By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 8 at 10:36 am ET [Update 11:35 pm: Fortunately, these shutdown preparations will not have to be enacted. Congress and the White House have agreed on a budget deal for the rest FY11, and will pass a seven-day CR tonight to give them enough time to finalize the legislation and pass it.]
If no agreement is reached on a fiscal year 2011 budget by midnight tonight, shuttle launch preparations will cease, work on other satellite missions under development will stop, and, if you were planning to while away the weekend watching some action-packed NASA TV programming, you’re out of luck. A memo from NASA CFO Beth Robinson outlines the agency’s plans in the event of a shutdown caused by the lack of a FY11 budget or continuing resolution.
According to the memo, operations of the ISS and other active spacecraft would continue during a shutdown, and there would also be an allowance for an orderly completion or shutdown of other research “in cases where serious damage to property would result from temporary suspension of the activity.” Other activities across the agency intended to “protect life and property” will also continue, and contractors can keep working on projects under contracts obligated prior to the shutdown so long as NASA facilities and personnel are not required for that work. Had the shuttle been in orbit, or in the final phases of countdown to launch, its operations would have also continued, but in this case only those operations needed “to monitor and maintain the safety of the assets” will continue. Some activities included in the memo that will not continue during a shutdown include educational projects, tours of NASA centers, NASA web sites, and “televised access to NASA operations and programming”. (Florida Today does note that the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex would remain open since it is privately run, and apparently tour buses would still be allowed on center property during a shutdown.)
The table at the end of the memo makes it clear that the vast majority of NASA personnel would be furloughed in the event of a shutdown. Of the agency’s 19,014 employees, only 481 full-time equivalents (FTEs) would be exempted on a full- or part-time basis during a shutdown, with nearly half of those at JSC (reflecting, presumably, ISS operations.) Only 6 of the nearly 1,700 personnel at the Glenn Research Center would be exempted fro furlough, and only 22 of the 1,600-plus at Headquarters. A larger number–nearly 2,000 agency-wide–would be available “on call” if necessary for specific tasks.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 7 at 8:48 am ET Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) has been vocal recently about making human spaceflight NASA’s top priority in a constrained budget environment. Now he’s more specific: not only does he want to support human spaceflight, he wants NASA to return to the goal from the Vision for Space Exploration of sending humans back to the Moon, and is making a longshot bid to make that happen. In an op-ed in Florida Today on Thursday, Posey says he plans to introduce legislation “calling for NASA to resume the goal set forth in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act to return to the moon.”
In the op-ed, Posey reiterates a number of past arguments about supporting human spaceflight, including its role as an “economic driver” and its military importance (again, as in his statement recently to the House Budget Committee, likening space to “Earth’s Golan Heights.”) He doesn’t go into detail, though, about why a return to the Moon would do more on those fronts than something like the administration’s plans for human missions beyond Earth orbit that don’t, at least in the foreseeable future, including missions to the lunar surface.
“We must make the moon mission our highest priority within a NASA budget that is becoming increasingly distracted with other less important pursuits,” he argues. “The moon is achievable within the budget constraints that are necessary to secure America’s future.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 6 at 10:24 am ET As soon as later today NASA is expected to announce the winners of the second round of Commercial Crew Development awards (aka CCDev-2). Space News reports that as much as $270 million in funded agreements will be awarded (although final numbers may depend on exactly what the agency’s final FY11 budget is), with four or more companies winning awards.
Those awards, though, will likely only heighten attention to a topic that has already generates a lot of positive and negative reactions, as seen just in the last few days. Earlier this week slides of an Aerospace Corporation study were published by NASA Watch that did not offer that positive an assessment of the program. According to the internal Aerospace study (briefed to NASA administrator Charles Bolden over a month ago, according to the slides), commercial crew transportation would cost NASA $10-20 billion over 10 years at per seat prices potentially in excess of $100 million each, using Aerospace’s cost models. However, those conclusions have been strongly rejected by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF), an industry group that supports the commercial crew initiative. The cSF cites a number of issues with the Aerospace study, including no interviews with industry, questionable assumptions and cost figures, and neglecting additional markets for such vehicles, such as so-called “sovereign clients”, other national space agencies that could purchase seats for their countries’ astronaut corps.
Commercial crew does have an advocate, though, in former NASA Johnson Space Center director Gerry Griffin, who calls commercial crew “an encouraging near-term solution for human spaceflight” in an op-ed in USA Today on Wednesday. Griffin says that the NASA’s support for commercial crew providers “would significantly strengthen the agency’s chances to have humans explore beyond Earth orbit once again.” Griffin calls on Congress to fully fund the $850 million requested for the commercial crew program in the FY12 budget proposal.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 6 at 8:41 am ET Little, if any, progress was made Tuesday to come up with a deal to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2011, increasing the chances of a federal government shutdown come Friday night. While there’s no sign of a breakthrough that could lead to a deal by the deadline, that deadline could get moved. The House Appropriations Committee has introduced another continuing resolution (CR) which would fund the government for another week, and in addition fund the Defense Department through the rest of the fiscal year. That CR does include $12 billion in budget cuts, including $139 million for NASA: $40 million from its construction account and $99 million from its space operations account, according to the text of the legislation. However, there’s no guarantee that this CR would pass both houses of Congress, and President Obama said Tuesday he was opposed to another short-term CR.
Meanwhile, despite all the focus on the current year spending bill, the House Budget Committee released Tuesday its budget blueprint for FY 2012. The document reiterates earlier proposals to cut federal spending for non-defense discretionary programs, this time to “below 2008 levels”. The document doesn’t go into specifics; despite some lobbying by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) and Reps. Sandy Adams (R-FL) and Pete Olson (R-TX) asking Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the budget committee, to prioritize or otherwise protect human spaceflight programs at NASA, the document is silent on the space agency and human spaceflight.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 5 at 5:52 pm ET In a week NASA administrator Charles Bolden is scheduled to announce which locations will receive the shuttle orbiters Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour when the fleet is retired later this year. As you might expect, those sites vying for the orbiters are making one last push to convince NASA that they’re the best site to host one of the three orbiters (it’s widely assumed Discovery will go to the National Air and Space Museum, but it will, in turn, transfer Enterprise to another museum.) In Houston, local politicians and relatives of Columbia and Challenger astronauts are holding a rally Wednesday to show their support for that city’s bid to win a shuttle. In Dayton they continue to weight their chances against the competition for a shuttle at the National Museum of the Air Force there. And Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told Florida Today “matter-of-factly” that “One of the shuttles will have to go to KSC.”
The problem, of course, is that there are more qualified sites that can make strong cases for why they should have a shuttle than there are shuttles available: in other words, some will be very unhappy come next Tuesday. They–and their advocates in Congress–will want to know how NASA could have possibly overlooked the merits of their offer. All that could cause complications for NASA.
An editorial in the Washington Post this weekend noted that one of the issues about the shuttle selection process is the lack of transparency in that process: exactly how the various proposals are being considered and how the decision will be made is unclear. That lack of detail stems “no doubt from a desire to avoid pressure from the dozens of ‘shuttle-boosting’ campaigns now making headlines,” the editorial notes, but adds that “this isolation has reached the point that it is hard to tell on what basis the decision is being made.”
“It may be difficult to keep politics out of this process,” the editorial concludes. “But the least we can ask for is a level playing field for the potential recipient sites and transparency in how the decision is reached. The shuttles are honors to be bestowed, not prizes to be bought.” But many consider them just that: prizes to be won or lost, and those who “lose” them in next week’s selection may be left with hard feelings towards the agency and/or its leadership.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 1 at 7:20 am ET On Thursday the organization Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) released a letter to the White House and Congress signed by 280 of its members from universities across the US, voicing its opinion on space policy. The students offer various recommendations in the letter, most of which are related to supporting commercial spaceflight as a driver of the economy and inspiration for students. “We believe that companies in the commercial spaceflight sector such as SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin offer huge opportunities for us as students, and for our nation,” they note in the letter. “We strongly believe that NASA and the nation both benefit greatly from investing in commercial spaceflight programs that will allow astronauts to fly on commercial vehicles; and we urge you to fully fund and support those programs.”
In Britain, the UK Space Agency officially became an executive agency within the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills today, taking responsibility for most of the country’s space activities. The agency also released a five-year strategy for comment, all of which involve growth of some kind or another for the country’s space economy. In Scotland, though, they’re more interested in government plans to reform the Outer Space Act, which could make it easier for companies like Virgin Galactic to perform launches from UK territory. Virgin has previously expressed an interest in flying from RAF Lossiemouth, an air force base in Scotland, but has cited current law as an impediment to that.
The European Commission is expected to outline plans next week to strengthen the EU’s role in spaceflight by improving the EU’s space policy. According to a draft document obtained by EurActive, the EU’s current efforts “are too piecemeal” and aren’t linked to the EU’s political, economic, and social issues.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 March 31 at 12:57 pm ET Space News has some updates on the latest perspectives on heavy-lift development. In one, administration officials are “pushing back” on development of the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket included in last year’s authorization act. OSTP director John Holdren told Space News said that delays in getting a final FY11 budget mean that it would be effectively impossible for NASA to spend the full amount authorized in FY12 for SLS, $2.65 billion, even if appropriated. “There is, I think, a real question as to whether it can be done in the time that the Congress would like, but in the end it’s difficult to legislate scientific and engineering reality,” he said. Meanwhile, in a House hearing yesterday, members pressed NASA to press ahead with SLS. Referring to the language in the authorization act, science committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) said, “The administration needs to acknowledge this and act accordingly.”
Speaking of SLS and ongoing Congressional budget debates, the Space Frontier Foundation warns, “It’s Silly Season Again!”. It contrasts the full-year House CR, HR 1, with a Senate version that, as previously noted, appeared to mandate NASA move ahead immediately with a 130-ton SLS and not a 70-to-100-ton initial version included in the authorization act. “[S]ome in Congress want to make NASA build their favorite rocket, without competition, even though NASA has already told them it can’t be done for the resources available on anything like the timetable Congress wants,” the Foundation states in their release, asking people to contact their Congressional representatives and ask that any SLS development be competed openly. “It’s time to stop the Congress from mandating the Senate Launch System, and let NASA compete ideas for one (or more) Space Launch System(s).” [emphasis in original]
Bart Gordon, the former chairman of the House Science Committee who retired last year, has a new position: partner in the public policy and law practice of K&L Gates in Washington. Gordon’s areas of work will include “innovation and technology-related issues”, according to the release, although aerospace is not explicitly mentioned.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 March 31 at 7:00 am ET Yesterday the House Budget Committee took testimony from fellow members of the House on various issues as it prepares work on a budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. That included a statement from Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who spoke out on the need to fully fund NASA’s human spaceflight programs, cranking up the rhetoric in the process.
Posey’s statement followed familiar themes: NASA’s human spaceflight program was adrift thanks to the Obama Administration’s decision to cancel Constellation, with implications for American leadership and national security, even while the administration sought increase spending on climate change research and commercial spaceflight. And he sought to make those points with blunt language.
“By failing to set priorities within NASA’s budget, the Administration has left NASA with no priorities,” he said. “Should Congress fail to step in where the Administration has left a leadership void we will be making an unacceptable compromise in our national security and lose economic and intangible benefits from our space program.”
Among his other statements, he claimed that China and Russia “have announced plans to colonize the Moon–they are not going there to collect and study rocks like we did.” What they are going to do is left to our imaginations, but it was clear he was playing up the military significance of space: “Human space flight is a matter of national security. Space is the world’s military high ground, our Golan Heights if you will.” Later, he warns of the consequences of “one day without your cell phones, one day without your laptops, one day without a weather report, one day without your GPS, one day not being able to use your credit card or withdraw cash from the bank,” all made possible by satellites (but not related to human spaceflight).
Posey, in his statement, claimed that the administration’s 2012 budget proposal “is a substantial departure from the Authorization Bill that he signed into law in October–cutting $2 billion from the heavy lift program while increasing taxpayer subsidies for the low earth orbit commercial space companies.” While the administration does fund the Space Launch System below authorized levels, the source of the $2 billion figure isn’t clear: in the 2012 proposal SLS would receive $1.8 billion, compared to the 2012 authorized level of $2.65 billion.
There are some real issues worth debating about the agency and its budget proposal, such as what kind of human spaceflight program it should have, including launch vehicles and spacecraft, and how much funding it should receive. However, it’s not clear that statements like Posey’s do much to advance the debate, particularly when the heavy lifting on these issues will be done not by the budget committee but instead by appropriators months (perhaps many months, if FY11 is any guide) from now.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 March 30 at 6:46 am ET Thursday’s scheduled hearing by the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the NASA budget, scheduled for Thursday, has been postponed, according to the committee’s calendar. NASA administrator Charles Bolden was scheduled to testify. The hearing has been rescheduled for Thursday, May 5th, at 10:30 am. No reason for the postponement was announced.
A reminder that a hearing on NASA’s exploration program by the space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee remains on for this morning at 10 am. The witnesses are Doug Cooke, NASA associate administrator for exploration; Scott Pace of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute; and Jim Maser, chairman of AIAA’s corporate membership committee and also president of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. The hearing will be webcast.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 March 29 at 7:33 am ET At a Women in Aerospace panel event last week, several Congressional staffers had a clear message for NASA: they have little interest in renegotiating, or simply ignoring, provisions of the NASA Authorization Act the Congress passed last year.
“This isn’t a negotiation,” said one participant of the panel, held under the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution.* “There is no interest in renegotiating that framework.” Another panelist said that there was interest in no more than “minor relative changes along the margins” to the authorization act that could be implemented in future appropriations bills, without going into further detail.
One particular area of concern several panelists cited was NASA’s support—or lack thereof—for the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), which combined get about $2.8 billion in the administration’s FY12 budget request, compared to just over $4 billion in the authorization act. One panelist suggested Congress might have to look elsewhere within NASA, or even outside the agency, such as the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which share the same broader budget allocation as NASA, to fully fund those programs.
Likewise, one panelist expressed disappointment that NASA hadn’t delivered an acceptable report on the development of the SLS and MPCV that the act required 90 days after enactment. The agency did deliver a report in January, but many key members effectively rejected it. “NASA, with no consultation with the authorizing committees, decided to produce what they called a preliminary report, and sent that up and said, ‘We’ll get back to you when we decide on the rest of it,'” the panelist complained. “That’s an approach that’s simply not going to work in this environment.”
Participants also wondered why, while NASA was proposing funding SLS/MPCV below authorized levels, it was also proposing funding commercial crew development above authorized levels: $850 million in the FY12 request versus $500 million in the authorization bill. One panelist said that while there was general suport for commercial crew development, there remained some skepticism that there was a need for multiple providers.
That led one participant to state that there’s an “absolutely zero chance” the administration’s FY12 budget proposal would be supported by Congress, echoing comments by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee earlier this month: “The president’s budget is not going to be enacted.”
* There was some confusion at the event about whether the event was under the Chatham House Rule or completely off the record. However, others, such as SpacePolicyOnine.com and Space News, have reported on the event under the less restrictive Chatham House Rule, so this report will as well.
|
|
