By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 13 at 6:47 am ET Readers may remember that, three years ago, there was considerable pressure on Congress to approve a waiver for NASA to the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA), actions that eventually included a letter from the NASA administrator at the time to a certain Illinois senator thanking him for his work supporting the waiver extension, even though that senator was spending most of his time on the campaign trail for higher office. Today, it’s hard to imagine Mike Griffin writing a thank-you letter to Barack Obama but, well, that was then, this is now.
That 2008 provision extended NASA’s waiver from INKSNA, allowing it to continue purchasing Soyuz and Progress flight services from Russia until 2016. While that waiver doesn’t expire for nearly five years, NASA officials are already planning what kind of new extension to that waiver the agency will require. In testimony before the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee Wednesday, NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier said that NASA expected it would need some kind of extension. “We think an exception to the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act is needed, and is needed even if we don’t need to purchase Soyuz seats,” he said in response to a question from subcommittee chairman Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS).
Some kind of waiver extension will be needed for “basic operations”, such as minor services provided by Russia for routine station operations, regardless of whether one will be needed for purchasing Soyuz seats, Gerstenmaier explained. NASA is planning that by 2015 or 2016 commercial vehicles will take over NASA’s crew transportation needs, so an INKSNA waiver wouldn’t necessarily be needed for that (although Palazzo noted in the hearing that he’s been briefed by NASA officials who said they’re not expecting commercial crew systems to come online until 2017.) “We’re working the appropriate exception through the administration,” Gerstenmaier said. “We need that in place some time probably in late 2012, early 2013.”
Another NASA official also said Wednesday that NASA would need another INKSNA waiver by 2013 because of the lead times in producing Soyuz spacecraft. “We have a three-year lead time on Soyuz flights,” said Courtney Graham, associate general counsel for commercial law at NASA, at a space law forum in Washington organized by the University of Nebraska College of Law. “In mid-2013 we’re going to need to know whether we need INKSNA relief so we have that to buy more Soyuz flights” or if commercial providers will be on schedule to take over that role by 2016.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 12 at 6:56 am ET Two House committees will be holding separate hearings on space-related issues this afternoon. At 1 pm, the House Small Business Committee will be holding a hearing on “LightSquared: The Impact to Small Business GPS Users”. LightSquared is a company planning a hybrid satellite-terrestrial communications network that, recent studies have found, could create significant interference with GPS signals. The hearing will feature an executive from LightSquared as well as officials with industries and organizations potentially impacted by LightSquared-induced GPS interference. “Thousands of small businesses, like farmers, construction workers and the aviation industry, rely on an accurate GPS signal for their day-to-day operations, and potential interference could severely handicap or impair their business,” said Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), chairman of the committee, in a press release about the upcoming hearing. This is not the first Congressional hearing about LightSquared and potential GPS interference: past hearings include one by the House Science Committee last month. (It’s probably no coincidence that LightSquared is running ads on at least one DC radio station this morning, talking about how it quickly came up with measures to mitigate any GPS interference as well as the benefits of its wireless broadband service.)
Later this afternoon, the science committee’s space and aeronautics subcommittee will be holding a hearing titled “The International Space Station: Lessons from the Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight”. Joseph Dyer, the chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Committee, has been added to the witness list that includes NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier and former astronaut Tom Stafford. The focus of the hearing, according to the hearing charter, will be on the status of Russian plans to return the Soyuz launch vehicle to flight and contingency plans in the event the Soyuz is not ready by mid-November, when the remaining three ISS crew members would return to Earth and leave the station unmanned.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 11 at 6:28 am ET The next round in the ongoing, long-running discussion about export control reform for the US space industry will come Thursday with a meeting of the Export Control Working Group of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). That working group meeting will include a panel discussion featuring Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who has advocated for export control reform; National Security Council staffer Brian Nilsson; and AIA vice president Remy Nathan.
This meeting is expected to be an opportunity for the administration to discuss publicly more details about their export control reform plans, including perhaps their plans to review the items in Category XV of the US Munitions List (USML), which covers spacecraft and related components. Earlier this year congressional staffers indicated they were open to reform proposals, but were waiting on a long-overdue report from the Defense Department on the effects of removing satellites and related items from the USML.
More details about the working group meeting, courtesy of chairman Mike Gold, are below:
Brian Nilsson, National Security Council Professional Staff Member, will provide a briefing on the Administration’s current export control reform plans and strategy. Also participating in the panel will be Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) an important voice on Capitol Hill on the topic of export control reform, and Remy Nathan, Vice President for International Affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, who will provide the business perspective. The panel discussion will begin promptly at 8:30 am on Thursday, Oct. 13th, at the National Housing Center, located at 1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC (near the intersection of Massachusetts Ave. and 15th Street). This panel discussion should provide attendees with invaluable insight into the latest in the ongoing export control reform effort and the likely Congressional reaction to the Obama Administration’s most recent plans. The event is free and open to the public.
The full COMSTAC meeting agenda also includes on Friday a presentation by Sean Monogue, chair of the Missile Technology Export Control Group in the Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation (ISN/MBC) of the State Department, which should offer another opportunity for insight into export control policy and its application to space-related items.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 9 at 11:33 am ET Some people in the space advocacy community have a long term goal that goes beyond going back to the Moon or sending human expeditions to Mars: they want to see people working and living—permanently—in space. From the early visions of space colonies by the L-5 Society to the modern-day desire of Mars Society members to establish an outpost of human civilization on the Red Planet, these people want to do more than explore space; they want to see people making it their home. Should that vision be part of national space policy—or is it already?
Over the last 18 months advocates of space settlement have been getting mixed messages from the White House and NASA leadership on this topic. In his speech at the Kennedy Space Center in April 2010, President Obama appeared to endorse, albeit indirectly, the concept of space settlement: “Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite.” Obama never used the “s-word”—settlement—but the idea of living and working in space in “indefinite” ways certainly sounds like it.
But at a town hall meeting at the Johnson Space Center in late September, NASA administrator Charles Bolden seemed to suggest space settlement was not part of the agency’s vision. “Bolden says we’re not looking for other places to live, [we’re] going to explore to better understand our place in universe and life on Earth,” read one tweet about Bolden’s comments from an attendee of the event. “Bolden asks who wants to live on Moon, skeptical we’ll build habitats on Mars. Discusses expeditionary approach to both,” read another.
To add to the confusion, just a few days later a NASA center director suggested space settlement is the best rationale for human space exploration. “Within a few decades Earth life will permanently live off Earth and prosper,” Pete Worden, director of NASA’s Ames Research Center, said in a keynote speech at the beginning of the 100 Year Starship Study Symposium on September 30 in Orlando. “Indeed, I think this is the best justification for our human exploration program.”
This discussion comes as the National Academies is set to perform this fiscal year (2012) “a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight” as directed by the 2010 NASA authorization act. Some have likened this to a “decadal study” for human spaceflight, analogous to those performed in the sciences, although there is a debate about how useful such a study will be.
“We’ve charged in the bill the National Academies to do some work to try to help identify a consensus for what are the reasons for human spaceflight, what are some of the destinations that make the most sense,” Jeff Bingham, a senior advisor on the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee, said during a panel session of the AIAA Space 2011 conference last month in Long Beach, California. Space settlement advocates will soon find out how well their arguments stand up against other rationales for human spaceflight in that study—which, in turn, could provide some clarity for future space policy.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 8 at 11:59 pm ET Due to a database error comments posted Saturday evening (between about 6 pm and midnight) were lost. The problem should now be corrected. My apologies for any inconvenience.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 6 at 8:17 pm ET Late Thursday the office of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued a press release announcing that the congressman was calling for an investigation by NASA’s inspector general (IG) into the “politicization” of NASA. Smith cites an internal NASA report claiming to find evidence that “Obama Administration political appointees ‘focus on Democratic political goals, not national goals,’ creating a dysfunctional and hostile work environment for NASA’s career civil servants.”
The release is vague about any specific problems that report uncovered even as Smith called for the NASA IG to investigate any improper or illegal action. “I am calling for an investigation to see if any improper actions have been taken to steer agency funding and contracts, circumvent the civil service hiring process, or if other mismanagement of agency resources has occurred to benefit ‘Democratic political goals,'” Smith said in the statement.
The letter that Smith sent to NASA IG Paul K. Martin, dated Wednesday, does offer some more details. In the letter, Smith mentions a report prepared by 4-D Systems, one that apparently involved interviewing NASA senior civil servant managers about the agency leadership. The executive summary of that report, provided to Rep. Smith’s office on September 22 (more than two months after Smith requested it at a House Science Committee hearing), “provided some disturbing insights about a dysfunctional and hostile work environment created by Obama Administration political appointees toward NASA’s career civil servants,” Smith states in the letter. He specifically cites “Politicos’ focus on Democratic political goals, not national goals” and a lack of trust from and communication with agency leadership: “Two groups, political and career that communicate to themselves.”
Smith asks Martin to assign the case to a “senior career investigator” who can work independently “without any interference from Obama Administration political appointees” and that the investigation be completed within four months.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 6 at 7:15 am ET For months, people have speculated that Mark Kelly, the retiring NASA astronaut who is the husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is planning a political career, despite repeated statements by him that’s he not interested in running for office. That speculation will likely continue this week as he participates in a formal retirement ceremony from the US Navy today at the White House, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding, and this weekend, when he is scheduled to speak at an Arizona Democratic Party fundraiser in Phoenix.
While Kelly has stated he’s not interested in a political career, another former astronaut is throwing his helmet into the ring. Jose Hernandez has filed papers to run for Congress in the new 10th district of California, which includes the city of Modesto in central California. Hernandez, a Democrat, has resigned from his position at MEI Technologies to explore a congressional bid, and is expected to make a formal announcement Tuesday, according to the Stockton Record report. The Federal filing document identifies his campaign web site as www.joseforcongress.com, although the site doesn’t appear to be up yet.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 October 5 at 7:12 am ET The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee announced this week that its space subcommittee will hold a hearing next Wednesday, October 12, on “The International Space Station: Lessons from the Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight”. Scheduled to testify so far are William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator of NASA’s new Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, and former astronaut Thomas P. Stafford. Other witnesses may be added.
Tuesday morning the Nobel Prize in Physics went to three astronomers for their work discovering the accelerating expansion of the universe, research carried out in part using the Hubble Space Telescope. Within 24 hours, one newspaper, the Baltimore Sun, stepped in to argue that the award is evidence that Congress should continue to fund the James Webb Space Telescope. The loss of JWST “would jeopardize all the advances made since Hubble was launched as well as America’s position of leadership in astronomy and space exploration,” the editorial warns, adding its concern that “there’s a real danger that the Webb Space Telescope could fall victim to the kind of budget and tax-cutting frenzy that a generation ago resulted in the cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider.” Baltimore does have a stake in the future of JWST, since the Space Telescope Science Institute—where one of yesterday’s Nobel laureates, Adam Reiss, works—would operate the telescope, but the editorial states that “the Webb telescope’s immense importance for advancing scientific knowledge and research far outweighs its economic impact on the region.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 September 30 at 11:50 am ET Earlier this month the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee passed a 2012 appropriations bill that included only $13 million for the FAA’s OFfice of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), less than half the administration’s request of $26.6 million and below the FY11 level of $15 million. The report accompanying the appropriations bill has recently been released by the committee, and it indicates that appropriators believe the FAA should be focusing its resources more on aviation issues, including air traffic control, than spaceflight.
“Given the challenges facing the Federal Aviation Administration with NextGen, safety oversight, rulemaking activities, and the operation of the world’s largest 24 hour air traffic control system, the Committee denies the Administration’s request for additional staff and resources for this office,” the report states, referring to AST. “Given the constrained resource environment that is facing the agency, the FAA can ill afford to divert resources away from core mission activities to this office.”
The big losers in the House bill are two new initiatives, a Commercial Spaceflight Technical Center in Florida and a proposed $5-million low-cost access to space prize. Neither program would receive any money in the House bill, accounting for most of the difference between the House bill and the administration’s request.
[Disclosure: my employer does work for FAA/AST, but it not involved with either the technical center or prize projects.]
By Jeff Foust on 2011 September 30 at 11:44 am ET On Thursday a reporter for Orlando television station WESH interviewed President Obama on a variety of topics, including space flight. In the interview, the president didn’t break any new ground on space policy, emphasizing that this is a “period of transition” for NASA that requires the development of new technologies. He also indicated, responding to the comment from the reporter (who apparently believes that there won’t be another NASA human spaceflight until 2025) about the jobs on Florida’s Space Coast lost with the shuttle’s retirement, that NASA will “figure out how we can move as many of the folks… who have expertise into these new projects”.
The question and answer is at the end of part 1 of the full interview video at the link above, starting just before the 4-minute mark. A rough transcript follows.
Reporter: When the manned space program shut down, we lost 9,000 jobs at NASA and in that general area. We’re not planning to have any more manned space flights until 2025. Do we risk losing the expertise and the behind-the-scenes acumen and public support by waiting that long to put men back in space?
Obama: Well, keep in mind that what we’ve done is said that we’re in a period of transition. I am absolutely committed to manned spaceflight. We had to make a choice. Frankly, we probably should have been doing a better job planning this out 20 years fr— 20 years ago. But the shuttle, and low orbit vehicles, had sort of played themselves out. For us to make the next leap, so that we’re not just going to the Moon but maybe Mars, we needed to revamp our technology, our heavy-lift vehicles had to be significantly improved. And so what we’ve done is said, look, we’re going to emphasize human spaceflight, that’s part of what makes America great, and it sparks the imagination not just in this country but the world. But in order to do that, we’ve got to take this transition time to start developing new technologies, more effective rockets, making sure that, as humans are in space longer, that we’ve figured out how to maintain environments for them. So, there’s going to be a huge amount of investment and work made in those areas, and the folks at NASA are the ones who are the experts. So even if the shuttle program has been suspended, what we’re trying to do is figure out how we can move as many of the folks—the engineers, the scientists, the technicians—who have expertise into these new projects to develop that next stage of human space flight.
|
|
