By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 29 at 6:23 am ET Monday’s edition of Aerospace Daily features an article with an ominous headline: “DOD Nears Decision On Fate Of SBIRS-High”. Is the missile early warning satellite program, which has faced its share of problems like many other Pentagon satellite efforts, facing a real threat of cancellation? Probably not. Its cost overruns have triggered a Nunn-McCurdy review where cancellation is one option that must be considered. The Pentagon is expected to make a decision on SBIRS-High by December 13, but the article notes it is more likely that the program will be descoped in some manner, in large part because SBIRS-High is too far along to scrap it and start over.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 28 at 7:13 am ET In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman examines the NPOESS weather satellite system, a program whose problems have been discussed here recently. Dinerman makes a good point in that much of NPOESS’ woes can be traced to the program’s technologies, which are far ahead of previous systems. As he puts it, “Why do so many US government technology development efforts aim at revolutionary improvements in capability, instead of settling for incremental progress?” It can explain not only the problems facing other large space programs, but also the concerns raised by Congress about future systems, like TSAT and Space Based Radar.
Meanwhile, this week’s issue of Aviation Week reports that the DOD is facing a “perfect storm” caused by the convergence of “operational, budgetary, manpower and transformation crises” that could threaten any number of procurement efforts. The article primarily focuses on aviation, not space, programs, but it’s clear that space is weighing on the minds of many planners at the Pentagon. In particular, the article notes how those working on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) have seen their effort shifted to “a lightweight budget drill” seeking minor savings that end up being swamped by cost overruns. “All the people that take QDR seriously as a policy exercise spend 3-4 months scraping together a couple of hundred million dollars in savings from here and there in order to buy the new policy initiatives,” one source told the magazine. “Then, in comes a bill for a $1.3-billion fix on a satellite program.”
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 25 at 8:49 am ET In the US it’s not unheard of for former astronauts to become politicians, with John Glenn the best-known but not only example. A former Canadian astronaut appears set to follow in their footsteps: the Globe and Mail reports that Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space and president of the Canadian Space Agency, is expected to be the Liberal Party candidate for a seat in the House of Commons. Garneau is expected to run in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, a Quebec riding west of Montreal on the Ontario border. The riding had previously been in Liberal hands until the last election in 2004, when Bloc Quebecois won the seat. While Garneau has not formally announced his candidacy, it will likely have to come soon: the CBC reports that a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons is scheduled for Monday. If it passes an election would take place in mid-January.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 24 at 8:53 am ET That’s what some people might be experiencing even before digging into the turkey and stuffing today, after reading a front-page article (above the fold) in today’s Washington Post about the budget problems facing NASA. (Thanks to the wonders of syndication, this article also appeared in a number of other newspapers today, and will likely be in still more in the days to come.) While much of the content of the story rests on several unnamed sources, the problem at the core of the article is common knowledge to most readers: there is not enough money in the projected NASA budgets over the next several years to both fly all 19 planned shuttle missions (18 to ISS and one to Hubble) and accelerate development of the CEV so it’s ready to enter service in 2012. Earlier this month NASA administrator Michael Griffin himself admitted to Congress that there is a $3-5 billion gap, while others pin the shortfall to be as much as $6 billion.
The article does do a good job outlining the four possible scenarios to deal with this problem:
- Shut down the shuttle program now (but deal with serious foreign policy repercussions that would make it unlikely Europe, Japan, or others would cooperate with NASA on the VSE);
- Fly all the shuttle missions and push the CEV introduction date back to 2014 (realizing that whatever date you pick now for starting CEV operations, it will slip; in addition, if there is no commercial ISS access by 2012 NASA would not be able to purchase Russian flight services under the recently-amended INA);
- Cut back the shuttle program to “serial processing” and fly only about 10 shuttle missions through 2010 (although that may not save much money, and with only that many flights “what kind of a space station do you get out of that?” one source told the Post);
- Spend the additional money needed to fly all the shuttle flights and accelerate CEV development.
The article indicated that the fourth option is “the one probably favored by Congress”, but that could be a hard sell if Congress gets into a belt-tightening mood next year.
In a related story, SpaceRef published a copy of a letter from the Coalition of Space Exploration to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card asking that the administration’s request of $16.962 billion for NASA in the FY07 budget request, to be released early next year. That was the amount proposed by the administration itself for 2007 in its FY06 budget request and, according to one source, is indeed what the administration is planning to put in for NASA in the FY07 budget. However, that falls well short of the additional funding needed to do shuttle and CEV.
Update: There does appear to be a fifth option for the budget minded…
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 23 at 7:26 am ET It’s official: the President signed into law yesterday both HR 2862, the appropriations bill that includes NASA, and S.1713, the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005, which allows NASA to purchase ISS hardware and services from Russia.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 21 at 12:46 pm ET Space News reports in its latest edition (in an article freely available at SPACE.com) that NASA has decided to deal with the cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) program by delaying the mission rather than cutting it. JWST is now set for launch in 2013, two years later than previously planned. It has been clear for months that JWST was facing some serious problems, with a cost overrun reported this year on the order of $1 billion. Delaying the mission doesn’t get rid of the overrun, but stretches the costs out over a longer period, an option more palatable than removing instruments or downsizing the telescope itself, options the astronomical community strongly opposed. However, the delay will have an effect on other programs, including the already-delayed Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). Also with noting: the prime contractor for JWST is Northrop Grumman, which is also prime on NPOESS.
NASA also still has to work out launch arrangements for JWST; the agency hopes to save money by getting a “free” launch on an Ariane 5 in exchange for observing time on JWST. The article states that the State Department has yet to sign off on an agreement to allow NASA to formally negotiate with ESA. There had been earlier hints that Lockheed and/or Boeing had been trying to convince NASA and the administration to purchase a domestic launch, although that would be a tough sell given the program’s fiscal problems.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 21 at 7:51 am ET Are Republicans for space exploration and Democrats against it? It sounds overly simplistic, given that NASA has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. In an article in The Space Review, though, Jeff Brooks offers at least some anecdotal evidence that many Democrats, at least at the grassroots level, oppose the Vision for Space Exploration, in large part simply because it was proposed by President Bush. He argues that space exploration in general fits with the progressive roots of the party, given the potential for clean energy and unlimited resources from space. As he writes, “The space program can provide the solutions to many of the problems Democrats care about, while the pursuit of egalitarianism, international cooperation, excellence in education and other Democratic issues can contribute to a successful space program.” However, what Brooks doesn’t say is that support for that agenda doesn’t necessarily translate into support for the Vision for Space Exploration as outlined by Bush nearly two years ago: ideas like the utilization of space resources for the benefit of Earth are never explicitly mentioned as goals of the program.
Meanwhile, just because the Vision was proposed by a Republican President and funded by a Republican-led Congress doesn’t mean that all conservatives support the effort. Human Events reports that the Cato Institute once again has NASA on the chopping block. In a new book, Downsizing The Federal Government, Cato Institute Director of Tax Policy Chris Edwards has deemed NASA “obsolete”. Why? “We can’t afford it,” he told Human Events, adding that “the private sector is exploring space travel of its own.” This is the same old argument that Cato has been pushing for some time, with little effect to date.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 18 at 7:46 am ET Compared to the heated debate last year about how much money NASA should get, this year NASA’s budget sailed through with relatively little public debate, at least about the top-level figures. As such, there has been little public reaction now that the bill has been passed. Some politicians have spoken, such as Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), who told the La Cañada (Calif.) Daily Sun that the budget “is critical to our efforts to continue robust space exploration”, then goes to heap praise on JPL: “With missions like the Mars Rovers, JPL has continued to demonstrate that it is a pioneer in NASA’s program of space science and exploration. This funding will allow JPL to build on its track record of success by ensuring that current and future missions remain on schedule.” (Well, there is that delay with the Dawn mission, and the cancellation earlier this year of the Mars Telecom Orbiter.)
While that viewpoint might seem a little parochial, it’s nothing compared to other news reports about the NASA budget, which have pointed out funding for items like UAV infrastructure upgrades at Wallops, a $1.5-million “Digital Discovery Lab” educational center, a “space center” at a New Jersey college, and another “space and science center” at a California college. These are all, of course, earmarks added by Congress to the budget, to the potential detriment of other NASA programs.It gives you an idea of what people think as the really important parts of the budget…
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 17 at 12:49 pm ET I did not get a chance to watch yesterday’s House Science Committee hearing on the troubled NPOESS satellite program, but it was pretty clear from both the post-hearing press releases by the full committee and the Democratic leadership that no one is very pleased about the cost overruns and schedule delays this program has encountered. In particular, members complained that NOAA “has withheld information in the past” about the program, a problem NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher promised to rectify. As David Powner of the GAO said at the hearing, “In summary, NPOESS is a program in crisis.” It sounds a bit melodramatic, but when a program that was once forecast to cost $6.5 billion is now expected by the GAO to reach $9.7 billion, “crisis” may not be too strong of a word.
Aerospace Daily reports today that officials from NOAA, NASA, and the Air Force plan to meet November 22 to “discuss options for proceeding” with NPOESS. Those options weren’t discussed, although Lautenbacher said simply spending more money in the short term might not solve the problem. A final decision on the future of the program is expected in December.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 November 16 at 7:14 pm ET The Senate passed the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations conference report earlier today on a 94-5 vote, following up on a 397-19 vote by the House last week. NASA administrator Michael Griffin issued a press release after the Senate passed the bill, offering “my sincere thanks to the House and Senate for endorsing and funding, for the second straight year, our activities to implement America’s Vision for Space Exploration.” Griffin also explicitly noted that the NASA budget comprises only 0.7% of the overall federal budget—perhaps to preempt anyone who might complain about the size of NASA’s appropriation.
|
|
