Wayne Hale has a very interesting blog post today on how NASA’s human spaceflight safety culture got to where it is today — the hard way — and how difficult it will be to get a “staid, grey, old, inflexible bureaucracy [to] approve flying its people on somebody else’s rocket? Experience has been a hard teacher….”
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).
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.
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.
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.
The science community should advocate for an aggressive human spaceflight program while at the same time defending its programs from being the source of money for it, according to Dr. Lennard Fisk, immediate past Chair of the National Research Council’s Space Studies Board (SSB). Dr. Fisk is a Distinguished University Professor of Space Science at the University of Michigan.
Arguing that space and earth science programs as well as human spaceflight programs need to be “transformative” to warrant funding, Dr. Fisk said:
“What posture then should the science community take relative to human spaceflight? The first posture is of course a defensive one. We may recognize that human spaceflight needs more money, but we have transformative goals of our own, and we do not wish to be the source of that money.
The second posture is an offensive one. We need to recognize that the current human spaceflight program is a drag on the reputation of the agency, and therefore on us, and offers little advantage to us. We should thus be advocates for a more aggressive human spaceflight program, which is capable of transforming our society, our economy, and our future. A human spaceflight program that is an essential component of our foreign policy, our economic future, and the inspiration of our people. And if such a program develops, there will be opportunities for synergies, and mutually supportive capabilities, and all this will be advantageous to us.”
Space and earth science programs like the Hubble Space Telescope, planetary exploration missions, and studies of the Sun and the Earth have transformed human understanding of our planet and the universe, he said. The Apollo program similarly was transformative, but the current human spaceflight program is not: “It is unlikely that the human spaceflight program will ever rise to the scientific transformational standard that we impose upon our robotic scientific program.” But he believes there are transformations that can come from the human spaceflight program that are geopolitical, economic, and inspirational.
Dr. Fisk spoke at a January 14 symposium jointly sponsored by the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) and George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute (SPI) entitled Human Spaceflight and the Future of Space Science. These two components – sometimes described as warring factions – of the space community often are at odds.
A decision to reduce space and earth science funding by $3.1 billion over 5 years in the FY2007 budget exacerbated tensions. Many space and earth scientists believed that science programs were being robbed to pay for President George W. Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” to return humans to the Moon by 2020 and then go on to Mars. In September 2005, then-NASA Administrator Michael Griffin promised that he would not take “one thin dime” from science programs to pay for the Vision, but just a few months later the Bush Administration released NASA’s FY2007 budget request with its cut to science funding. Dr. Griffin repeatedly pointed out that he also had to reduce funding for the Exploration program by $1.5 billion, but that did not calm the scientific community.
The reductions for both science and Exploration were necessitated by funding requirements for the existing space shuttle and International Space Station programs, which had been underfunded in NASA’s budget forecasts.
Attempts to improve relationships between scientists and human spaceflight advocates have been ongoing by some of the leaders of those communities. The recent selection of Dr. Laurie Leshin – a space scientist – to be Deputy Associate Administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate may be another step in that direction.
A Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults conducted January 13-14, 2010 showed a drop in public support for space program spending compared to a May 2009 poll by the same organization. In May, 44% of respondents favored cutting back on space spending. The new poll shows that 50% want to cut back. The question did not indicate how much funding NASA receives or how it compares with other government programs, it was simply: “Given the state of the economy, should the United States cut back on space spending?” Of the 1,000 adults polled, 50% said yes, 31% said no, and 19% were not sure.
When asked about their impression of NASA, 18% were very favorable, 46% somewhat favorable, 13% somewhat unfavorable, 7% very unfavorable, and 16% not sure.
Two questions were asked about whether current goals should include sending people to the Moon or Mars. About one quarter of the respondents said yes (27% for Mars, 26% for Moon), about half said no (50% for Mars, 52% for Moon), and the rest were not sure.
Respondents were roughly evenly split on the fifth of the five questions — whether the space program should be funded by the government or the private sector. On that question, 35% said by the government and 38% said by the private sector. The rest were not sure.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. More information is available on Rasmussen Report’s website, which describes itself as an electronic media company specializing in polling. The company stresses that it is independent because it “cannot be hired to conduct a poll for anyone,” earning money instead from “advertising, title sponsorships, subscriptions and content.”
A SpacePolicyOnline.com summary of the House Science and Technology Committee’s December 10, 2009 hearing on “Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?” is now available on our left menu under “Our Hearing Summaries” or by clicking here.
Senate Commerce Committee staffer Jeff Bingham told a symposium on human spaceflight and the future of space science that legislation is being drafted in the Senate to enable and enhance research on the International Space Station (ISS). Among other things, the legislation would extend the space shuttle program until a U.S. alternative is available.
Bingham stressed the need to extend ISS operations beyond 2015 in order to make effective use of its scientific capabilities, and to have two ways to get crews back and forth to the ISS, not just one as will be true once the shuttle program is terminated. He pointed out that the Columbia disaster proved the wisdom of having a second transportation system – Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft. Without it, he said, the ISS would have been lost. If Soyuz becomes the only crew transport system for many years, which is the current plan, ISS astronauts would be vulnerable to a Soyuz mishap. What would happen, he queried, if there was a Soyuz accident while returning some ISS crew members, but other ISS crew members were still aboard the station. Their only way back to Earth would be another Soyuz spacecraft and they would be stranded there until the causes of the accident were known and corrected.
Bingham expressed skepticism about whatever plan is proposed by the Obama Administration because in his view it is being developed by the same mid-level White House staff – particularly at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – who came up with the Bush policy of terminating the shuttle and the ISS. As for where the money will come from to keep them going, he implored the audience to “not drink the OMB Kool-Aid that we have a zero sum budget.”
Bingham explained that when or if the legislation will be introduced is up to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), for whom he works, and other Senators.
The January 14 symposium was sponsored by George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute and the Universities Space Research Association.