Marcia S. Smith’s presentation today to the seminar on “Space Security Index 2009: The Status of and Future Trends in Space Security” is available on SpacePolicyOnline.com under “Marcia S. Smith’s Biography and Recent Publications” on our left menu or by clicking here. Links to the other presentations at the seminar will be available once they are posted on the Web.
A one-day public symposium on the “state of the agency” will be held on February 12, 2010 at NASA Headquarters. The event is sponsored by the NASA Alumni League, chaired by former NASA Administrator James Beggs, as well as Women in Aerospace, the American Astronautical Society, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden is one of the speakers along with other NASA officials. The symposium will be held in the auditorium at NASA Headquarters, so seating is limited and an RSVP is required. See the announcement for RSVP and other details.
Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown as Senator, defeating Democrat Martha Coakley. In what the Associated Press called a “stunning embarrassment for the White House,” the election ended the 60-seat super-majority Democrats held in the Senate that allowed them — for one year — to defeat Republican filibusters on a party-line vote. The impact on space-related issues is unclear since they are largely non-partisan, but it is a significant setback for other items on the Democratic agenda such as health care reform. The special election was called after the death of Senator Edward Kennedy last year. Senator Kennedy was the primary champion of health care reform in the Senate. Mr. Brown, a lawyer and former winner of the “America’s Sexiest Man” award — complete with centerfold photo — from Cosmopolitan magazine, campaigned against health care reform, vowing to be the 41st vote against it (because he will be the 41st Republican in the Senate).
The Department of Defense (DOD) reportedly will be as much as a year late delivering the Space Posture Review (SPR) required by Congress in DOD’s FY2009 authorization bill. It was supposed to be submitted to Congress by December 1, 2009. Defense News says that even though the SPR and its siblings, a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Ballistic Missile Defense Review, were intended to inform DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), neither the SPR nor NPR are ready. The publication says that the QDR nevertheless will be released along with the FY2011 President’s budget request, scheduled for February 1.
As we reported earlier, the SPR is one of three recent high-level reviews of U.S. space policy initiated by Congress or the White House. The White House ordered the other two: the Review of Human Space Flight Plans, also known as the Augustine Committee, released in October; and the National Security Council-led review of U.S. space policy required by Presidential Study Directive-3, which has not been released. President Obama also has ordered a review of U.S. export control policy, which could have an impact on commercial space activities in particular.
The following events may be of interest this week. For more details, see our calendar on the right menu or click on the links below. Note that dates, times and witnesses for congressional hearings are subject to change. Check the committee’s website for up-to-date information.
Wednesday, January 20
Wednesday-Thursday, January 20-21
Thursday, January 21
House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) said today that his committee plans to pass a multi-year NASA authorization bill this spring.
NASA is not his first priority, however. Reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act is at the top of his list and he vowed not just to get the bill out of committee, but passed by the House, before Memorial Day. The committee will hold a hearing on that Act tomorrow.
More details on the committee’s agenda for this second session of the 111th Congress are available on the committee’s website.
The review of U.S. export control policies ordered by President Obama in August recently was given a deadline of January 29 according to Space News. The newspaper reports that the President signed Presidential Study Directive (PSD)-8 on December 21 setting that deadline and stating that the review would be used to prepare “comprehensive” statutory and regulatory recommendations “to create a new U.S. export control system.”
Matthew Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration at the Commerce Department made no mention of an upcoming deadline when he testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) last month. His formal testimony referenced only the August announcement and said the review was “well underway” and would “devise an export control system to best address diffuse threats, technology and markets of the 21st century.”
The U.S. export control regime splits responsibility between the Commerce Department for “dual-use” technologies that have both military and commercial applications, and the State Department for technologies that might pose a national security threat if they got into the wrong hands. Those technologies are placed on the State Department’s “Munitions List” and handled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Critics argue that many technologies, including commercial communications satellites, should be on the Commerce Department’s “Commerce Control List’ and not the Munitions List, and that the United States is only hurting itself by the way it currently implements ITAR. University professors have been especially vocal on the chilling effect on ITAR on science and engineering education because of restrictions on what professors can teach to foreign students. Space scientists have been critical of ITAR’s effect on internationally cooperative space science missions; a 2008 report by the National Research Council’s Space Studies Board discussed those concerns.
HFAC held a second hearing on export controls last week at Stanford University. The President of Stanford, John Hennessy, was one of the witnesses. He co-chaired a much broader NRC report on the need for export control reform that was released last year. That report recommended an initial focus on changes that could be accomplished by the President without the need for Congress to pass legislation. The President’s decision in favor of a comprehensive approach that would require both executive and congressional action is likely to significantly extend the time needed to accomplish change. Congress has a lot on its plate already and in an election year like 2010 issues that more directly affect voters, such as jobs, typically would be the focus of attention.
Last week the House passed H.R. 3237, which would create a new Title of the U.S. Code for the laws that Congress already has passed regarding national and commercial space programs. Currently the space-related laws are in Title 15, Title 42 or Title 49. H.R. 3237 would group them into a new Title 51 as well as tidy them up by repealing obsolete provisions (e.g. a requirement for a report to be submitted a decade ago), correcting technical errors and making other non-substantive changes. As the bill report (H. Rept. 111-325) explains:
“In restating existing law, this bill consolidates various provisions of law which have been enacted separately over a period of many years, reorganizing them, conforming style and terminology, modernizing obsolete language, and correcting drafting errors. These changes are not intended to have substantive effect, or to impair in any way the precedential value of earlier judicial decisions or other interpretations.”
The House Judiciary Committee’s efforts to create a new Title for space-related laws began in 2005 (the 109th Congress), but the previous bills were never reported from committee.
It is not about the space program per se, but Thomas Friedman had an interesting op-ed in the New York Times yesterday with some great quotes about the impact of Sputnik on the United States — like this one:
“‘Our response to Sputnik made us better educated, more productive, more technologically advanced and more ingenious,’ said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. ‘Our investments in science and education spread throughout American society, producing the Internet, more students studying math and people genuinely wanting to build the nation.'”
Friedman’s theme is that the United States should really think about what its long term plan is, that it can’t just be about racing China, fighting terrorists, or political infighting.
“And what does the war on terror give us? Better drones, body scanners and a lot of desultory T.S.A. security jobs at airports. ‘Sputnik spurred us to build a highway to the future,’ added Mandelbaum. ‘The war on terror is prompting us to build bridges to nowhere.’
We just keep thinking we can do it all – be focused, frightened and frivolous. We can’t. We don’t have the money. We don’t have the time.”
NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) released its 2009 annual report on Friday. From a safety perspective, the panel opposes any “significant” extension of space shuttle flights, worries that commercial providers of crew launch services do not yet meet NASA’s Human Rating Requirements, supports the existing Constellation program, and urges NASA to be open-minded about increasing its use of robots instead of or to support astronauts.
Many of its findings and recommendations parallel those in its 2008 report or were expressed by ASAP chair Vice Admiral Joe Dyer (Ret.) in testimony to the House Science and Technology Committee in September (read a SpacePolicyOnline.com summary of the hearing).
As required by the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, the report was submitted not only to NASA Administrator Bolden, but to the President of the Senate (who is also the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden) and the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi). ASAP was originally created in the 1968 NASA Authorization Act in the wake of the 1967 Apollo 204 fire that killed three astronauts. The 2005 law added other responsibilities and the requirement that ASAP reports be submitted to Congress as well as the NASA Administrator.
The dual reporting requirement could be especially important this year since the debate over the future of the human spaceflight program is shaping up to be the central issue in NASA’s FY2011 budget debate. Some of NASA’s most vocal overseers in Congress and the White House may not see eye-to-eye on that topic. The timing of the ASAP report’s release is noteworthy. It is the earliest in the year that an ASAP report has been published in recent memory and could be timed to ensure that ASAP’s concerns are fully in the public eye – including Congress’ – as the course of U.S. human spaceflight is set.
“The Shuttle is a 1970s design system that has operated post-Columbia with an enviable record of both safety and performance, but the Panel believes that its probable decline is upon us. Extension significantly beyond what is planned through the current manifest would be unwise.”
Rumors are that the Obama Administration similarly does not want any additional shuttle flights with perhaps the exception of the “launch on need” STS-135 mission. However, some Senate Republicans may make a push to keep flying the space shuttle until a U.S. replacement is available, which would be another five to seven years.
The Obama Administration is rumored to be strongly supportive of commercial crew. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the top Republican on the Senate subcommittee that funds NASA, however, is sharply critical of the idea, at least for the near-to-mid term future.
“The Panel has not yet had the opportunity to evaluate any of these concepts with regard to inherent safety issues, but cautions against abandoning the baseline vehicle for an unproven alternative without demonstrated capability. The inherent safety of any and all approaches must be fully assessed to ensure that a level of safety necessary to support human transport is offered. Additionally, there must be a balance and harmony between the size and scope of the undertaking and the budget provided to design, develop and execute it.”
Rumors are that the President’s budget request will terminate Ares I and support commercial crew instead, and reorient the human spaceflight program to focus on sending astronauts to interplanetary destinations rather than landing on the Moon or Mars in the immediate future. Democratic and Republican Members of the House Science and Technology Committee, who authorize NASA activities, in particular have been strongly supportive of Constellation, including Ares I. As noted, Senator Shelby also is an avid supporter of Ares I.
House and Senate appropriators made clear in the FY2010 bill that funded NASA (the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act) that they expect to be closely involved in decisions about the future human spaceflight program. They prohibited NASA from spending money to terminate any aspect of Project Constellation or begin an alternative program. ASAP stressed that “NASA must be fully candid with the public and Congress, and those audiences must fully understand what risks are involved.”
ASAP also commented on several other issues. For example, it argued for NASA to “take a more open-minded and aggressive view” towards using robots to “replace humans on some missions and to support astronauts on others.” The panel had raised this issue in its 2008 report and complimented NASA on how it responded to that finding, but added that “we still find a wide discrepancy between how the Agency views robots” compared with the commercial and military sectors.