By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 4 at 7:23 am ET It’s conventional wisdom that Marshall Space Flight Center’s future is reasonable secure: new NASA administrator Mike Griffin said as much during his first press conference last month. That doesn’t mean, though, that the center’s supports, including Rep. Bud Cramer, aren’t keeping the pressure on to support the center. “I think we may have rounded a corner in a more positive way but the jury’s still out,” he said Monday, according to Huntsville TV station WAFF. He wants to make sure Marshall gets its share of NASA contracts, with as little competition as possible: “Cramer hopes they [NASA Headquarters] will [act quickly] — directing programs here instead of competing them out.”
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 3 at 6:11 am ET The American Astronomical Society (AAS), the professional organization for astronomers in the US (and not to be confused with the American Astronautical Society), issued a press release yesterday calling on NASA to restore funding for astronomical research within the agency. The AAS is particularly concerned about “research and analysis” (R&A) funding, grants to astronomers to perform basic research intended to support future agency missions and projects. Such funding is “the seed stock of the nation’s future talent”, according to David Black, who chair the AAS’ policy committee.
The AAS puts much of the blame for the problem at the feet of Congress rather than NASA itself: a “record level of unfunded congressional earmarks” have forced NASA to raid other programs for funding, with R&A programs just one of the victims, along with the proposed termination of current and new missions. Thus, the AAS is looking to NASA, not Congress, to solve the problem: “To ensure that long-term priorities are preserved and that science return is maximized in a reduced funding environment, NASA should involve members of the science community in a current assessment of missions before finalizing decisions on possible mission terminations.”
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 2 at 12:45 pm ET As you may recall, a few months ago there was a frisson of concern about HR 656, a bill introduced by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), ranking minority member of the House Transportation Committee, that would amend the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA) with additional safety provisions. Most of the entrepreneurial suborbital community opposed those provisions, concerned about adding too many regulations too soon in the development of this industry. The bill’s prospects never looked too strong, since it was referred to the House Science Committee, whose members include some of the major supporters of the CSLAA. Tim Hughes, majority staff counsel for the House Science Committee, confirmed that during a talk Friday at Space Access ’05 in Phoenix. “I don’t believe we’re planning to take any action on that bill,” he said.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 May 2 at 12:32 pm ET [Apologies for the limited posting of late; I’ve been on travel and dealing with a laptop that’s been on the fritz.]
As noted here previously, NASA is accelerating its strategic roadmapping effort with the goal of completing this project by later this month. There are 13 roadmap efforts which, according to a source familiar with the effort, are all supposed to be completed by May 22 (which until Friday had been the shuttle return to flight date.) However, some are behind schedule, notably the shuttle and education roadmaps, neither of which have held meetings yet, and thus will most likely not be done by the 22nd. Several other ones, including aeronautics, ISS, lunar exploration, and nuclear systems, are also somewhat behind schedule and may not be done by the deadline, either. The remaining ones are on schedule for completion by the 22nd, though, and those that deal with scientific topics—Mars exploration, solar system exploration, search for Earth-like planets, astronomy, earth science, and space science—will be given to the National Research Council at that time for an outside review. (The ISS roadmap will also apparently be reviewed by NRC once it’s done.)
By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 28 at 10:29 am ET NASA Watch reports that new administrator Mike Griffin has terminated the agency’s “roadmapping” effort, an agency-wide project to help chart the future of the agency. As the report notes, Griffin said earlier this month that he was disappointed with the pace of the roadmap efforts.
However, according to another source, the roadmapping effort is not being shut down immediately, but instead is being accelerated so that it can be wrapped up within the next month or so, perhaps by the shuttle’s return to flight. This may not be that different from termination—a lot of corners will doubtlessly have to be cut to finish the work in that short a timeframe—but it does suggest that NASA will try and salvage some of the work that has been done on the roadmaps to date.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 27 at 10:27 am ET The listing for Thursday’s hearing by the House Science Committee on NASA earth science programs has added some more people. One of the people now scheduled to testify is Berrien Moore, who is the co-chair of a National Research Council study on “Earth Science and Applications from Space”. That report, according to one source, will be released to the public later today, and it will be very critical of some aspects NASA’s earth sciences strategy.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 27 at 10:14 am ET A reader pointed out this newsletter from the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society. The major update in this newsletter is about a delay in a planned NASA research announcement, but it also includes some good news about the future of Voyager and several other space science missions whose fate were in doubt because of planned budget cuts in the 2006 budget. However, because of shifting priorities that have emerged from the roadmapping process going on within NASA:
Recently, the Science Mission Directorate has received advice from the Space Science Advisory Committee that in light of these new strategic priorities another senior review is warranted to identify the operating mission set that best addresses NASA’s strategic objectives. The current plan is to complete the strategic roadmap integration activity this summer before making any final decisions about the operating missions.
In other words, Voyager, whose funding after this month was in doubt, will remain in operation for the time being. Money is being transferred from another account (not specified) within the agency to continue funding the missions.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 25 at 12:38 pm ET The full House Science Committee is planning a hearing for this Thursday at 10am on “NASA Earth Science”. Witnesses include NASA associate administrator Al Diaz and three earth scientists. I haven’t seen any other details about specific topics of interest during the hearing, although it will be interesting to see how scientists think NASA’s Earth sciences program is faring under the Vision for Space Exploration…
By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 25 at 12:34 pm ET In this week’s issue of The Space Review I’ve written up a more detailed account of last week’s House Science Committee space subcommittee hearing about commercial space, with a focus on both the regulatory issues Rutan raised as well as how export controls are affecting these ventures. In the same issue Sam Dinkin proposes a large subsidy to promote commercial space transportation, in much the same manner as airmail subsidies in the early days of aviation. Given the magnitude of his proposed subsidy—$15 billion a year for ten years—I don’t think it would go very far in Congress, but the article does suggest some interesting possibilities if the federal government decided to prime the space access pump.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 22 at 1:03 pm ET The Nation, a left-leaning magazine, published an article about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s influence over NASA and its budget. The article largely rehashes the issues most regular readers of this blog are familiar with: DeLay’s addition of JSC into his Congressional district, his last-minute move to top off NASA’s FY05 budget request, and the recent reorganization of the House Appropriation Committee’s subcommittee structure. Like many such articles, it includes an arguably questionable comment from John Pike: “With NASA changing its spending priorities to support President Bush’s vision for space exploration that will return humans to the moon and take them to Mars, there will be plenty of money going to start-up companies with no record of producing hardware, and there will be no way to measure results.” I’m not sure what he means by there being “no way” to measure results; at least one startup company has complained publicly about the amount of status reports and other paperwork they have to supply to NASA.
The thesis of the article is summarized in this sentence: “NASA, then, is another potential source of money and power for DeLay–if he survives his ethics troubles.” Don’t you think that if someone like DeLay—who already has significant power in Congress today—wanted “another potential source of money and power”, he would take aim at something a bit bigger than NASA and its $16-billion annual budget? Is that the best he can do to shore up his constituency back in Texas? Or is DeLay someone with an actual interest in space and is willing to use some of the power and influence he has accumulated to support the space agency? That alternative, unfortunately, isn’t really explored in the article other than a sentence that “for years, DeLay has expressed an interest in the space program.”
|
|
