By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 13 at 7:44 am ET While everyone awaits the next development with Sean O’Keefe and the NASA Administrator’s position, here are a few assorted policy essays from this week’s issue of The Space Review to tide you over:
- Donald Barker argues that the Vision for Space Exploration should be focused on Mars, not the Moon, for several reasons.
- Taylor Dinerman wonders if Sen. Daniel Inouye, who will be the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee next year, will follow in the footsteps of a late colleague also from Hawaii.
- Sam Dinkin celebrates the passage of HR 5382.
- Dwayne Day reexamines some of the myths associated with the Vision for Space Exploration (like the trillion-dollar price tag) and finds that some are more persistent than others.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 12 at 8:25 am ET Florida Today, the Houston Chronicle, and the Orlando Sentinel all offer some more details about what appears to be NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe’s impending departure from the agency. All three get the same LSU spokesman to say on the record that the university’s board of supervisors has “actively recruited” O’Keefe; Florida Today notes that O’Keefe “formally applied” for the job Saturday afternoon. An announcement on O’Keefe’s departure could come as soon as Monday.
As for O’Keefe’s replacement, Florida Today, citing an unnamed source “familiar with the selection process”, reports that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish is at the top of a list that also includes former Congressman Robert Walker and former astronauts Ron Sega, Charles Bolden, and Robert Crippen. (SpaceRef first reported Kadish as the prime candidate to succeed O’Keefe on Saturday.) Sega is considered to be second behind Kadish, according to Florida Today, with a final selection to be announced by Thursday.
And from the curious timing department: Houston Chronicle columnist Craig Hines wrote Sunday that O’Keefe’s insistence on a robotic Hubble repair mission, despite reports suggesting that a shuttle repair mission would have better odds of success, is grounds for dismissal: “Hasn’t NASA chief Sean O’Keefe been so wrong and so duplicitous in his attempt to kill the gloriously successful project that he should quit in embarrassment or be fired?” Nothing in any of the published reports suggests that this had anything to do with O’Keefe’s impending decision to leave.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 11 at 9:15 am ET Florida Today reported Saturday that NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe is a candidate to become chancellor of Louisiana State University (LSU). O’Keefe told the paper that he’s interested in the job, but didn’t mention if he has been interviewed for the position yet. The most recent meeting of the LSU chancellor search committee took place Wednesday, but most of the meeting was spent in closed executive session so the committee could “discuss the professional competence and character of persons” being considered for the position. (More details about the search process are available here, although there’s no information about when the committee will make a final decision.)
This represents an interesting turn of events in O’Keefe’s future. Throughout the year there was speculation that, if Bush won, O’Keefe would be in line for a Cabinet post or other senior level position. However, the post-election Cabinet reshuffling has now been completed without O’Keefe getting serious public consideration, let alone a nomination. (It’s true that the DHS position is in play again because of Kerik’s surprise withdrawal Friday night, but O’Keefe never appeared to be in the running for that position.) There’s also been the belief—or perhaps expectation—that O’Keefe would stay on at NASA through the shuttle’s return to flight, at which point he would be able to declare victory and move on. Given that shuttle RTF is currently no earlier than mid-May, is LSU willing to wait that long?
[Update 12/11 12 pm: SpaceRef is reporting that O’Keefe may announce his departure from NASA within the next week. The report, which mentions no sources, claims that O’Keefe will step down “to attend to his family”. Stay tuned…]
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 11 at 8:58 am ET Many Washington policy circles have been abuzz the last few days about comments made on the Senate floor Wednesday by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) about a classified intelligence program many people speculate to be a satellite system of some kind. The program was included in the intelligence reform bill and both senators were very critical of the program. Wyden’s comments, published in the Congressional Record, are perhaps the most interesting:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has determined that this program should not be funded based on firm policy judgments. Numerous independent reviews have concluded that the program does not fulfill a major intelligence gap or shortfall, and the original justification for developing this technology has eroded in importance due to the changed practices and capabilities of our adversaries. There are a number of other programs in existence and in development whose capabilities can match those envisioned for this program at far less cost and technological risk. Like almost all other acquisition programs of its size, initial budget estimates have drastically underestimated the true costs of this acquisition and independent cost estimates have shown that this program will exceed its proposed budgets by enormous amounts of money. The Senate Intelligence Committee has also in the past expressed its concern about how this program was to be awarded to the prime contractor.
Because the program is classified, no specifics about the program were discussed; Rockefeller said that if the program is funded next year he will ask the Senate “to go into closed session so the Senators can understand, fully debate, become informed upon, and then vote on termination of this very wasteful acquisition program.”
There has been plenty of speculation about the nature of this program, with most believing that it is a satellite system. NBC News reported that the program may be an “offensive counterspace” system, to use the DOD parlance: a spacecraft that could disable other nations’ spy satellites. An AP article also suggested the spacecraft might contain weapons, but instead to defend itself from attacking satellites: “defensive counterspace”.
Others have argued that the spacecraft might be a more familiar system: the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) program of next-generation reconnaissance satellites. That program fits some aspects of Wyden’s description: it has suffered a number of cost overruns, and the selection of Boeing as prime contractor has been subject of recent scrutiny. However, Saturday’s Washington Post offers another alternative: a “stealth” spy satellite that is the third in a series called “Misty” designed to elude detection from the ground. The projected cost of the program, the Post reported, has increased from $5 to $9.5 billion. The satellite, being built by Lockheed Martin, is scheduled for launch within the next five years.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 10 at 8:15 am ET How close did HR 5382 come to not passing the Senate Wednesday night? Very close, by some accounts. The bill was the last in a group of bills that the Senate passed by unanimous consent Wednesday night (although the Senate did approve one final bill supporting spectrum reallocation for Enhanced 911 services immediately before adjourning.) According to an email sent out by Americans for Space, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who was managing the approval of that series of bills, almost seemed to be taken aback by the appearance of HR 5382:
Frist, while explaining to the President of the Senate that no other legislation was before him to move on, was handed a one page document that stopped him in mid sentence to ask for unanimous consent from the Senate that HR 5382 be considered read for the third time and passed by the Senate. No object was raised and the presiding President of the Senate ordered it passed.
The official Congressional Record transcript of the bill’s passage doesn’t reflect this, though.
So what happened? In a Cosmic Log blog entry, MSNBC’s Alan Boyle notes that Sen. John McCain had put a hold on this and other legislation sent over from the House until he could would out an agreement with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), to take up boxing-reform legislation next year. Meanwhile, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who will be minority leader next year, persuaded recalcitrant colleagues not to block the bill. The Space Foundation also recognized Reid in a press release for his efforts, along with a couple of other Senators not previously associated with the bill: Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), the retiring ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
Not everyone is happy with the bill, though. In an analysis piece for UPI, Robert Zimmerman notes that the bill “contains ominous possibilities for squelching this hatchling industry”, referring to safety regulations included in the bill. Referring to a provision that requires FAA/AST to regulate after any event that poses a high rick of death or injury, he claims that “if this language had been in force last October, the uncontrolled spins experienced by SpaceShipOne during its first X Prize flight would have forced AST to halt the second flight, thereby preventing Bert [sic] Rutan’s ship from winning the $10 million award.” [Update 12/10 6:15 pm: I’m told that UPI has issued an edited version of this article with the sentence quoted above deleted.]
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 10 at 7:44 am ET Hampton Roads (Va.) Virginian-Pilot columnist Bronwyn Lance Chester takes aim at Tom DeLay and his support for NASA’s budget in a piece published Thursday. It’s clear that Chester is not that familiar with the Vision for Space Exploration, which she refers to as “man on Mars” program or even “Project Martian Madness” even though the vision as currently states makes only vague plans for manned Mars missions after 2020. She sees DeLay’s efforts to increase NASA’s efforts as “symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington: a willingness to screw taxpayers nationwide in order to bring home the bacon to a few districts.” The money spent on the vision should, she writes, be spent on a fairly standard litany of other things, including cancer cures and health insurance.
“Maybe I shouldn’t knock the Mars plan. It all depends on whom we want to send,” she concludes. “Tom DeLay springs to mind.”
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 9 at 7:52 am ET It’s alive! No, it’s dead. It’s alive again! It’s dead again. Alive! Dead. Alive! Dead. Alive? The roller coaster that was HR 5382 and its predecessor, HR 3752, came to an end Wednesday night when the Senate approved the bill by unanimous consent in the final two hours of the 108th Congress. As recently as Wednesday afternoon the bill’s prospects looked poor, since a hold was apparently still in place and the Senate was making plans to adjourn that evening, after passing the intelligence reform bill and wrapping up some other business. What did happen to clear that final obstacle isn’t clear: MSNBC noted that the bill’s passage even took supporters by surprise, while an AP article doesn’t offer any significant details. The House passed the bill last month, so it goes on to the President for his anticipated signature.
While it would not have been the end of the world if the bill had died, its passage is a big step forward for commercial space, particularly suborbital space tourism. A lot of hard work went into pushing the bill forward by a lot of people, and its approval is a well-deserved reward.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 9 at 7:40 am ET How many proponents of a robotic repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope remain in Congress in the wake of yesterday’s report by a National Academies panel that came out strongly (surprisingly so, to many) in favor of restoring a shuttle servicing mission? In a statement, House Science Committee chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) promised to hold hearings early next year on the report, while the committee’s ranking minority member, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), called on NASA to “heed the Academies’ assessment and move forward to implement its recommendations”. Florida Today reported Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL) supports a shuttle mission, saying that he “wasn’t sure that our level of sophistication in robotics was sufficient” to support a robotic servicing mission.
In the Senate, Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said that “NASA has the experience, the technology and now it has the money” to fix Hubble, but said that she and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), who chairs the VA-HUD subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will also hold a hearing about Hubble repair options early next year. The Houston Chronicle quoted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), widely expected to succeed Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee, as saying that a shuttle Hubble repair is “the right thing to do.” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told Florida Today that he would also push for a shuttle repair mission, and also called for Congressional hearings on the subject.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 8 at 5:42 pm ET In a column in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal [paid subscription required], Holman W. Jenkins Jr. lashes out at the Senate for blocking passage of HR 5382. There are not too many details in the piece not seen elsewhere, although it was interesting that he noted, quite accurately, “Thank the Internet for the fact that legislation that normally would be ignored as the special interest of a handful of companies has a noisy popular following among disinterested voters and citizens.” Hopefully advocates of the bill are not superstitious: Jenkins’ column was published in the print edition on page A13.
At the end of the column he mentioned that two people who are not pushing the legislation are Burt Rutan and Richard Branson:
For a pair who say they want to spend $100 million making space tourism a reality, Messrs. Rutan and Branson have displayed an odd indifference to the legislative battle. Either Sir Richard is peddling vaporware and doesn’t really intend to fly — or he’s making an improbable bet on the FAA’s willingness to let paying clients fly in an “experimental” spacecraft in violation of every rule in the book.
What Jenkins doesn’t mention is that Rutan has made his disdain for FAA/AST clear on a number of occasions in public speeches, mentioning that he would prefer to be certified like an aircraft, a proposition that horrifies most other entrepreneurial space ventures.
In a related story, this afternoon Americans for Space sent out an email alert, encouraging people to call the office of Sen. John McCain and ask him to support the legislation. (McCain had previously been identified as one senator who placed a hold on the legislation, although it’s not clear now if he still has a hold in place or if other, anonymous senators are blocking the bill.) The Senate plans to adjourn for the year later today, after wrapping up the intelligence reform bill; if HR 5382 doesn’t pass today, supporters of such legislation will have to start all over again in January.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 8 at 7:44 am ET If you can’t get enough of space policy commentary (and, really, who can?), a reader points out Prometheus, a blog hosted by the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado. While this blog is devoted to all aspects of science policy, there is a special section devoted to space policy, with occasional entries on the NASA budget, space commercialization, and related topics.
|
|
