Author: Marcia Smith

Senators Cool To Space Code of Conduct; GAO Praises DOD on Acquisition Progress

Senators Cool To Space Code of Conduct; GAO Praises DOD on Acquisition Progress

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 23, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 23, 2012 6:54 pm ET

A large panel of witnesses from the Department of Defense (DOD), the three military services, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC’s) Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Wednesday on an array of space issues, but the wisdom of negotiating a Code of Conduct for space activities was center stage.  At the same time, GAO, usually a strong critic of DOD’s management and acquisition of space systems, praised DOD on its progress in changing the paradigm.

Subcommittee chairman Ben Nelson (D-NE) and ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the only Senators present, both made clear their reservations about negotiating a Code of Conduct for space — an agreement they believe could limit what the United States does in space and thus harm national security.  Madelyn Creedon, a former SASC committee staffer and now Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, assured the Senators that the Code of Conduct would be a voluntary agreement, not a treaty, and would not limit U.S. options.  It is all about “behavior, not capabilities,” she stressed.  

The European Union (EU) drafted a Code of Conduct whose objective is to define responsible behavior for space-faring nations.  The idea is that countries cannot be criticized for poor behavior if good behavior has not been defined.  The perceived need for such a Code of Conduct is being spurred by two events that created a substantial amount of space debris — China’s intentional destruction of one of its own satellites in a 2007 antisatellite test and the 2009 unintentional collision of a U.S. commercial Iridium communications satellite and a defunct Russian satellite.   Key goals of the draft Code is convincing countries and commercial entities to refrain from creating more debris and establishing mechanisms to improve space situational awareness (SSA) so everyone knows where everyone else’s satellites are.

Opponents of the effort to develop a Code of Conduct assert that it is a backhanded way of creating an arms control treaty for outer space.   Russia and China have been attempting for years through the United Nations Committee on Disarmament to establish a space arms control treaty, without success.  Both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama Administrations have steadfastly refused to negotiate such a treaty, although discussions are OK.

However, the U.S. is willing to negotiate a non-binding, voluntary Code of Conduct that is not a treaty but a useful mechanism to deal with space debris and SSA.   Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in January that the United States will work with Europe and other countries to finalize such a Code.  The U.S. position is that many more countries need to be brought into the discussion.   The EU will sponsor meetings to broaden the debate.  Creedon said at the hearing that the first “meeting of experts” would be in June and she anticipates it will take one or two years to finalize an agreement.   Other officials have suggested an even longer time period.

At the hearing, Senators Nelson and Sessions acknowledged that this is a State Department issue over which their subcommittee has no jurisdiction.  Nonetheless they sought and received assurances that the Senate would be consulted before any agreement was signed.   The Senate must provide advice and consent to ratification of any treaty, but since this is not a treaty, its role in approving or disapproving it is unclear.  Sessions said that Congress is “interested and watching” what the Administration does.

Other topics that were discussed extensively was the decision to terminate the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) and Space Test Program (STP), how to lower the cost of launching satellites and bring new entrants into the marketplace, how to protect spectrum used by DOD, and how to assure that ground systems and user equipment associated with a satellite program are ready when the satellite is launched.

GAO, which usually has a long list of criticisms of DOD space acquisition, focused on the ground systems/user equipment issue this year.   Cristina Chaplain, GAO’s director of acquisition and sourcing management, noted how much has changed with regard to DOD space programs in the past few years.  “If I were here five years ago,” she said, “I would be talking about all the major programs having very large cost increases and schedule delays….resistance to implementing best practices…and lax oversight.”  Some space programs still have problems, she continued, but not to the same extent. 

One of the major concerns today is that ground systems and user equipment are not ready when satellites are launched.  “We’re seeing too many programs [where] the user equipment is just arriving years later than the satellites and you really have a situation where you’re wasting expensive capacity in space when that happens,” she said.  The Navy’s Multiple User Objective System (MUOS) was cited as an example today, and GPS III is of concern for the future.   

 

Last Updated: Mar 23, 2012 6:54 pm ET
Safety First House Authorizers Tell FAA Space Office

Safety First House Authorizers Tell FAA Space Office

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 22, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 23, 2012 9:10 am ET

Safety was the watchword at Tuesday’s hearing on the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation by a House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee. Public safety, crew safety, and passenger safety.  The government’s indemnification of commercial launch service providers and the dual role of the FAA as both regulator and facilitator of the commercial launch industry were other key issues.

Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-MS), chair of the subcommittee on space and aviation, and other members quizzed George Nield, director of the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), and Will Trafton, chairman of AST’s advisory committee, COMSTAC, about how AST will ensure the safety of NASA astronauts on commercial rockets as well as ordinary people who fly to space on a commercial basis.

Subcommittee members complimented Nield on the perfect safety record of his office over the past three decades.   AST has licensed over 200 commercial launches with no loss of life or serious injury or property damage to the public.  It is requesting $16.7 million for FY2013, $429,000 over its FY2012 level according to Nield.  The increase would fund additional personnel to deal with an expected rise in license and permit applications.  Nield and Trafton both said they anticipated a significant increase with the emergence of the suborbital space tourism business as well as commercial space launches NASA is facilitating through the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.  SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. are both expected to begin launches of their commercial cargo services to the International Space Station through the COTS program this year.

In addition to the usual questions about why AST believes it needs a funding increase, the safety of launching people into space, or near-space as the suborbital companies plan, was a key issue at the hearing.  Subcommittee chairman Palazzo asked Nield how his office will handle orbital versus suborbital flights and its interaction with NASA on launching NASA astronauts on commercial vehicles.

Nield said “Our approach for overseeing the launches that we have coming up consists of looking at both the impact on public safety and the impact on crew members and space flight participants.”   Pursuant to the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments, “space flight participants” basically are members of the public — tourists —  who choose to go into space with one of the commercial providers of such services.  In the 2004 law, Congress prohibited the FAA from imposing strong regulations for space tourists — it can require only informed consent — for 8 years while the industry develops, after which the FAA can impose stricter regulations if needed.  With the advent of commercial suborbital or orbital spaceflights taking longer than expected, Congress extended that prohibition for another 3 years, until October 1, 2015, in the recently passed FAA reauthorization act (P.L. 112-381).   Nield said that his office is working closely with NASA and industry to “understand what would make sense” so it can be ready if the need for stricter regulations arises. NASA can impose its own safety requirements on companies that want to launch NASA astronauts, he said, emphasizing that his office is primarily focused on public safety.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), reminded the witnesses that he wrote the language in the 2004 law so that there could be a learning period for the FAA to determine just what rules are necessary.  He stressed the need for the FAA to collect data during the additional 3 years to ensure that a “workable and safe” system is established.  “If it’s not safe, it’s not workable.  We know that,” he said.  

Rohrabacher went on to ask about the respective roles of the FAA and NASA in regulating commercial launch systems, and how Nield’s part of the FAA operates compared with the rest of the FAA. which regulates aviation.   Nield replied that his office works closely with NASA, and NASA “recognizes that they are not set up as a regulatory organization.”  As for the internal FAA roles, he said that both the aviation and space portions of the FAA are focused on safety, but the aviation portion has 100 years of experience, while his is a new industry.  HIs office, which both regulates and facilitates the commercial launch industry, also wants to encourage innovation.  “So that’s the balance that we want to try to achieve; safety’s number one, but let’s allow some innovation.”

The dual roles of Nield’s office — to both regulate and facilitate — are set out in the 1984 law that created the office, but often is questioned.  That was true at this hearing as well and Nield explained as he and his predecessors have said in the past that the two are not in conflict.  He said again that safety is paramount, but his office engages in many activities that assist the industry such as collecting and disseminating data, helping industry understand the regulations and submit applications for licenses and permits, and working with Congress and other federal agencies to identify obstacles.  In response to a related question from Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), Trafton said that the dual role was appropriate today, but once the industry becomes more mature, “we should probably take a hard look at whether or not AST should be promoting commercial space.”

Indemnification was another issue.   Under the 1988 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments, the government indemnifies companies for part of claims that could be made if a launch goes awry and hurts the general public or damages their property.  This is called “third party” indemnification because it protects only third parties, not companies or individuals directly involved in the launch.  Nield’s office determines what the maximum probable loss is from a launch and the launching entity must buy insurance to cover that loss.  The government, however, will cover losses between $500 million and $2 billion.

The authority to provide third party liability indemnification has been extended several times.  The current authority expires at the end of this year.  In response to questions from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), Nield said that COMSTAC recommended that indemnification be renewed for as many as 10 years or even making it permanent, and lifting the $1.5 billion limit on what the government can cover.  However, Trafton, who chairs COMSTAC, said that it was asking for only a  one-year extension right now while it continues to study the issue.   He did stress, however, that the government-provided indemnification is needed to keep the U.S. launch industry globally competitive because all other countries indemnify their launch providers.

Rohrabacher defended indemnification, noting that the government provided indemnification to the nuclear power industry, which was critical for its development considering its high risk, and space launches are no different.    Subcommittee chairman Palazzo noted that he will hold a hearing on the indemnification issue in late May where the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will testify about an analysis it is currently conducting on this topic.

Last Updated: Mar 23, 2012 9:10 am ET
House Appropriators Fight for Planetary Science

House Appropriators Fight for Planetary Science

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 21, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: May 11, 2015 11:37 pm ET

The planetary science community got what it wanted today at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on NASA’s FY2013 budget request — strong opposition to proposed cuts to NASA’s planetary program.  The chairman and members of the Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, lambasted the Obama Administration’s proposed cuts especially to Mars exploration.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden valiantly tried to convince the subcommittee, which is the most influential entity in the House in determining how much money NASA gets and how it is spent, that NASA is not walking away from Mars exploration. His arguments only inflamed the debate, however.

In a heated exchange with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that builds many of NASA’s planetary spacecraft, Bolden insisted that the Mars program is in good shape.  The Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) is enroute to the red planet and another mission, MAVEN, is scheduled for launch next year, he reminded the subcommittee.  They will join a rover and two orbiters already there.  Although NASA had to back away from plans to build two Mars probes with the European Space Agency (ESA) for launch in 2016 and 2018, NASA is now developing plans for a smaller Mars mission that could be launched in 2018 or 2020, he said.  Furthermore, he stressed, NASA never committed to the missions with ESA, only to discussions, and there are many other areas in which NASA and ESA continue to cooperate.  He also pushed back against the idea that overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope are the cause of the cuts to Mars exploration, a charge commonly made by the planetary science community.   He and other NASA officials have been insisting since the budget was released on February 13 there is no direct connection.

Schiff and Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) were having none of it.  Schiff assiduously attempted to get Bolden to say that the Mars cuts were imposed on NASA by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but Bolden insisted the decision was his.   He also admitted that he had not known that the 2016 and 2018 missions with ESA would not actually have returned a sample to Earth.   The 2018 mission only would have collected and stored (cached) samples, but could not return them to Earth — a hugely expensive proposition.   Bolden said that everyone apparently knew that but him.  He made the same admission at the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Science Committee meeting two weeks ago where he revealed that he had a long conversation with then OMB Director (now White House Chief of Staff) Jack Lew while under the misimpression that the 2016 and 2018 missions would return a sample, an effort that would indeed have significant budget implications. 

Bolden thus took full responsibility for the decision not to proceed with the 2016 and 2018 missions, but insisted that the U.S. Mars exploration program is strong and maintains U.S. leadership.  Schiff vehemently disagreed and proclaimed that he could not support a budget that in his view means America’s days of leadership in space science are limited and tells ESA it cannot depend on U.S. cooperation while at the same time China is “ascendant” on Mars exploration and we are “tantalizingly close to finding life.”

Culberson was just as adamant.   “I am quietly grieving for our country,” he said, blaming the Obama White House for a lack of interest in NASA and the space program.  Though acknowledging the difficult budget situation, he called the cut to planetary exploration “devastating” and in violation of the FY2012 appropriations act that said NASA had to implement the recommendations of the 2011 National Research Council Decadal Survey for planetary sciences.   Bolden firmly countered that NASA is following the law and implementing the Decadal Survey as best it can and the two of them simply would have to agree to disagree.  Culberson ended by saying that “we’ll restore the vision and excitement” of Mars exploration “despite efforts of this Administration to throw a wet blanket over it.”   Subcommittee ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-PA) later chided Culberson for turning it into a partisan issue.   Asserting that he agrees completely with Schiff’s arguments in favor of restoring funds for Mars exploration, Fattah added that Culberson’s attack on the Administration was “not productive.”

JWST was another space science program that prompted many questions from subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA).   Wolf revealed that NASA is asking Congress to remove language that was included in last year’s appropriations bill that limits how much money can be spent on the program.   Last year, the House Appropriations Committee recommended that JWST be terminated because of its overruns.   That decision was reversed in negotiations with the Senate and Congress added money to JWST to ensure that the telescope is launched in 2018, but Congress capped development costs at $8 billion and life-cycle costs at $8.7 billion.   Wolf asked Bolden if the request to remove the cost cap language indicates that JWST will cost more than that.  Bolden seemed surprised by the question and said he could not remember the rationale for asking that the language be removed.  He assured Wolf that he intends to abide by the cap.   Wolf asked what lessons were learned from the JWST “debacle” and Bolden said there were many, mostly in terms of management changes.  

Wolf also made clear his own support for planetary exploration, following on a letter he sent to Bolden last week disapproving a NASA reprogramming request for Mars exploration because he believes the issue needs further debate.  The committee has not publicly released the letter, but Aviation Week & Space Technology published a story about it.

Wolf also expressed concern about the commercial crew program, continued opposition to space cooperation with China and concern that China is trying to hack into NASA’s computers, and misgivings over whether the Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) is meeting its obligations to find users for the International Space Station.

Last Updated: May 11, 2015 11:37 pm ET
Ryan Budget Would Cut More From NASA, NOAA Budget Functions

Ryan Budget Would Cut More From NASA, NOAA Budget Functions

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 21, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 21, 2012 11:04 am ET

A Washington Post analysis of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) FY2013 budget plan released yesterday shows that the part of the budget that includes NASA would be cut six percent more than the budget proposed by President Obama over the next 10 years.  Significant cuts to the part of the budget that includes NOAA also are proposed.  Overall, the Ryan plan protects defense spending, but makes deeper cuts overall to the federal budget than what was agreed to last year in the Budget Control Act.

Ryan is chairman of the House Budget Committee and released his budget plan yesterday as a “chairman’s mark.”  A table at the end of the chairman’s mark lays out the proposed budget levels by year through 2022 for the approximately 20 budget functions into which government activities are grouped by the congressional budget committees and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

The Washington Post analysis compared the numbers in the Ryan plan with those published in OMB’s comparable table from the President’s FY2013 budget request.

Because the budget functions are broad, it is not possible to determine how much would eventually be allocated to any specific agency or activity — that would be determined through appropriations action each year — but the numbers do provide a cap for those budget functions and indicate relative priorities.

All of NASA’s activities except aeronautics are in function 250 — General Science, Space and Technology.  That category also includes the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy’s science programs.  For FY2013, the Ryan plan calls for allocating $28 billion, down from $29.1 billion in FY2012.  The Obama budget calls for $29.5 billion in FY2013.  Over the 10-year period, the Washington Post says the total for function 250 is six percent less in the Ryan budget.

NASA’s aeronautics programs are in function 400, Transportation, which is slated for an even steeper cut over the 10-year period, 25 percent, under the Ryan plan according to the Washington Post’s analysis.

NOAA’s programs are in function 300, Natural Resources and Environment, along with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and a range of conservation and natural resources programs.  In the near term, function 300 would be 14.6 percent lower in 2014 in the Ryan budget according to the Washington Post.  It quotes David Kendall of The Third Way as warning about the potential impact on weather forecasting:  “‘Our weather forecasts would be only half as accurate for four to eight years until another polar satellite is launched,’ estimates Kendall. ‘For many people planning a weekend outdoors, they may have to wait until Thursday for a forecast as accurate as one they now get on Monday. … Perhaps most affected would be hurricane response. Governors and mayors would have to order evacuations for areas twice as large or wait twice as long for an accurate forecast.'”

The House is expected to pass the Ryan plan next week.   Senate Democrats are insisting that Republicans stick to the plan that was enacted into law last year in the Budget Control Act.  That set $1.047 trillion as the total federal budget for FY2013.  The Ryan budget lowers that to $1.028 trillion.

 

 

Last Updated: Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am ET
House Republicans Roll Out New Budget Plan Today

House Republicans Roll Out New Budget Plan Today

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 20, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 20, 2012 9:40 am ET

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will reveal the House Republicans’ FY2013 budget today on Capitol Hill at 10:30 am ET.  He will answer questions at 11:30 am ET at the American Enterprise Institute, which will webcast that event.

Ryan wrote an op-ed for today’s Wall Street Journal that outlines the plan.  Its main themes are to cut taxes and reduce federal spending, including changes to Medicare, while at the same time negating the “sequestration” for defense programs required under the Budget Control Act (BCA) passed last summer.  Sequestration also applies to non-defense spending, but protecting non-defense spending (such as NASA or NOAA) is rarely mentioned.

After a contentious battle that almost led to the government defaulting on its debts, Republicans and Democrats passed the BCA in August 2011.    It is the law that set up the “congressional supercommittee” that failed to reach agreement last fall, meaning that the back-up plan, across-the-board cuts to all federal spending beginning on January 1, 2013 — otherwise known as sequestration — is the law of the land at the moment.   Sequestration was included in the law as a poison pill because of its dire consequences, especially for the defense budget, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are looking for a way out.

The BCA also set the total federal government spending level for FY2013 — referred to as a “cap.”   Ordinarily, the House and the Senate each pass budgets and then reach a compromise on what the spending cap is for each fiscal year.  From that, they allocate specific amounts to each of the 12 appropriations subcommittees, which then decide how much each department or agency gets.  Since the cap for FY2013 already was set in the BCA, strictly speaking there is no need for a budget resolution this year.   However, House Republicans apparently to want to change the deal and lower the cap.

For their part, two top Senate Democrats, Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI), wrote a letter to the House leadership yesterday warning them not to renege on the amount agreed to for FY2013 in the BCA — $1.047 trillion.   Nonetheless, the Ryan plan reportedly lowers that cap to $1.028 trillion while protecting spending for defense.

Fundamentally, both parties are sticking to their positions on how to reduce the deficit.   Republicans want spending cuts only, no tax increases; Democrats want spending cuts and tax hikes for the wealthiest individuals.

Politico says that Democrats consider the Ryan plan “Christmas in March” because they believe voters will reject it, especially because of its impact on Medicare, and plan to release their own budget proposal next week.   Republicans apparently are counting on a chart they prepared to win voters to their side.  The chart, published in Ryan’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, shows President Obama’s very long-term budget — through the year 2080 —  dramatically increasing federal debt while the Ryan plan reduces it to zero by 2050.

 

Last Updated: Mar 20, 2012 9:40 am ET
LightSquared Comes Back Swinging At FCC

LightSquared Comes Back Swinging At FCC

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 19, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 19, 2012 5:56 pm ET

The latest round in the saga of LightSquared opened on Friday when a public comment period closed on the FCC’s latest proposed action regarding the company’s plans to deploy a satellite-terrestrial mobile broadband communications system.  LightSquared needs FCC approval to add a terrestrial network of 40,000 cell towers to work in conjunction with its SkyTerra communications satellite.  Opponents insist the terrestrial component will wreak havoc with GPS receivers.

Despite a tumultuous year in which opponents of LightSquared’s “ancillary terrestrial component” (ATC) surfaced from many quarters, including the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and a host of congressional committees, LightSquared is not backing down. 

Last month, the FCC announced that it plans to reverse a decision it made a year earlier and not grant the ATC permit.    LightSquared already has permission to operate its satellite in a frequency band that is adjacent to one used for GPS receivers.   That is not in dispute, only the request to add a terrestrial network in the same band.   A January 2011 FCC decision said that LightSquared could operate the terrestrial network as long as it could prove that it would not interfere with GPS.   It required LightSquared to work with the GPS industry to set up tests, and several rounds of testing ensued.

LightSquared’s opponents, including GPS industry representatives and the government’s National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory Board, concluded that the tests clearly show that LightSquared’s ATC would have dire consequences for GPS.

Government use of the radio frequency spectrum is governed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the Department of Commerce.   The FCC regulates use of spectrum by the private sector.   On February 14, 2012, NTIA wrote to the FCC saying that based on its analysis of the testing, LightSquared would “impact GPS” and “there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference.”   Later that day, the FCC said it would “indefinitely suspend” its January 2011 decision.  As usual, it opened a public comment period.  Initially it gave only 15 days for comments, but in response to a complaint from LightSquared that 30 days are typically allowed, the FCC extended the deadline to March 16.

In its comments to the FCC (posted in two parts on the FCC website), LightSquared comes back swinging.   Saying that it has spent $4 billion already trying to meet the FCC’s mandate to increase the availability of mobile broadband services under a legal framework established years ago, LightSquared asserts:   “The unfairness and inequity embodied in [the FCC’s February decision] is beyond drastic.  The sudden and dramatic proposal to preclude LightSquared from operating its licensed facilities is legally impermissible, arbitrary, and capricious….”  It then goes on at length to make its case, including that the tests were rigged, a claim it has made previously.

Arguing that its system would make broadband services available to rural areas, drive competition, and create jobs, LightSquared says the FCC’s proposed action “would eviscerate these benefits and represent an astounding, unsupported, and unprecedented reversal of Commission policy.”

The FCC set March 30 as the deadline for replies to the comments that were due March 16.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg News reported on Friday that Sprint Nextel cancelled its agreement with LightSquared to help build the network. It also said that Harbinger Capital Partners, a hedge fund that is providing much of the financing for LightSquared, “wrote down its LightSquared position by 59 percent last year because of the uncertainty” over the fate of this business.

 

Last Updated: Mar 19, 2012 5:56 pm ET
Events of Interest: Week of March 18-23, 2012

Events of Interest: Week of March 18-23, 2012

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 18, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: April 19, 2013 5:04 am ET

The following events may be of interest in the week ahead.  They include a segment scheduled to air tonight (Sunday) on 60 Minutes about Elon Musk and SpaceX.

The House and Senate both are in session this week.

Sunday, March 18

Monday-Friday, March 19-23

  • Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), The Woodlands, TX (near Houston)
    • Masursky lecture featuring Brown University’s Dr. James Head on “Mars Climate History:  A Geological Perspective” on Monday from 1:30-2:30 pm CT (2:30-3:30 pm ET) will be livestreamed
    • NASA briefing by Associate Administrator for Science John Grunsfeld on Monday at 5:30 pm CT (6:30 pm ET) will be livestreamed 
    • Community Forum on Tuesday from 12:00-1:15 pm CT (1:00-2:15 pm ET) will be livestreamed

Tuesday, March 20

Wednesday, March 21

Wednesday-Thursday, March 21-22

Wednesday-Friday, March 21-23

Thursday, March 22

Last Updated: Apr 19, 2013 5:04 am ET
SpacePolicyOnline.com Movie Review: Space Junk 3D

SpacePolicyOnline.com Movie Review: Space Junk 3D

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 17, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 25, 2012 5:26 pm ET

Whirling space trash and panoramic views of Arizona’s Meteor Crater are only two of the reasons to see a new 3D movie — Space Junk 3D.

Shown at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History’s IMAX theater on March 16, 2012 as part of the Environmental Film Festival, the Melrae Pictures film tells the story of Don Kessler, the “father of space junk,” and raises public awareness about the issue that has defined his career.

Using the natural collisions of the universe as an analogy, the film has great computer-generated 3D imagery of asteroids colliding with each other and breaking into pieces that impact the Earth — hence the inclusion of Meteor Crater — and galaxies crashing into each other to form new galaxies.    It is a useful technique to then explain the thousands of objects in Earth orbit that may collide with each other and form yet more debris that imperils operating spacecraft.

An arcane and complicated subject– how many people even know the difference between LEO and MEO or MEO and GEO — the film uses storytelling to capture the public’s interest and 3D animation to provide a visual reference.   Lively questions from the audience of perhaps 150 people after the film was over suggested that they got the point that there’s a problem even if the details and solutions were not apparent.

Experts may quibble with a few of the facts (weather satellites are not in MEO), the sequencing is odd in places (one moment talking about GEO, the next about the Chinese ASAT test in 2007), the ending verges on silliness (depicting a giant orbiting recycling station that would dwarf ISS), and it does have a Carl Sagan-ish quality in almost gloryifying Kessler, but overall it is a useful and fun method to raise public awareness about the need for space sustainability.   Kudos to Melissa Butts and Kimberly Rowe who produced and directed the film.  Visit the Melrae Pictures website for information on where to see it.

Editor’s Note:  This review was originally published as an article on SpacePolicyOnline.com on March 17, 2012.  The first line of the second paragraph has been changed to indicate the actual date on which the movie was shown.

Last Updated: Mar 25, 2012 5:26 pm ET
BBC: ExoMars Gets Green Light With Russia as ESA's New Partner, but Door Still Open to NASA

BBC: ExoMars Gets Green Light With Russia as ESA's New Partner, but Door Still Open to NASA

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 16, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 16, 2012 4:44 pm ET

The European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) governing body decided yesterday to proceed with the ExoMars mission even though NASA withdrew as a partner, the BBC reports.   Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, will replace NASA, but the cost of the mission consequently will grow and the source of the additional funds is not yet clear.

NASA’s plans to cooperate with ESA on ExoMars as the first in a series of Mars missions that ultimately would result in returning a sample of Mars to Earth were upset by President Obama’s FY2013 budget request for the agency.   NASA’s planetary exploration program would be cut by 21 percent if Congress approves the request.  The Mars program, in particular, would be hard hit.  Even if Congress were to add money for Mars exploration, it is not expected to finalize action on NASA’s FY2013 budget in time to change the outcome for NASA’s participation in ExoMars, which is scheduled for launch in 2016. 

A second NASA-ESA mission scheduled for 2018 would also be cancelled, although NASA Associate Administrator for Science, John Grunsfeld, has created a team to define a smaller Mars mission that could be launched that year instead of the larger mission planned with ESA.

NASA’s budget woes are not deterring ESA, however,   The ESA Council decided yesterday to proceed with ExoMars, although the BBC report made clear that many hurdles remain.  Among them is finding an additional “several hundred million euros” needed because of changes resulting from Russia replacing the United States.   The ExoMars mission is currently capped at 1 billion euros.   The extra money may be taken from other ESA science missions, the BBC says, and ESA member states also may be asked to provide additional funds.

Under the new plan, Russia will replace the United States for both the 2016 and 2018 missions.  ESA’s Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain reportedly made clear, however, that NASA is welcome back at any time.  His spokesman was quoted by the BBC as saying that “The door always remains open to Nasa. … They will always be welcome, so long as they bring support.  International cooperation doesn’t die just because Nasa said they didn’t have the money to do this now.”

Last Updated: Mar 16, 2012 4:44 pm ET
North Korea Plans to Launch Satellite Next Month

North Korea Plans to Launch Satellite Next Month

By Marcia Smith | Posted: March 16, 2012 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: March 16, 2012 11:36 am ET

Saying that it will abide by relevant international regulations and usage concerning the launch of scientific and technological satellites for peaceful purposes, North Korea announced today that it plans to launch a polar orbiting earth observation satellite next month.  The move drew sharp criticism from those who insist that it violates, not abides by, international obligations.

The announcement was reported by South Korea’s Yonhap news agency.   South Korea strongly objected to the upcoming launch calling it a “grave provocative act against peace and stability.”

The U.S. State Department called it a “highly provocative” act that would violate United Nations Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874 that “clearly and unequivocally prohibit North Korea from conducting launches that use ballistic missile technology.”  The State Department called on North Korea to “adhere to its international obligations” and said it was consulting with “international partners on next steps.”

Last Updated: Mar 16, 2012 11:36 am ET

SPACEPOLICYONLINE.COM

About | Contact | Privacy