By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 20 at 7:22 am ET Barring a weather delay, the space shuttle Atlantis will land at the Kennedy Space Center in less than 24 hours, marking the end of an era of human spaceflight. That means a variety of commentary on the shuttle, space policy, and future of human spaceflight for NASA and the nation.
One comment that has attracted some attention is an email from former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, someone who in the past had been critical of the shuttle program. As the Houston Chronicle reports, Griffin said he wanted to retire the shuttle “as the price” of getting a follow on system. “Not that my opinion matters, but I see no sense in retiring the shuttle in favor of nothing. That is beyond foolish,” he writes. (So, SLS and MPCV are nothing?) In an op-ed in the latest issue of Aviation Week, Griffin appears willing to retire the shuttle and accept a gap, so long as there is a successor system on the horizon. “[E]ven if the shuttle had accomplished perfectly that which it was designed to do, we must move on because of what it cannot do and was never designed to do,” he concludes in the essay, adding that the “tragedy” is that there is “nothing newer or better—indeed, we are looking forward to replacing it with nothing at all.”
In an op-ed in Space News this week, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the vice-chairman of the House Science Committee, bemoans NASA’s current situation and lays the blame squarely on the Obama Administration. “We are on the wrong track because these [space worker] layoffs are due to the Obama administration diverting nearly $3 billion per year out of NASA’s manned spaceflight budget from what was planned under President Bush’s budget projection,” he claims, adding later that “the Obama administration is diverting nearly $3 billion each year out of NASA’s manned spaceflight program to fund other Administration programs.” The source of that $3-billion claim isn’t clear: for example, NASA’s FY 2009 budget proposal, the last submitted under the Bush Administration, projected about $9.95 billion for human spaceflight (defined here as Space Operations and Exploration) in FY 2011; the FY11 proposal, the first to incoporate the Obama Administration’s policy changes, proposed $9.15 billion for those programs. (There is a bigger difference between the FY09 and FY12 proposals for 2012, $10.2 billion versus $8.3 billion, reflecting broader spending cuts for NASA and other federal agencies in the latter proposal.) [A reader pointed out later you do get to the nearly $3 billion difference by comparing the FY09 and FY12 budget proposals for 2012 and 2013 by looking at Exploration and ISS only, leaving out shuttle retirement/pension costs and Space Flight Support, which includes a mix of human spaceflight and other support programs.]
The Houston Chronicle also laments the end of the shuttle and NASA’s future in an editorial Wednesday, claiming, “For the first time in more than 50 years, the United States of America will not have the capability of launching American astronauts into space.” (The Chronicle’s editors appear to have forgotten the Apollo-Shuttle interregnum that lasted for nearly six years). The editorial describes the benefits of launching humans that the nation will miss, but oddly incorporates a claim that “one casualty of cutbacks to NASA will be the nation’s critically important weather satellite program.” That’s apparently a reference to the Joint Polar Satellite System, which is principally funded by NOAA, not NASA.
Not everyone is disappointed or agitated by the retirement of the shuttle. “Obama on right track in space” declared the headline of an editorial in the Decatur (Ala.) Daily today. It supports the administration’s approach of turning over LEO cargo and crew transportation to the private sector so that NASA can instead “instead focus more resources on missions like traveling to Mars.” Decatur, of course, is the home of a manufacturing facility for United Launch Alliance, which could be a major beneficiary of commercial crew transportation in particular.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 19 at 6:47 am ET On Monday Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released his own deficit reduction plan that he says will cut federal budget deficits by $9 trillion over the next decade. He provides an agency-by-agency breakdown of his proposed cuts, including a section about NASA. And his proposed cuts are, well, interesting.
Coburn’s plan would, according to the document, cut over $51 billion in NASA spending over the next decade, or about $5.1 billion a year. His goal, it appears, it to streamline the agency into one focused on aeronautics and space missions, transferring to other agencies or eliminating outright what he deems to be non-essential programs. “To achieve these goals, nearly all of NASA’s programs and activities not directly related or essential to space and aeronautics should be transferred to the federal agencies already addressing those missions or eliminated altogether,” his plan states.
Much of the document’s rhetoric, though, is spent on relatively small programs. Coburn appears particularly incensed with NASA’s educational programs (which overall account for $145.8 million in 2011, or less than 1 percent of the overall budget). “NASA’s Spaceward Bound program is not actually bound for space,” the document states at one point, referring to NASA’s Spaceward Bound program of allowing teachers to participate in NASA fieldwork projects. “The National Space Club Scholars program, for example, is not a national program at all despite its name,” it also states, perhaps thinking that it a national “Space Club Scholars” program rather than a “National Space Club” scholars program, with stipends provided by the National Space Club.
Dr. Coburn also wields a budget scalpel on some other programs. He seeks to halve NASA’s public relations budget, from $50 million to $25 million, and eliminate the $1.6-million Space Flight Awareness Program. He wants to terminate NASA’s Space Art program, which in recent years commissioned eight works of art for a grand total of $97,000, and fire NASA’s “Hollywood liaison”, who earns an annual salary of over $100,000. Coburn may well be correct that there is waste in some or all of these programs, but it’s awfully hard to get to billions and trillions of savings when you’re making cuts in the millions or even thousands.
There are some bigger cuts in his proposal, but some of these are also a bit unusual. He believes that NASA has too many field centers—a conclusion others have reached in the past—but instead of recommending a BRAC-like method of eliminating centers, he targets one center in particular: Ames. He devotes one whole paragraph (of three) about closing Ames about one very minor part of its work, supporting viticulture research, arguing in effect that is proof that its work is duplicative or “wholly unrelated” to NASA’s mission.
He also takes aim at a NASA program to build a new launch vehicle and spacecraft. SLS and MPCV? Not exactly. “Until NASA can determine more precisely how much it is likely to ultimately cost and whether or not that amount can be financed within the agency’s budget proposed here, the Constellation program should be canceled or delayed and obligated dollars should be re-evaluated and canceled if possible,” the document states. You read that right: Coburn is arguing that Constellation—a program that officially became defunct earlier this year—should be canceled. The document is silent on Constellation’s successors, SLS and MPCV, as well as commercial crew and cargo initiatives.
While there are some other good ideas in the proposal, such as ending award and bonus fees for programs that miss their cost and schedule targets, and a greater attention to identifying cost savings in audits of NASA programs, this curious mix of outdated and minor cuts seems unlikely to gain much support.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 15 at 7:33 am ET Tuesday’s House Science Committee hearing about NASA’s Space Launch System was, to some degree, predictable. Members of the committee expressed the concern, if not outright frustration, about the lack of a decision or other information from NASA about its SLS plans. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, the committee’s sole witness, reiterated that NASA was making progress on this but needed to make sure that the design it selected would be affordable and sustainable (two oft-repeated terms) over the long term.
“Indications that we had received from NASA throughout the spring clearly suggested that a decision would have been rendered prior to today. Sadly, such is not the case,” committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) said in his opening statement. “General Bolden, the fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS, and the supporting documents that the invitation letter requests, represents almost an insult to this committee and the Congress.” Hall added later that his committee reserves the right to open an investigation into the delays.
Bolden, in his testimony, offered a few new items about the state of the SLS decisionmaking effort. Although deputy administrator Lori Garver said last week that she anticipated a final decision by the end of thus summer, Bolden suggested that it could take even longer. He said that on June 20 he approved a specific technical design for the SLS, but did not disclose exactly what that design is. “That was an important step but not a final decision,” Bolden said. Cost estimates, including an independent assessment by Booz Allen Hamilton, are currently in progress. “It would be irresponsible to proceed further until at least we have good estimates,” he said. “This will likely be the most important decision I make as NASA administrator, and I want to get it right.” While hoping to make that decision by the end of the summer, “the absolute need to make sure our SLS program fits within our overall budget constraints suggests it may take longer.”
Bolden also, for the first time publicly, indicated that some elements of the SLS design would be open to competition. Existing solid rocket boosters would initially be used for the SLS “until we can hold a competition, which I’ve directed we try to do as soon as possible, where all comers can compete,” including, specifically, liquid oxygen (LOX)/RP-1 systems. “It’s going to be full and open competition, if I can do what I would like to do.”
However, Bolden also indicated that the SLS might not be ready to carry people for perhaps a decade. An uncrewed test flight is planned for 2017, he said, which could be used for a high-speed reentry test of the Orion capsule. “We’re still talking late this decade, early ’20s before we have a human-rated vehicle,” he said. That, a member of the committee later noted, makes it unlikely the MPCV would be able to serve as the backup for commercial providers for accessing the ISS unless the station’s life is extended beyond 2020.
One member of the committee openly questioned whether NASA should be spending money on the SLS and MPCV. “Are we not spending money that should be going to some of those other goals in space,” such as robotic exploration and even space debris cleanup, suggested Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). “If we spend all of our money on a huge vehicle that may or may not be absolutely necessary, the money won’t be there for what is the modern version of the Hubble telescope.”
Bolden disagreed. “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program.” “No, you don’t have a human exploration program,” countered Rohrabacher. “I’m a big fan of human exploration,” Bolden replied. Rohrabacher warned that by spending money on long-term human space exploration at the expense of those other goals, be it space telescopes or space debris cleanup, “we are then chasing after goals that are so far in the distance that we are cutting out the things that we can do today.”
The SLS debate shows no sign of dying down. Yesterday three members of the Senate, John Boozman (R-AR), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Bill Nelson (D-FL), held a press conference on relatively short notice to discuss their concerns about the lack of progress on the SLS design. They are asking NASA and the White House to release that technical design on the SLS now, even while the cost studies continue. “Senator Nelson and I are urging that the OMB let the decision be made public so the contractors at NASA will stay in place – that will be the most efficient way for the taxpayers of our country,” Hutchison said in a statement Thursday. “We also want to know why they are delaying so much when they’ve already massaged the numbers once in NASA, actually two or three times.”
Hutchison added in the statement that she and Nelson have seen that unreleased technical design for the SLS and “we know that it is a great design,” she said. “NASA is going to be the final arbiter of what this design is, it’s not OMB. So let’s move out, let’s get going, and let’s do the best for our taxpayers by holding on to the experienced people that we have.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 13 at 9:34 am ET In advance of this morning’s markup by the full House Appropriations Committee of its Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill, the committee released yesterday its report about the bill, which includes some additional funding details and other items about the bill. Some highlights:
- On perhaps the bill’s biggest issue, the proposed termination of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) program, the committee effectively states that this move is designed to serve as an example, and warning, that cost overruns on NASA programs in general will not be tolerated in the future. “The Committee believes that this step will ultimately benefit NASA by setting a cost discipline example for other projects and by relieving the enormous pressure that JWST was placing on NASA’s ability to pursue other science missions.”
- The bill includes $4 million to carry out “descoping studies” for the two highest-ranked planetary science missions in the recent decadal survey, a Mars rover that would cache samples for a future sample return mission and Europa orbiter, moves that are essential to make those missions affordable given projected budgets.
- The bill includes $10 million for NASA to restart production of plutonium-238 needed for radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for future planetary missions. But since that work must be done in cooperation with the Department of Energy, which did not get corresponding funding in its House appropriations bill, this could be a moot point.
- For Space Technology, the committee justifies its more than 60 percent cut from the administration’s proposal by saying that the proposed growth in this area is “premature”, citing the ongoing technology roadmap studies and lack of “a sustainable budgetary plan for absorbing a new program of such significant size without causing damage to other necessary activities.”
- The bill funds the Space Launch System at $1.985 billion, a little more than the administration’s request but below the authorized level of $2.65 billion. The committee makes clear that the ultimate goal of the SLS is a vehicle that can place 130 tons into orbit, and that any development of a smaller vehicle (in the range of 70-100 tons, as described in the authorization act) must be on the path to that larger SLS. “NASA should not expend funds on design or development of a smaller vehicle that does not add value to the overall SLS effort.”
- The committee also asks NASA to develop a “destination-based approach” to its exploration plans “that would designate a specific target location, such as the Moon, to drive development decisions and timelines going forward.” It’s not clear how this would be different from the president’s stated goals of a human mission to a near Earth asteroid by 2025 and Mars orbit by the 2030s. (No specific asteroid has been identified yet, of course, and it’s even possible that the specific destination hasn’t even been discovered yet.)
- The bill provides $312 million for commercial crew, the same as last year. The committee finds that the administration’s proposal for $850 million is, like that space technology proposal, “premature”, citing a lack of an acquisition strategy for next round of its Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. The committee also recommends NASA make use of unfunded Space Act Agreements for the next CCDev round, in addition to funded awards, “to maximize the number of commercial partners who stay engaged with the program and remain in contention for an eventual service contract.”
- The committee, stating its frustration with “the uncertainty of leadership within the Administration on space policy and the resulting lack of focus within NASA itself,” has included $1 million for the Office of the Inspector General to perform “a comprehensive independent assessment of NASA’s strategic direction and agency management,” due 120 days after enactment of the appropriations bill.
- The appropriations bill would also remove restrictions that have kept NASA from carrying out layoffs of its workforce.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 12 at 7:16 am ET For some time NASA officials, including administrator Charles Bolden, have said that a decision on the design of the Space Launch System (SLS) would come “soon”. For example, in Bolden’s speech at the National Press Club on July 1, he said NASA was nearing a decision on the SLS “and will announce that soon.” Four days later, in an online chat, Bolden reiterated that “we’ll be making an announcement soon”, adding that since “this is one of the most important and most expensive decisions we will make for the next decade… I want to make sure we get it right.”
But when exactly is “soon”? This week? This month? This summer? It appears that the last option—this summer—is the most accurate one. In several press briefings at the Kennedy Space Center on July 7, the day before the launch of Atlantis, both Bolden and NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver provided a few more details about the SLS decisionmaking process. “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,” Garver said at a briefing about the MPCV. She said that an independent cost evaluation of SLS designs was currently in progress, one of the last major steps before making an SLS decision and announcement; she said after another briefing that this evaluation would be done by late July or early August. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer.”
Garver said at the briefing that the decision on the SLS is the administration’s to make, and no final decision has been made. Asked where in the administration the decision was being made—with the implication that the decision is being made by, or hung up in, an agency like OMB—Garver said, “We’re one team in our administration.”
In a later news briefing, she disagreed with criticism that the agency was dragging its heels on the SLS decision. “It was only in April that we even had a budget that was passed for 2011″ that, among other things, finally allowed NASA to end the Constellation program, she said. “It is interesting to me that this has become an issue, that people believe we are not making progress because they don’t have the final design.”
Bolden, in his only appearance at a news conference at KSC before or immediately after the shuttle launch, emphasized the need to not rush into an SLS decision. “The decision on a heavy-lift launch vehicle is going to be a very critical and very expensive decision for the nation that’s got to carry us into this next era,” he said. “We’re close to making a decision on the configuration but not quite there.”
Bolden will have more opportunities to speak about the SLS decision status at a hearing this morning of the full House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. As the hearing’s charter notes, the hearing was originally planned “to examine NASA’s selection of a heavy-lift launch system”. With that selection still several weeks in the future, “the hearing will instead provide an opportunity for NASA to explain why it has failed to reach a decision, what analyses still need to be completed, and when the Space Launch System decisions will be forthcoming.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 9 at 1:41 pm ET As the details about the House Appropriations Committee’s proposed FY2012 NASA budget sink in, more individuals and organizations are raising concerns about the budget. The one item that has received the most attention has been the committee’s plan to terminate funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), effectively ending the program. The American Astronomical Society (AAS) released a statement Thursday calling on Congress to “support JWST to its completion” but also “provide strong oversight” for a project that has suffered major cost overruns and schedule delays. “It is time to complete construction and look ahead to JWST’s launch and science operations,” the AAS statement notes.
The proposed termination of JWST has attracted the attention of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the corresponding appropriations subcommittee in the Senate. “It was a shortsighted and misguided move,” she said in a statement about the House appropriators’ decision to kill the project, noting that ending JWST would “kill 2,000 jobs nationwide and stall scientific progress and discovery.” She also called on the White House to “step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope.”
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) also made similar comments about the attempt to kill JWST. “I worry about the message we send to our students to reach for the stars and pursue careers in the sciences while simultaneously eliminating projects that further research and technology and keep us on the cutting edge of competitiveness,” she said.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the Burbank Leader that he would move to restore proposed cuts in NASA’s budget when the full appropriations committee marks up the budget next week. Schiff, who serves on the CJS subcommittee that proposed the budget, said he was concerned about “dramatic cuts to space technology research and development and other vital efforts” in the budget. The Space Technology account was by over 60 percent from the administration’s budget request.
Cuts to space technology as well as potentially to NASA’s Commercial Crew Development program are at the heart of a political call to action issued Friday by the Space Access Society. The organization is asking people to contact their members of Congress by no later than midday Tuesday (in advance of Wednesday’s scheduled markup by the full appropriations committee) about full funding for those two programs. “There are lots of cuts coming this year, and the ones who protest the loudest, i.e., generate the most calls, are the ones who may get some of their funding back,” the alert notes.
Finally, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he would consider voting against the proposed appropriations bill if it reaches the House in its current form. Brooks did not mention objections about specific programs cut in the bill, like JWST, but instead appeared to object to the overall cuts to the agency.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 8 at 3:46 pm ET For the second time this week, President Obama has spoken publicly about space issues. In a “Twitter Town Hall” on Wednesday he described how he was pushing NASA to “revamp its vision”. This afternoon, a few hours after the successful launch of the shuttle Atlantis on the final mission of the program, he released a statement about the launch. He expressed his “sincere gratitude” to NASA’s astronauts, shuttle workers, and the rest of the agency’s workforce. “You helped our country lead the space age, and you continue to inspire us each day.”
He also looked ahead in the statement. “Today’s launch may mark the final flight of the Space Shuttle, but it propels us into the next era of our never-ending adventure to push the very frontiers of exploration and discovery in space,” he said. And, summarizing some key goals from his April 2010 speech at KSC, he said, “I have tasked the men and women of NASA with an ambitious new mission: to break new boundaries in space exploration, ultimately sending Americans to Mars. I know they are up to the challenge – and I plan to be around to see it.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 8 at 9:29 am ET I’m at the Kennedy Space Center this morning, where in a couple of hours, if weather permits (a big if right now!) and there are no technical issues, the shuttle Atlantis will lift off on STS-135, the final shuttle mission. In the last few days several members of Congress have spoken about the shuttle’s end and what the future holds.
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, notes in a statement he’s been in Congress since the shuttle’s first flight in 1981. He heaps praise on NASA and all involved with the shuttle program: “The talented men and women of NASA’s Space Shuttle team have done an extraordinary job, continually pushing the boundaries of science and engineering. They deserve tremendous credit for their accomplishments and their continuing commitment to the success of our nation’s endeavors in space.” He also looks to the future:
With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA will face a critical period and will need Congress’s support and direction to focus its limited resources on sustaining America’s leadership in space. We are in a challenging budget environment, but I believe that ensuring U.S. access to space is vital to our national interests. I believe human space exploration should be a national priority. In order for the U.S. to remain a leader in space exploration Congress has given NASA a blueprint in last year’s authorization bill, which is now law. The Space Launch System and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle are important priorities that can also ensure the U.S. achieves assured access for American crews, in case commercial ventures do not materialize or our international partners become unable to provide access to the Space Station. As Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I will continue to make sure that NASA follows this path, so that America will remain the preeminent leader in space exploration.
By contrast, Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), chair of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, has only been in Congress since the beginning of this year. But he offers a similar take on NASA’s post-Shuttle future as Hall:
With the retired Shuttle Program, America’s legacy as the unrivaled world leader in space exploration enters a new and uncertain era. NASA faces many new challenges to sustain America’s leadership in space, especially during this difficult budgetary time. As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I will work with Congress, NASA, and the Administration to clarify our goals and strategies, monitor the agency’s progress, and help address the needs and challenges ahead. I believe Congress should prioritize human spaceflight and continue developing the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle in order to achieve assured access for American crews to the International Space Station, in the event commercial ventures are not successful. Congress has given NASA a clear direction to follow in last year’s authorization bill. I will do my part to assist Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) in ensuring NASA follows the law and maintains America’s space exploration legacy
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) released a statement he gave on the Senate floor Thursday on NASA and the future. “And so today on the eve of the final space shuttle launch, we celebrate the shuttle program’s remarkable feats, which exhibited many of the qualities that make America exceptional — courage, ingenuity, risk taking and an ability to accomplish what once seemed unthinkable,” he stated. He then took on the administration about NASA’s future:
This brings me to the other reason for speaking today. You see, when this final shuttle mission draws to a close, many Americans will be startled by the realization that we don’t have an answer to the question: What’s next for NASA?
NASA has no answer, the administration has no answer, and as we transition to the next generation of space exploration, Florida’s aerospace workers are left with only questions about their future.
Rubio added later that while commercial crew efforts “is a promising development that we should encourage”, “NASA should lead.” Just not with any more money than it’s currently getting: “It will not be about spending more. It will be about spending wisely.”
A different point of view about NASA’s future comes from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), which is interesting since she doesn’t speak out on space issues generally. She told Missouri News Horizon that she sees a bright future for the nation’s space program because of public-private partnerships like commercial cargo and crew. “I think you’re still going to see a very aggressive space program, it’s just going to be fashioned differently in terms of a public-private partnership,” she said.
Houston radio station KUHF-FM also got a very brief comment from Sen. John Cornyn on life after the shuttle: “The last shuttle launch means that we are now going to be dependent on the tender mercies of Russia and other countries, to buy room on a shuttle or rocket that will actually get us to the International Space Station.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 7 at 6:16 am ET The draft Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill released Wednesday by the House Appropriations Committee attracted considerable attention in the space community because of its plan to terminate funding for NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, part of nearly $2 billion in overall cuts from the administration’s request. Astronomers in particular have been particularly outspoken about the plan to kill JWST, which has suffered from major cost overruns and schedule delays.
“Against a backdrop of widespread discussion over the future of NASA and the human spaceflight program, it is tragic that the Congress is also proposing to curtail NASA’s science program,” William S. Smith, president of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), said in a statement issued by the organization Wednesday afternoon. Dan Clemens, chair of AURA’s board, added in the release that JWST has been previously identified by astronomers as NASA’s highest priority astronomy mission. “The importance of its science has only increased since then. I hope that this year’s final appropriations bill will provide the needed support to complete this program.”
In a “Take Action Alert” emailed by The Planetary Society last night, executive director Bill Nye put the blame for JWST’s proposed demise on another NASA program, the Space Launch System (SLS), which would get slightly more money than the administration requested for 2012. “The congressionally designed machine called the Space Launch System could go down in history as the rocket that destroyed NASA’s space program,” he writes in the email. He notes that besides JWST, NASA’s commercial crew program could also be “hit hard” by the cuts. “What is causing such carnage? It’s not just the weakened U.S. economy. It’s the giant Space Launch System, a rocket legislated by Congress and signed into law by the President. It’s got no destination and no mission to fulfill.”
Nye asked people to contact Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the CJS appropriations subcommittee, and ask him to reverse this plan. “Please let him know that this proposal — to be voted on tomorrow — would spell disaster for space exploration, now and for generations to come,” Nye said. However, time is short: Wolf’s subcommittee will formally mark up the appropriations bill Thursday morning at 10:15 am. That markup, though, is just one round of what may be a long and bruising fight for the future of NASA and especially JWST.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 7 at 5:53 am ET Yesterday the White House hosted a “Twitter Town Hall”, where President Obama answered questions directed to him though Twitter. (Unlike the questions, the president’s answers were not restricted to 140 characters.) While much of the forum dealt with economic issues, one of the questions–perhaps not surprisingly, given that the final shuttle mission is set to launch on Friday–dealt with space policy: “Now that the space shuttle is gone, where does America stand in space exploration?”. The president’s response, from the official transcript:
We are still a leader in space exploration. But, frankly, I have been pushing NASA to revamp its vision. The shuttle did some extraordinary work in low-orbit experiments, the International Space Station, moving cargo. It was an extraordinary accomplishment and we’re very proud of the work that it did. But now what we need is that next technological breakthrough.
We’re still using the same models for space travel that we used with the Apollo program 30, 40 years ago. And so what we’ve said is, rather than keep on doing the same thing, let’s invest in basic research around new technologies that can get us places faster, allow human space flight to last longer.
And what you’re seeing now is NASA I think redefining its mission. And we’ve set a goal to let’s ultimately get to Mars. A good pit stop is an asteroid. I haven’t actually — we haven’t identified the actual asteroid yet, in case people are wondering. (Laughter.) But the point is, let’s start stretching the boundaries so we’re not doing the same thing over and over again, but rather let’s start thinking about what’s the next horizon, what’s the next frontier out there.
But in order to do that, we’re actually going to need some technological breakthroughs that we don’t have yet. And what we can do is for some of this low-orbit stuff, some of the more routine space travel — obviously no space travel is routine, but it could become more routine over time — let’s allow the private sector to get in so that they can, for example, send these low-Earth orbit vehicles into space and we may be able to achieve a point in time where those of you who are just dying to go into space, you can buy a ticket, and a private carrier can potentially take you up there, while the government focuses on the big breakthroughs that require much larger investments and involve much greater risk.
That’s a summation of previous policy on space, including his speech at the Kennedy Space Center in April 2010. While the president argued that NASA needs to stop “using the same models for space travel” that date back to Apollo, the NASA authorization act he signed last fall does include some elements, like the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, that harken back to those old models and technologies. And as for his focus on technological breakthroughs, at almost the same time as he spoke, House appropriators released a draft FY12 appropriations bill that would cut the administration’s proposed spending on NASA’s space technology program by over 60 percent.
|
|
