By Jeff Foust on 2005 September 8 at 8:02 am ET While NASA still waits for the final approval from the White House of its revised exploration architecture (not expected before the middle of the month at the earliest), the agency is making some changes in how it manages its exploration activities. Space News reported late yesterday [subscription required] that NASA is decentralizing the management of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) to some degree, transferring control of specific programs to field centers. JSC will get control of the CEV program while Marshall will manage development of the proposed CEV and heavy-lift launch vehicles. ESMD will contract from six separate divisions to two, Constellations Systems (CEV, launch vehicles, ISS crew and cargo services) and Advanced Capabilities (research and technology programs, including ISS, lunar robotic missions, and Prometheus).
By Jeff Foust on 2005 September 7 at 9:13 pm ET In the Space Review article I wrote just yesterday, I noted that the disruption caused by Hurricane Katrina could further delay the next shuttle mission by at least two months, while the cost of the disaster would far exceed what Congress has appropriated for it, with potential consequences for NASA. Both of those are coming true very quickly. Writing for MSNBC, James Oberg reveals that, according to an internal NASA memo, “Launch dates before the fall of 2006 may not be credible.” (Only part of that slip, if it does come to pass, would be caused by the hurricane, since NASA still has to figure out how to stop foam shedding from the external tank.)
Meanwhile, President Bush has submitted to Congress a request for a $51.8-billion supplemental funding bill for hurricane relief. With the cost of the disaster now pegged at up to $150 billion, there will be more bills that the federal government will pave to pay in the months and years to come. Right now Congress and the President appear willing to simply fund the bills without any tax increases and/or cuts to other programs (like NASA), although there are a few in Congress who would prefer not to finance the relief and reconstruction with debt:
“Everybody in America is going to have to sacrifice to help us rebuild the Gulf Coast,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a stout fiscal conservative. “Every government program, every individual, we are all going to have to sacrifice.”
Not many, though, agree with Sen. Coburn at the moment.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 September 6 at 7:28 am ET A couple articles of note from this week’s issue of The Space Review:
- I wrote an essay about the short- and long-term impacts of Hurricane Katrina on NASA. Of particular concern (beyond the obvious, significant humanitarian relief work) is how much of an additional delay this will cause for the shuttle program, which before the storm was already the subject of scrutiny by some. Also, will Congress look to NASA’s budget to help contribute to the tens of billions of dollars needed to pay for relief and reconstruction? Only time will tell.
- Taylor Dinerman questions the current approach the Defense Department is taking to the TSAT communications satellite program. TSAT promises to provide the huge amounts of bandwidth that military planners crave, but Congress has been skeptical about the technical maturity of the effort; no surprise given the problems encountered by many other military space procurements (SBIRS, FIA, etc.). Dinerman also questions just how much bandwidth the military really needs (does it really need to transfer gigabits of data between the theater and offices in the US?)
By Jeff Foust on 2005 September 5 at 7:38 pm ET The Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday morning on NASA’s fleet of passenger aircraft, with the rather provocative title of “NASA Passenger Aircraft: Mission Required or Expensive Perk?” (Readers may recall that this hearing was scheduled for July, but pushed back until after the summer recess.) However, according to the notice on the committee’s web site, the hearing has been postponed “until further notice”. Given that the same committee has oversight on FEMA and other DHS agencies, it may have its hand full for quite a while as it deals with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; the committee now plans to have a closed session with DHS officials on hurricane relief on the 7th.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 September 2 at 8:08 am ET Earlier this week the National Space Society issued a press release (missing from their web site as of Friday morning) about the success of the recent lobbying push by its members, as well as others in the Space Exploration Alliance. Nothing unusual about that, but if you go to the web site of the Space Exploration Alliance you’ll find a document [actually hosted on the California Space Authority’s web site] dated August 31 titled “Template press release” with the comment “Please remember to replace the example quote with one from yourself or the leader of your organization.” Indeed, if you view the document, you’ll see italicized text stating “Insert quote from organizational leader”, with a sample quote from AIAA executive director Bob Dickman included. Now, such templates are certainly not out of the ordinary, but usually they’re not published in public view.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 September 1 at 1:01 pm ET Aerospace Daily reported Thursday that the House is expected to approve an amendment to the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA) that would permit NASA to continue purchasing ISS services from Russia. The change will be added to a bill yet to be identified that the House Judiciary Committee will mark up when it returns from summer recess after Labor Day. The House and Senate are also willing to add the provision to the NASA authorization legislation once they meet in conference to resolve differences between the two versions of their bills. There seems to be little opposition in Congress to the change, although the article cited an Aviation Week report that one lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, wants the change to expire in 2012.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 August 29 at 7:59 am ET As you might expect in the doldrums of August, there wasn’t much news on the space policy front last week; good news for me while I spent the week on vacation. A few items of note:
- NASA is looking for more money in its FY2007 budget proposal for the Mars Scout program, an effort to develop low-cost Mars mission analogous to the Discovery program of planetary science missions. Phoenix, the first Mars Scout mission, is scheduled for launch in 2007, with the second Mars Scout mission planned for 2011. The experience from Phoenix told NASA Mars managers that the original cost cap of $325 million is too low, and instead are looking for something at or above $400 million.
- Ongoing cost overruns with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) could degrade the telescope’s effectiveness, New Scientist reports. One proposed way to cut $150 million from JWST is to polish the telescope’s mirror segments once instead of twice. That would prevent the telescope from making effective observations at wavelengths below 1.7 microns unless it took much longer exposures. While JWST was designed primarily to observe at infrared wavelengths, astronomers had hoped to use the telescope down to 0.6 microns, in the middle of the visible band. This could lead to pressure on NASA and Congress from astronomers who do work at visible wavelengths to either preserve this capability on JWST and/or ensure that a Hubble servicing mission is restored.
- ATK, which arguably has the most to gain or lose on NASA’s pending decision for new crew and cargo launch vehicles, has enlisted a number of former astronauts as lobbyists. Six former astronauts—Daniel Barry, John Blaha, Charles Bolden, Daniel Bursch, Franklin Chang-Diaz, and Thomas Jones—have registered as lobbyists representing the company. Another former astronaut, Scott Horowitz, already works for ATK; he was pushing for a SRB-derived CEV launch vehicle even before he left NASA last year.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 August 20 at 9:48 am ET The member organizations of the Space Exploration Alliance, including such activist groups such as the National Space Society and the Mars Society, kicked off this week an effort to organize visits to Congressional district offices during the August recess. The primary purpose, according to NSS and Mars Society documents, is to urge their support for the Vision for Space Exploration. In particular, a talking points document calls for full funding for the VSE, acceleration of the development of the CEV, support for NASA’s launch vehicle plans, and passage of an amendment for the Iran Nonproliferation Act to permit NASA to purchase ISS services from Russia. (It’s noteworthy that the document states that “NASA’s plans for human and cargo launch vehicles are on the right course” even though those plans have not been disclosed except in the broadest brush strokes and rumors.)
It’s also interesting that the Alliance member organizations waited until the middle of the month, a couple of weeks after the recess started, to start publicizing this lobbying effort. Congress returns right after Labor Day, so there’s not much time for interested space activists to schedule those meetings.
Speaking of August recess, I’m going on a break of my own over the next week. I don’t plan on posting much if anything until the week of August 29.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 August 20 at 9:35 am ET I don’t talk much about Australian space policy because, well, there’s not much to talk about. However, this AAP article caught my eye: Australian-born NASA astronaut Andy Thomas, fresh from his STS-114 shuttle mission, is calling on Australia to invest more money on space efforts. Thomas called on Australia to work in particular on small remote sensing satellites that could have security applications: “Relatively inexpensive satellites could be made and launched from Australia and used to scan its vast coastline for illegal immigrants and fisherman, as well as terrorists attempting to sneak into the country, he said.” Thomas added that “he feared the federal Government would baulk at investing in a space program because of its initial expense.”
Thomas may want to check out AstroVision Australia Ltd, a Sydney-based company that is planning a commercial remote sensing satellite that could, among other things, monitor coastlines and shipping. Unlike Thomas’ proposal, AstroVision plans to use a relative large satellite in GEO to provide imagery, with the Australian government as a likely major customer.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 August 19 at 2:01 pm ET On the heels of its extended editorial Sunday about the future of the ISS, the New York Times published another space-related editorial Friday, this time on the space shuttle. The editorial cites NASA’s decision to delay the STS-121 launch to next March, as well as the release of the Stafford-Covey final report and the much-discussed appendix by several members of the panel. The editorial goes over well-hashed arguments about the shuttle, suggesting that the delay and the report “ought to force the administration and Congress to take a much harder look at how long the shuttles should keep flying – or perhaps whether they should be flying at all.” I would expect that the future of the shuttle program to (again) be the subject of Congressional hearings this fall. It’s possible that these issues could affect the NASA authorization bill, which the Senate has yet to approve.
However, the Times’ suggestion that the shuttle be retired is mild compared to what Steve Forbes suggests in an editorial in his eponymous publication [free registration required]. In a proposal no doubt welcomed by any remaining libertarians, he calls for nothing short of dismantling the space agency:
One inescapable response: Abolish the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) or drastically scale back its mission. Since the moon landings over three decades ago, NASA has become an obstacle to advancing space exploration and travel. If NASA had been in charge of developing the automobile, we’d still be riding horses.
Some of his suggestions aren’t terribly new, such as endorsing tax breaks for private space exploration. However, he also argues that the “shuttle program should be turned over to the private sector”, and the ISS, too. Unfortunately, he doesn’t bother to develop a reasonable business plan for private operations of the shuttle.
|
|
