By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 12 at 8:45 am ET The opening session of the AIAA Space 2012 conference in Pasadena, California, on Tuesday was originally billed to include a “presidential candidates forum” on space issues, featuring representatives of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns. However, no forum took place during that opening session, since AIAA could not get commitments from the two campaigns to take part. “It turns out we had lots of ‘maybes’ and lots of ‘we’ll get back to you’, but by Friday morning of last week we could not confirm both being here, so we canceled that part of the program,” AIAA executive director Robert Dickman explained. (The problem getting commitments to participate was with both campaigns, one person familiar with AIAA’s efforts explained later.)
However, a top NASA official did trumpet the strengths of NASA’s current policy compared to the agency’s state at the beginning of the current administration. In a luncheon speech, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said that, in effect, NASA was better off than it was four years ago. “What a difference four years makes,” she said. At the beginning of the administration, she said they had “inherited the decision of the previous administration to end NASA’s 30-year Space Shuttle program” and that the overall human spaceflight program, in the words of the Augustine Committee report, was “on an unsustainable trajectory.” The current framework for NASA’s exploration programs, laid out in the 2010 NASA authorization act, is a far cry from the situation four years ago. “We have a very strong bipartisan commitment on the path that we’re on,” she said.
She also criticized those who have argued that the agency currently doesn’t have a firm direction forward. “Some have have claimed that we are adrift and with no clear spaceflight destinations and no plans for the future,” she said. “But nothing could be further from the truth. The perpetuation of this myth only hurts our entire industry and undermines our nation’s goals at this critical time period.”
As evidence of this, she revealed that NASA has recently delivered to Congress a “comprehensive report outlining our destinations, which make clear that the SLS [Space Launch System] will go well beyond low Earth orbit,” she said. “We’re going back to the Moon, we’re attempting the first missions to send humans to an asteroid, and are actively developing a plan to take Americans to Mars.”
This report is the 180-day study on exploration destinations called for in NASA’s fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill. The report itself was delivered to Congress in the last week or two, but isn’t publicly available at the moment (I’m checking with NASA on when that report will be released.) NASA, though, did hand out hardcopies of the “Voyages” report to luncheon attendees. This document, released in June, is derived at least in part on the work done on the 180-day study for Congress.
Looking ahead, Garver also said that NASA is preparing for the worst-case scenario of budget sequestration. The administration still believes Congress will “do its job and pass a budget” before sequestration is triggered in January. If the cuts do go into effect, though, it would reduce NASA’s overall budget by $1.4 billion. “While we hope for the best, we certainly are planning in case the worse happens, and it will come at a great cost to the space program,” she said.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 11 at 8:42 am ET Adding to a busy week, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing Wednesday afternoon titled “The Path from LEO to Mars”. The hearing will start with an update on NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover, followed by a second panel of witnesses to discuss NASA’s “exploration portfolio” from low Earth orbit to Mars.
The Planetary Society is hoping to get a big public turnout for this hearing. On Monday they sent emails to members of the organization in the DC area (as well as a blog post), informing them about the hearing and encouraging them to attend. “These are the Senators who help determine funding within NASA,” the Society notes (although the overlap between members of the Commerce and Appropriations committees is limited, with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) the best example.) “The more public interest they perceive, the more likely they are to support these potentially game-changing missions to Mars and beyond.”
The real question, though, will be how many committee members show up: even though this is a full committee hearing, odds are most members will skip it because of other hearings, floor action, or other events off the Hill, as has traditionally been the case with space-related hearings by the Commerce committee. Unless, of course, getting an update on the activities of NASA’s latest Mars rover piques their, well, curiosity.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 9 at 2:06 pm ET President Barack Obama spoke for over a half-hour late Sunday morning in a campaign appearance on the campus of the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne. However, those expecting him to spend some time talking about space, particularly contrasting his policies with those espoused by the Romney campaign, likely came away disappointed. Obama only briefly mentioned space in his speech, in reference to the creation of new manufacturing jobs in various industries:
Here on the Space Coast, we started a new era of American exploration that is creating good jobs right here in this county. We’ve begun an ambitious new direction for NASA by laying the groundwork for 21st century spaceflight and innovation. And just last month, we witnessed an incredible achievement that speaks to the nation’s sense of wonder and our can-do spirit: the United States of America landing Curiosity on Mars. [cheers]
So this is an example of what we do when we combine our science, our research, our ability to commercialize new products, making them here in America. So this is where we’ve got a choice: we could, as the House Republican budget proposes, cut back on research and technology. Or, we can continue to be at the cutting edge, because that’s what we’ve always been about. We can spark new discoveries, launch new careers, inspire the next generation to reach for something better.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 8 at 10:41 am ET The full House Science Committee is planning a hearing for the morning of Friday, September 14, on “Recent Developments in NASA’s Commercial Crew Acquisition Strategy”. NASA associate administration William Gerstenmaier and Joseph Dyer, the chairman of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, are the two scheduled witnesses.
The hearing is likely to cover NASA’s decision last month to award funded Space Act Agreements to three companies—Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX—for the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) phase of the agency’s overall commercial crew program. Earlier this week NASA released the CCiCap Selection Statement where Gerstenmaier, the NASA selection official, explained the rationale for why NASA elected to make those particular awards, and why the fourth major entrant in the competition, ATK, did not receive an award. ATK officials told Space News that they felt that while their proposal met the goals of the CCiCap program, “those categories were not given clear weighting in the ratings of the proposal.”
In the minutes of the latest ASAP public meeting, held in July at KSC, Dyer noted that ASAP members had recently met with Boeing about their commercial crew efforts and planned to visit with Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin (a company that had a second-round commercial crew development award from NASA but did not submit a proposal for CCiCap) in the coming weeks; they had already met with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. Noting the diversity of companies, Dyer said, according to the minutes, “This leads to questions about acquisition strategy that the Panel has discussed: Will the government make a source selection decision based on lowest cost but technically acceptable or on best value? How will safety play out in that distribution?”
“In the past, the Panel has expressed some concerns on how best to transition from the Space Act Agreement environment, which allows rapid progress and a good ‘decision velocity’, to the more structured and rigorous effort that would be involved with a FAR-based contract,” the minutes later noted, discussing the panel’s desire for transparency by NASA on its requirements and by the companies on their capabilities. “There was some discussion about how NASA is attempting to meet those concerns. The ASAP is pleased with the progress and looks forward to the final decisions on how that will be implemented.”
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 8 at 10:21 am ET Don’t count the members of the space advocacy group the Space Frontier Foundation fans of either the Democratic or Republican parties’ positions on space. Last week they issued a press release critical of the Republican platform’s space language, suggesting it was as odds with broader party ideology. “NASA seems to be one Big Government program many Republicans love,” the Foundation’s statement reads, saying that while the platform in general is critical of federal government programs, it has “nothing but hackneyed praise for NASA, and doesn’t even mention the increasing role of the private sector.” And, in a statement earlier this week, the Foundation criticized the lack of language about space in the Democratic platform: “At least the platform committee didn’t waste any words. But when it comes to actual substance, they earned the same failing grade as the Republicans.”
While the Space Frontier Foundation was criticizing either the lack of space language or its big-government focus, planetary scientists have been focused on a more tactical objective: winning additional funding for NASA’s planetary science program, which the administration sought to cut by 20 percent in its FY2013 budget request. “Right now the problem is the Administration in the form of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP),” said the Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society in a statement this week. “While Congress can give planetary exploration extra money on a year-by-year basis, the OMB five-year planning budget can hamstring NASA’s execution of any Congressionally-enhanced planetary program. We need to engage OMB and OSTP and push for the inclusion of five-year budget planning levels up to or above the FY12 level of $1.5B.”
DPS is urging its members to send physical letters (not emails) to key officials in OMB and OSTP urging them to increase NASA’s planetary funding as they work on the proposed FY2014 budgets, offering sample letters and contact information for those officials. DPS is coordinating this effort with The Planetary Society (which has its own “action alert” with a September 10 deadline) and the Planetary Science Section of the American Geophysical Union.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 6 at 1:18 pm ET The Obama campaign in Florida released earlier today a three-page white paper detailing what the Obama Administration has accomplished in space policy during its first term. The paper itemizes those accomplishments in several areas: extending the life of existing space efforts (such as the ISS), supporting the growth of commercial spaceflight, continued investments in science (principally in earth science, as opposed to astronomy and planetary science), and building support for the next generation of human spaceflight.
The white paper also includes an introductory quote from President Obama:
I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future. Because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways that we can scarcely imagine. Because exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation sparking passions and launching careers. And because, ultimately, if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future and we are ceding that essential element of the American character.
One item at the end of the white paper might raise a few eyebrows. In the section on “Supporting Development Of The Next-Generation Space Vehicle”, the paper states: “Under President Obama, NASA is developing a new vehicle, the Space Launch System, which will serve as the backbone of its human space exploration program in the post-Shuttle era.” The SLS, though, was not an original Obama Administration proposal but instead the result of a congressional compromise, and until about a year ago supporters of the SLS in Congress were claiming the administration was slow-rolling the design of the SLS.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 6 at 6:50 am ET Florida Today reports that President Barack Obama will make a campaign stop Sunday in Florida’s Space Coast region. The appearance in Melbourne, Florida, at a time and location yet to be announced, is part of a series of visits in a state that is key to the outcome of the election. A private meeting with a small group of local residents is also planned, in addition to the public rally.
In the 2008 campaign, Obama also visited the Space Coast, giving a speech in Titusville where he discussed space briefly. Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has not visited the region since giving a late January speech in Cape Canaveral where he outlined his approach to space policy.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 6 at 6:38 am ET Congress will be returning from its extended summer/convention break next week, and one committee already has a space-related hearing lined up. The space subcommittee of the House Science Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday morning titled “Examining NASA’s Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew Capsule”. Only two witnesses are listed as of Thursday morning, although with the promise of more: NASA’s Dan Dumbacher and Space Telescope Science Institute director Matt Mountain. The latter suggests that the committee will be interested in other uses of the SLS beyond human exploration missions; the SLS has been suggested for launching large space telescopes or flagship planetary missions, although whether such missions could afford an SLS is an open question.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 5 at 6:57 am ET Yesterday ScienceDebate 2012 released answers to a series of questions on science topics provided by the Obama and Romney campaigns. (Interest was high enough that the web site was largely inaccessible for most of the day; while it appears to be up and running now, a copy of the questions and answers is on Scientific American’s site.) One of the 14 questions dealt with space: “The United States is currently in a major discussion over our national goals in space. What should America’s space exploration and utilization goals be in the 21st century and what steps should the government take to help achieve them?”
The answer from the Romney campaign is worth reading since it offers a little bit more perspective on the campaign’s views on space and what a Romney Administration might do. The campaign starts with his view of the purpose of the space program:
The mission of the U.S. space program is to spur innovation through exploration of the heavens, inspire future generations, and protect our citizens and allies.
That’s followed by several bullet points on the role of space in technological innovation, the economy, national security, and foreign relations. The Romney statement then goes on to suggest that America’s space capabilities are deteriorating, in part because of a lack of perceived direction for the space program:
America has enjoyed a half-century of leadership in space, but now that leadership is eroding despite the hard work of American industry and government personnel. The current purpose and goals of the American space program are difficult to determine. With clear, decisive, and steadfast leadership, space can once again be an engine of technology and commerce. It can help to strengthen America’s entrepreneurial spirit and commercial competitiveness, launch new industries and new technologies, protect our security interests, and increase our knowledge.
The statement then reiterates statements Romney made back in January, where he said he would being in experts from a variety of disciplines to develop new goals and missions for NASA:
Rebuilding NASA, restoring U.S. leadership, and creating new opportunities for space commerce will be hard work, but I will strive to rebuild an institution worthy of our aspirations and capable once again leading the world toward new frontiers. I will bring together all the stakeholders – from NASA and other civil agencies, from the full range of national security institutions, from our leading universities, and from commercial enterprises – to set goals, identify missions, and define the pathway forward.
Then the campaign springs the bad news on space advocates looking to increase NASA’s budget:
Focusing NASA. A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs.
The statement then goes on to support international partnerships, stating that a Romney Administration “will invite friends and allies to cooperate with America in achieving mutually beneficial goals.” The campaign also has some strong words about national security space policy:
I am committed to a robust national security space program and I will direct the development of capabilities that defend and increase the resilience of space assets. I will also direct the development of capabilities that will deter adversaries seeking to damage or destroy the space capabilities of the U.S. and its allies.
The statement doesn’t go into additional details about what those capabilities to both defend US space assets and deter attacks might be. The National Security Space Strategy released by the Pentagon in January 2011 also includes language on these topics. “We seek to enhance our national capability to dissuade and deter the development, testing, and employment of counterspace systems and prevent and deter aggression against space systems and supporting infrastructure that support U.S. national security,” that document states, adding that such efforts include “strengthening the resilience of our architectures.”
Finally, and very briefly, the Romney statement addresses commercial space:
Revitalizing Industry. A strong aerospace industry must be able to compete for and win business in foreign markets. I will work to ease trade limitations, as appropriate, on foreign sales of U.S. space goods and will work to expand access to new markets.
It’s not clear what “trade limitations” the campaign is referring to, although it could be an oblique reference to export controls, which are a self-imposed form of trade limitations that makes it more difficult for US companies to export satellites and related components.
The key takeaway from the answer is that a Romney Administration would seek to refocus NASA in as-yet-unspecified ways (pending, perhaps, the recommendations of that collection of stakeholders mentioned both in the statement and in previous comments by Romney), but would not necessarily seek to increase NASA’s budget to carry out those revised priorities.
By Jeff Foust on 2012 September 5 at 6:11 am ET On Tuesday the Democratic Party released its platform, one week after the Republicans did. While space got a two-paragraph plank in the Republican platform, only one sentence in the Democratic one is devoted to space, under the “Out-Innovating the Rest of the World” subheading: “President Obama has charted a new mission for NASA to lead us to a future that builds on America’s legacy of innovation and exploration.” That’s it.
That limited reference to space has caused some grumbling in the space community, who clearly wanted more discussion about space in the platform. However, to put it into perspective, that one sentence is actually more than in the 2008 platform, when space had to share a sentence: “We will double federal funding for basic research, invest in a strong and inspirational vision for space exploration, and make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent.” In addition, while the Republican platform’s space section was longer, it didn’t necessarily say much more: it lacked specific policy prescriptions, whereas the one sentence in the Democratic platform references the administration’s record (for better or for worse) on space over the last four years.
Curiously, in an editorial Florida Today approves of the brief reference to space in the Democratic platform, saying it is “claiming ownership” of the administration’s policies on space. The Republicans, meanwhile, are criticized in the same editorial “for copping out on space” by not offering a distinctive space policy of their own after years of criticizing the Obama Administration’s policy.
One thing that should be kept in mind is that platforms are not binding policy documents but instead general expressions of what party members like and don’t like on various issues. The only reason we’re paying that much attention to them is that there’s little other specific information out there about where the candidates stand on space issues.
|
|
