By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 11 at 4:29 pm ET [The combination of the August doldrums as well as being on travel this week has contributed to the lack of postings. My apologies.]
The results of the compromise on HR 3752 are now available in the form of S.2772, the Space Commercial Human Ascent Serving Expeditions (CHASE) Act. This is a new bill that, presumably, will take the place of the original HR 3752. The content of the legislation is very similar to the original bill, with this new definition of a suborbital vehicle:
a vehicle, rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its flight.
The subtle changes in the wording (“rocket-propelled in whole or in part”) would appear to address the concerns made by Rocketplane earlier this year that caused Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) to put a hold on the legislation. (Inhofe introduced S.2772 on July 22, according to Thomas.) Presumably the Senate Commerce Committee will take up the bill when the Senate reconvenes after Labor Day. I’m sure there are readers with more insight and experience who may shed more light on the legislation ands its prospects for passage this year.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 6 at 6:20 pm ET A UPI article published late Thursday argued that the growing costs of returning the shuttle to flight will make it difficult, it not impossible, for NASA to afford any kind of shuttle or robotic Hubble servicing mission without, perhaps, sacrificing money from the exploration plan:
…if NASA does decide to send a shuttle to the Hubble, it most likely will do so only if it has a second spacecraft standing by with a separate crew ready to jump into action if the first shuttle runs into trouble.
Such an approach figures to stretch NASA’s budget even thinner — unless Congress acquiesces on the extra money to refly the shuttle fleet, and coughs up the start-up money for the space exploration plan. Then, there should be enough to fund the Hubble repair mission if O’Keefe gives his approval.
Otherwise, NASA cannot attempt such a complex mission. Without the extra money, a backup shuttle and crew probably would be out of the question. That would leave only a robotic mission, something even Hubble’s staunchest supporters have admitted remains highly speculative within the timeframe available.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 5 at 7:09 pm ET The AIAA is hosting a Space Nuclear Power & Propulsion Roundtable next week in Washington (there is some confusion whether the event is on Tuesday the 10th or Friday the 13th). The date, though, is a moot point for most: the roundtable is a closed session, open only to participants and other invited guests. The event will be taped for a future webcast. No reason was given for the closed nature of the event, although one possible reason is to shut out anti-nuclear protestors (think Bruce Gagnon and his ilk.) The list of roundtable participants is primarily from industry and policy circles, and it would appear that most would be in favor, to one degree or another, or nuclear power and propulsion applications in space.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 4 at 6:50 pm ET The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the cost of returning the space shuttle fleet to flight is going up, perhaps as much as $900 million over what was originally expected. Those cost increases could affect other, unspecified NASA programs as the agency seeks additional funding within the agency before asking Congress for more. That turn of events generated this response from someone on Capitol Hill:
One knowledgeable Republican source, who refused to be quoted by name because of office policy, acknowledged that Congress had heard about the shortfalls last month, and lawmakers “don’t know what to think about it.” While NASA is “acting responsibly” by voicing its fears early, the source said, the news “puts additional pressure on an already impossible budget — and what are you going to take it from? And is this as high as [the shortfall] is going to get?”
We’ll see how this plays out over the next few months…
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 2 at 7:20 pm ET Over at The Space Review this week there are a few articles on space policy topics. I have a book review of New Moon Rising, the behind-the-scenes account of the development of the new exploration policy. It’s an interesting book, but is marred to some degree by some production issues, such as poor editing. In addition, both Taylor Dinerman and Anthony Young have essays suggesting that the vision goes beyond just space exploration to encompass issues like economic and national security (which the Aldridge Commission also suggested in its report as well.) I’m a bit skeptical of such arguments, but it’s worthy of discussion.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 2 at 7:01 pm ET In a letter to the editor in Monday’s Houston Chronicle, astronaut John Young mentions that he was among the Apollo veterans that met with President Bush at the White House last month. (Earlier reports had suggested that only the Apollo 11 crew met with the President.) Young said that Bush, in private, continued to strongly support the exploration vision:
In the Oval Office, I heard President Bush’s commitment to exploring space and to meeting the goals of the vision he proposed in January. He is determined to provide and I am confident he is providing the national leadership required for us to return to the moon and move even further into the cosmos.
Proponents of the vision no doubt wonder, though, when the president plans to publicly demonstrate “the national leadership” needed for the vision to become reality.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 1 at 9:27 am ET A number of press accounts have erroneously reported that the Vision for Space Exploration will cost on the order of $1 trillion. In a recent editorial, the editors of the Berkshire (MA) Eagle have apparently decided to discount the alleged price of the plan:
The program could cost as much as $800 billion at a time when Washington is building a huge deficit and slashing health and social programs.
A trillion-dollar plan, now 20% off! Needless to say, the newspaper is not terribly fond of the vision, and has some advice for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:
Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has had little to say about the American space program thus far. Here is what we would like to hear him say: The manned moon and Mars program is canceled, and some of the money saved will go to inexpensive unmanned missions like the highly successful Mars lander program and the exciting Cassini mission now exploring Saturn and its rings. Money will be freed up for similar programs by the cancellation of the Pentagon cash cow known formally as the National Missile Defense program and informally as “Star Wars.” Finally, once the space shuttle program is active again, one of its last missions before it is phased out will be the repairing of the Hubble.
Someone should tell the Eagle’s editors that NASA and the Defense Department are funded from different appropriations…
By Jeff Foust on 2004 August 1 at 9:11 am ET The Office of Special Counsel is reportedly investigating the propriety of hosting the Kerry town hall meeting at the KSC Visitors Center last Monday, the Washington Post reported Sunday. The Hatch Act prohibits campaign events on federal property; the center is on KSC property but is operated by a private venture, Delaware North. An official with Delaware North said they cleared the event because it was not a “campaign event” but a “town hall meeting”, a distinction that would seem in practice to have very little difference. About 30 NASA employees attended the event, all taking personal leave time to do so.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 July 30 at 6:13 pm ET Lost in all the discussion this week about that whole, well, bunnysuit thing, was this Space News article about renewed efforts to get funding for NASA’s Centennial Challenges program this fiscal year. An earlier effort to reprogram $2 million from the FY04 budget to permit an initial series of small-scale prizes was rebuffed by the House Appropriations Committee last month. However, Space News reports, NASA has been on the Hill trying to educate members about the program and submitted a new reprogramming request in late June which again asks for $2 million for Centennial Challenges. There are some concerns among both Republicans and Democrats about such so-called “no year” funding, when there’s no idea when—or even if—the money will be spent.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 July 29 at 7:31 pm ET At the Democratic National Convention last night John Glenn was one of the speakers. His short speech mentioned space a number of times, but only in terms of past accomplishments or in a broader reference to the need to promote education and scientific research:
I am concerned about the erosion of America’s commitment to the twin pillars of our success in the 20th century — leadership in education, and leadership in scientific research… It was education and research that gave us new opportunities to study in this new and unique laboratory of space, and that helped America put my friend Neil Armstrong on the moon, and win the Cold War.
At NASA Watch Keith Cowing suggests that “that the topic of space might be on the cusp of actually being a campaign issue.” However, by reading Glenn’s speech, as well as past Kerry campaign material, it’s clear that it’s not space itself that’s a potential issue, it’s the broader investment in science and technology, and that’s an issue that is relatively minor compared to the economy, homeland security, and Iraq, among other far bigger issues.
|
|
