By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 19 at 7:18 am ET You know how some of those old game shows would have a “lightning round” where contestants would have to answer as many questions as they could in a minute or so? Yesterday’s Senate hearing on the shuttle and the future of human spaceflight was something along those lines. The hearing started about 15 minutes late because of a previous Commerce Committee confirmation hearing, and had to end at 11:30 am—just 45 minutes after it started—because of some Senate rule. So, instead of trimming some portions of the hearing, like the second panel of witnesses, or simply postponing the hearing to a future date, the subcommittee managed to squeeze in the entire hearing in 45 minutes. Time was so short that the second panel was asked to condense their opening remarks to two minutes instead of the customary five.
Because the hearing was so brief, there wasn’t a lot of consequence said during it. There was some gentle verbal sparring between Griffin and the two senators in attendance, Hutchison and Nelson, about how changes to the ISS assembly schedule might impact research on the station; Hutchison in particular is concerned that there may be less of an emphasis on ISS research, making it difficult to, for example, find a cure for breast cancer.
On a related note, Griffin spoke later in the day at the Space at the Crossroads conference in Washington. I wasn’t there, but one person who was—Robert Zubrin, who gave his standard spiel Wednesday night at the Ethics and Public Policy Center—said that Griffin stated that he plans to make a decision on development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) by some time next year. Given Griffin’s past statements, he would likely lean in favor of a shuttle-derived system. Left unsaid, though, is the provision of the new US Space Transportation Policy that requires NASA to coordinate with the Defense Department on HLLV requirements; DOD will likely have a preference for an EELV-derived system.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 19 at 6:54 am ET As you might expect, the New York Times report yesterday that the Bush Administration was considering a space policy revision that would permit the deployment of weapons in space got some traction in the media. The White House offered some clarification on that policy revision yesterday, saying that the proposal was still in an interagency review and “has not risen to the presidential level; it has not risen to the level of the National Security Advisor; it has not risen to the level of department heads,” in the words of Scott McClellan.
McClellan also noted that the policy was not “looking at weaponizing space” but added that the administration wants “to make sure that those space systems are protected.” This suggests that a revised policy could endorse what is sometimes called “defensive counterspace” (DCS) systems designed to protect satellites from attack. There have been studies along these lines within the Air Force and industry on both DCS and offensive counterspace (OCS), which, as the name suggests, involves attacking enemy satellites. However, I think we’re a long way from “rods from God”, or other weapons deployed in space for use against targets on Earth.
At least one newspaper editorial has sounded off on the proposed policy change: the Seattle Post-Intelligencer finds the proposal, as reported in the NY Times, to be “substantial and alarming”.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 18 at 7:44 am ET The California Space Authority has posted a letter signed by 67 members of Congress who support “full funding” of NASA. (Warning: the file is over 8 MB in size.) The letter is addressed to Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee with NASA oversight. In the letter, the members “express our strong support for NASA’s Fiscal Year 2006 requested funding level of $16.456 billion.” The letter goes on to state that NASA has served as an “engine of innovation” for the US economy and is key to “the long-term interests of our nation.” The signers of the letter include a broad mix of Republicans and Democrats, including Tom DeLay, Ken Calvert, Mark Udall, and Dana Rohrabacher. Two notable omissions: Sherwood Boehlert and Bart Gordon, the chairman and ranking member of the House Science Committee.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 18 at 7:33 am ET Wouldn’t you know that, just as the final Star Wars movie is set to premiere, the New York Times would report on a new push within the Air Force and the Bush Administration for space-based weapons. According to the report, the Air Force is asking the administration to approve a national security directive “that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons”. Such a directive could be approved within weeks, according to sources cited in the article. However, that directive would only be the first step towards deploying space-based weapons (which are still in the early conceptual stages, at least according to unclassified reports), and any such move would face opposition from some members of Congress of both parties who have spoken out against such developments in the past. So you can certainly go see Star Wars tonight, but weapons in space still have an uncertain future.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 17 at 7:49 am ET NASA administrator Michael Griffin continued his tour of NASA’s field centers on Monday, visiting Glenn Research Center. Griffin sought to ease fears there that the center might be closed, but made it clear the future will be a little difficult, according to a Cleveland Plain Dealer article:
“Research centers are not going out of business… not on my watch… We should not confuse that, however, with the need to change the mission. We cannot view the research centers as being frozen in time and continuing forevermore to work on the same things.”
For Glenn, and also for Langley (which Griffin visited Friday), that means less of an emphasis on aeronautics, despite the protestations of aviation industry officials and some members of Congress:
“Aeronautics isn’t going away, but it has been reduced,” he said. “We are changing the definition of what NASA does. The changes can’t take effect instantly, and they can’t take effect, frankly, without some dislocation and without some pain.”
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 16 at 7:49 am ET That’s the title of a detailed article about the Vision for Space Exploration by Joel Achenbach in Sunday’s Washington Post magazine. The article doesn’t go into the nuts-and-bolts of space policy per se, but offers a broad look at space exploration for a non-professional audience. (I will note that a couple of months back Achenbach emailed me, wanting to talk about some space policy topics, but after an exchange of voice mails and emails we never managed to connect. Despite, or perhaps because of, that, it’s still a good article.) The Post is hosting an online chat with Achenbach Monday at 1 pm EDT so you have an opportunity to question or criticize him about this article.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 16 at 7:41 am ET The National Space Society will be holding its annual legislative conference/grassroots lobbying effort, Space Blitz 2005, this Tuesday and Wednesday, immediately before the International Space Development Conference, which starts Thursday in Arlington, VA. I have not heard details of the lobbying agenda yet, although supporting NASA funding for the Vision for Space Exploration will almost certainly be included. Last I heard (a couple weeks ago) 30-40 people had signed up to participate.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 16 at 7:34 am ET As noted here last week, the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for this Wednesday on Human Spaceflight: The Space Shuttle and Beyond. This is the counterpart to the subcommittee’s hearing last month on ISS. NASA administrator Michael Griffin will testify on the first panel, while a second panel will feature speakers from industry, academia, and government. The hearing will take place at 10:30 am Wednesday in Russell 253 and will be webcast. Interestingly, the hearing will take place the same day as the Space Foundation’s Space at the Crossroads conference in DC. Griffin is scheduled to speak at that conference as well in the late afternoon.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 16 at 7:26 am ET In an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, I outline some of the regulatory and legislative issues the entrepreneurial space community is focusing on now. With the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act now law, attention has shifted towards developing specific regulations required by the law. In addition, advocates are studying issues like export controls and a role for space vehicle startups in the Air Force’s new push for “operationally responsive space”. Speaking of ITAR, Taylor Dinerman has a separate article in this week’s issue about the topic. In his opinion not only has ITAR hurt the US space industry, it has been ineffective in preventing the transfer of high technology. (As always, standard disclaimers apply.)
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 16 at 7:20 am ET One of the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission last year was that NASA convert some of its field centers into federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), operated by universities or non-profits, in much the same way JPL is run by Caltech. The commission proposed that because it seemed a more politically-expedient solution than suggesting that one or more centers be closed. The new NASA administrator, though, doesn’t seem fond of the recommendation, based on comments he made during a visit Friday to NASA Langley:
Griffin said he’s received no directive from Bush to carry out the recommendation of last year’s Aldridge Commission, which suggested turning NASA research centers into privately run institutions like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
“I’m not wasting five seconds on that thought,” Griffin said. “I think we’re getting at the point of being a little silly about this.”
|
|
