By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 15 at 10:53 pm ET Another organization has jointed the Space Exploration Alliance. The Moon Society joins the 13 other organizations that are part of SEA, according to a Moon Society press release (which curiously is not on their web site but is available at Rocketforge.) You can be excused if you haven’t heard of the Moon Society—they’re a small group, by all accounts—but their name makes it clear what the purpose of the organization is. Last month a couple of the principals behind the creation of the SEA made it clear they planned to add additional organizations, so look for more announcements like this in the coming weeks.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 14 at 12:29 pm ET Over at The Space Review I have an article this week about how some scientists perceive the Vision for Space Exploration, based on comments made at a forum on Capitol Hill last month. Most of the responses are fairly predictable—they’re interested in the vision but are concerned about what it might to do astronomy and some planetary science programs—but I found particularly interesting this statement by Wes Huntress, the former NASA associate administrator for space science:
I worry that we’re still thinking like Apollo, and that the destination will become the objective, and the dates will become the measure. That’s death. If that happens, this policy will never be implemented successfully. It’s the goals that are important, not the destinations. The destinations follow from the goals, and they must be flexible if this is to be affordable. If you focus on specific dates, then they will drive the costs out of balance. That’s a classic formula for cost overruns.
Huntress makes a good point: the purpose for this vision is not to return humans to the Moon by 2020, but to expand the human presence in the solar system. On the other hand, having a specific goal and deadline can be far more easily understood—and far more motivating—than a nebulous, open-ended concept like spreading humanity through the solar system. Thoughts?
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 14 at 12:21 pm ET The Associated Press has an article this morning about the Aldridge Commission’s final report, scheduled to be released Wednesday. The AP article largely focuses on the commission’s apparent recommendation that NASA hand over as many duties as possible to the private sector, including access to low Earth orbit (of course, the private sector already handles, in one manner or another, most access to LEO, a point not made in the article.) The article suggests, though, that launching manned missions would remain in the hands of NASA, for reasons not made clear in the article. The article also notes that “some experts have said President Bush’s goals could ultimately cost $1 trillion,” citing Douglas Osheroff, the Stanford physicist and CAIB member. Perhaps that shows that even Nobel laureates can be lousy cost estimators…
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 11 at 10:03 am ET Space News got a sneak peek at the final report of the Aldridge Commission (which would have been released yesterday were it not for the delay caused by Ronald Reagan’s funeral) and offers a few details:
- At least some of the NASA field centers should be turned into federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), much like how JPL is run;
- NASA should create three new internal organizations to provide technical advice, independent cost estimation, and to oversee high-risk technology projects;
- The administration should create a “Space Exploration Steering Council”, analogous to the old National Space Council, that reports to the president;
- NASA should rely on private industry more for various services, including access to low Earth orbit.
Nothing here sounds terribly surprising, although it will be interesting to see the rationale behind these recommendations when the report comes out next week.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 10 at 12:18 pm ET Wednesday’s issue of Aerospace Daily had an interesting article about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the first in a series of robotic lunar missions under the Vision for Space Exploration designed as precursors for human expeditions. What was most surprising is the proposed budget for the mission:
Funding for the LRO begins with $70 million requested in fiscal year 2005. The total funding for the mission through FY ’09 is $1.3 billion.
This is very surprising, given that previous reports suggested that LRO would cost “only” several hundred million. If the $1.3-billion figure is correct, this would make LRO considerably more expensive than the Mars Exploration Rovers, which were far more complex and challenging than LRO would likely ever be. Indeed, it’s hard to figure out how you could make a lunar orbiter cost that much. Given that there are already some grumblings in Congress, particularly in Sen. Brownback’s office, about the approach NASA has taken for LRO, I suspect this mission will face closer scrutiny, particularly if this price estimate is accurate. (I have already argued for a different approach for robotic lunar exploration in an article in The Space Review last month.)
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 9 at 12:47 pm ET This week’s print edition of Space News (not available online) has a couple of interesting quotes from members of Congress about funding for the exploration program versus other projects both within and outside of NASA. Rep. John Larson (D-CT), member of the House Aerospace Caucus, had this to say about NASA’s support of exploration versus aeronautics:
NASA has got to be thinking less about going to the Moon and Mars and beyond, and more specifically about addressing our aeronautical concerns here at home. And that means greater investment in those areas.
The issue also included an interview with Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA). The interview focused primarily on missile defense issues (Sanchez is on the House Armed Services Committee), but she was also asked for her opinions on the exploration program:
I would love for us to figure out a way to get to Mars. I’ve met with astronauts, and I think it is really exciting stuff, but can’t we figure out Afghanistan and Iraq first? Because it’s become pretty apparent that we don’t have the resources in place to get that job done.
Sanchez was also asked what effect a President Kerry would have on exploration program:
I think John Kerry… is a smart guy. I don’t know enough about his record with respect to space exploration, but would hope he would recognize you need to take care of some things on Earth before you go on to that step.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 9 at 10:56 am ET The release of the final report of the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond has been rescheduled for noon EDT on Wednesday, June 16, at the same location on the GWU campus. This means the press conference will take place during the middle of the second day of the Centennial Challenges workshop up the street at the Washington Hilton, although since a detailed agenda for the event has not been released its unclear what effect, if any, the report’s release will have on the workshop.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 8 at 6:55 pm ET NASA announced Tuesday afternoon that administrator Sean O’Keefe will be the luncheon speaker Wednesday at a meeting of the US Chamber of Commerce’s board of directors in Washington. According to the press release:
O’Keefe will present the administration’s Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). The VSE will accelerate advances in robotics, autonomous and fault tolerant systems, human-machine interface, novel applications of nanotechnology and micro-devices that will lead to new products and services.
Two observations:
- The press release offers an interesting justification for the exploration plan: developing new technologies that could have commercial applications. This is understandable given that O’Keefe is speaking before a business-oriented audience outside of the aerospace industry, but relying on spinoffs to garner support for the vision seems like a weak approach.
- This is one of the first NASA press releases to refer to the exploration plan by an acronym, the VSE. I suppose it’s only inevitable, although I wonder how long it will take before we just start calling it the “vise”…
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 8 at 1:36 pm ET NPR’s Morning Edition had a segment Monday about the status of the Vision for Space Exploration, focusing on the lackluster support it seems to have garnered to date. There’s not much new in the report, and much of it was based on interviews and testimony from the Aldridge Commission’s final public hearing a month ago in New York. However, the report did include some comments by DARPA Director Tony Tether, one of the witnesses at that hearing, who had some interesting insights regarding why the public hasn’t really rallied behind the plan:
What NASA seemed to forget is that we all wanted to go. We all wanted to go, and somehow we lost that. And until we get that excitement back, nothing much is going to change. Somehow, you all need to figure out a way that we all at least get to go the baby step, which is the Moon, or just into space.
You can see that excitement today with the Ansari X Prize contenders, like Scaled Composites: thousands will be in Mojave later this month to see a suborbital flight of SpaceShipOne that, in many respects, is technically underwhemling compared to what NASA has done for decades. The challenge for NASA is to somehow to tap into that excitement to help promote the exploration plan, something that will not be easy.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 June 7 at 2:15 pm ET An acquaintance pointed out at dinner last night that the public release of the Aldridge Commission’s final report will take place as preparations for the late President Reagan’s funeral approach their climax, and thus is in danger of being ignored. The day of the release and press conference, Thursday, is the same day Reagan’s body will lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda; the funeral will take place on Friday, with the federal government closing for the day. It would appear that most of the media’s bandwidth Thursday will be taken up with those events, with the closing of the G-8 summit absorbing most of the rest.
Although there’s no indication that the commission plans to delay the release of their report, it might be prudent from a public relations standpoint for them to wait until the following Monday, June 14. While the aerospace trade media, as well as those few reporters whose beat is primarily space, will be available to cover its release, the broader media will likely devote little attention to it; what coverage they can offer will be drowned out by other events. (A counterpoint is that its quite possible the broader media would give the commission’s report little coverage in any event.) NASA had planned to deliver a response to the report on Friday, which will almost certainly be delayed given the funeral and government closure that day.
One scenario would be to have the commission release its report Monday morning, and have NASA deliver its response that afternoon. This assumes that NASA would get a copy of the report in advance of its (delayed) public release. This might also provide some momentum and additional interest in the Centennial Challenges workshop Tuesday and Wednesday, particularly if the commission comes out as strongly in favor of prizes as has been rumored…
Update 3:30 pm June 7: According to both SPACE.com and the commission’s web site, the release of the report has been delayed until some time next week.
|
|
