going on at the state level there. “We have the governors of Colorado, Florida and New Mexico blowing into California and meeting with executives of medium-sized space-related businesses and doing everything they can to get them to move,” said Eric Daniels of the California Space Authority. “That’s the kind of focus we don’t have in California.”
The Las Cruces (N.M.) Sun-News suggests that efforts to get state funding for a spaceport in New Mexico have hit a roadblock: a bid to get a vote on a non-binding “intent of the Senate” resolution in favor of the spaceport failed last week because of opposition from two Republican state senators, who said it was premature to vote on such a measure at the time. The Sun-News suggests that this development “was a sign that Richardson won’t have an easy time selling the spaceport.” However, one person who was at there last week said privately that the article overplayed the level of opposition, and that there appeared to be support for the measure from a majority of state senators.
And finally, the latest on Spaceport Sheboygan in Wisconsin. A columnist in Friday’s issue of The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin, rips into the idea of converting a vacant lot in near Lake Michigan in downtown Sheboygan into a spaceport. “The genesis of Battlestar Sheboygan apparently was that somebody noticed a large vacant lot in downtown Sheboygan near Lake Michigan. A wide open area right next to a large body of water! If that doesn’t immediately make you think of Cape Canaveral, what does?” asks Joel McNally. Not that he’s too keen on spaceflight in general: “Children don’t even watch rocket launches on television any more. Their video games are a lot more exciting.”
|
|
