Two people viewed in the space policy community as epitomizing the differences between the Democratic and Republican views on NASA — Lori Garver and Scott Pace — were joined by Joel Achenbach and Mike Gold on today’s Diane Rehm show on National Public Radio to talk about the present and future of the space program.  Their views, along with listeners who called in with questions and Rehm herself, are quite interesting.

Garver was Deputy Administrator of NASA for four years of the Obama Administration under current NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden.  She left the agency in September 2013 to become General Manager of the Air Line Pilots Association and has not hesitated to remain in the forefront of the debate over the space program from her new position outside of government.   Pace was one of the top NASA officials under former Administrator Mike Griffin during the George W. Bush Administration and one of the architects of the Constellation program to return humans to the Moon by 2020, a program cancelled by Obama.   Both have held many positions in the space policy community over the decades.   Pace is currently Director of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute.

Achenbach is a science reporter for the Washington Post who occasionally writes about NASA, most recently last week in an article entitled “To Go Boldly (and on budget).”   Gold is director of Washington operations and business growth for Bigelow Aerospace, which is building inflatable modules for use in space — one will be attached to the International Space Station next year as a test and Bigelow wants to put them on the lunar surface, too.

The Diane Rehm show is one of NPR’s most popular programs and is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.  It is broadcast by WAMU here in Washington, DC.

Garver made clear that she opposes the Space Launch System and the Mars 2020 mission, which is essentially a repeat of the current Mars Curiosity mission, because she believes NASA should do new and innovative things, not build rockets based on 1970s technology or redo science missions. Pace stressed the value of international cooperation in space and argued that returning humans to the Moon is the type of mission that would attract international partners.

The program is worth a listen.  Here are some of the key discussion points.

• Rehm started by asking about Bolden’s recent statement (first reported here) that there would be no more flagship science missions, which Achenbach mentioned in his recent article where he added that the statement comes at a time “when the universe is screaming to be explored.”
    Rehm wanted to know if that means NASA needs more money.   
  • Garver disagreed that the problem is money, noting that NASA’s budget is greater than the sum of the budgets of all the other space agencies around the world, but it needs to focus on doing new and innovative things that return “real value here on Earth.”
  • Pace pointed out that the science community sets its own priorities through Decadal Surveys and “all the easy stuff has been done” so what needs to be done now is expensive.
  • Rehm asked whether the private sector can make up the difference, but Achenbach said he doubted the private sector would do the expensive science missions.
• Achenbach brought the discussion back to whether NASA has enough funding, saying that NASA is trying to do a lot of things on a flat budget including building the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion, commercial crew and space science.  He reminded Garver that she said in his recent article that SLS and Orion “created a crunch for NASA.”
  • Garver agreed that it’s all about trade-offs and NASA has “fed” a lot of constituencies over the decades and “Space isn’t partisan, it’s parochial.”  Those who develop big rockets want to keep developing big rockets and those who develop Mars missions want to continue developing Mars missions, she said, which is why NASA is doing the Mars 2020 mission rather than “driving in a new direction on Europa.”  [Europa is a moon of Jupiter with a liquid ocean under an icy crust and another top priority for the planetary science community.]
  • Pace said the question of priorities is why the nation needs a political discussion about what the country wants NASA to do.
• Rehm then asked if the country should return astronauts to the Moon
  • Pace said yes, not just because he has “a fondness for lunar science,” but because it would bring other countries along with us, including India “and I’ll also say it, China.”
  • Garver disagreed, saying that sending people to the Moon was a great goal in the 1960s, but we should do it again only when there’s a purpose to it, which is not the case now.
  • Achenbach asked Pace about the Obama decision to cancel Constellation.  Pace said he thought that was a bad decision, but stressed that it really is a two-part issue dealing with a program and a strategy.  Constellation was a particular program to implement the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) strategy and there could have been other programs to implement VSE, but Obama chose not only a different program, but a different strategy.
• Rehm later asked Pace to talk more about why international cooperation is important.
  • Pace:  “the rules in any new environment are made by the people who show up, not by the people who stay behind.”  It is important to the United States that space be “a stable, quiet and peaceful environment” because we rely on it.  “If we want to shape that environment” we have “to bring other countries along with us.”
• Discussion turned to human spaceflight versus science when Achenbach asked whether NASA’s focus should be science and quoted NASA science chief John Grunsfeld as saying that “science should be at the core of NASA” and, separately, that the Asteroid Redirect Mission is not a science mission. 
  • Garver said that focusing NASA on science would be difficult and unprecedented.  Human spaceflight has been driven by geopolitical goals, she said, and if science was the only goal, it would be a much smaller agency.  She noted that NASA’s science budget is $5 billion and that money should be spent on doing new things rather than being “shaped more by the status quo.”
  • In response to a listener’s question about robotic science missions and why they are “first on the chopping block,” Garver said there are science programs that need more attention, like heliophysics and Earth science, astrophysics missions like Kepler, and studying asteroids.
  • Achenbach noted that the planetary science program was cut “precipitously,” but added that Mars Curiosity ran almost $1 billion over budget and the James Webb Space Telescope  (in the astrophysics program) is “many billions over budget,” which also adds to budget stresses.
• Mike Gold joined the discussion by phone at this point for a few minutes.   Achenbach challenged Gold on a comment Robert Bigelow made recently that he wants the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to clarify what the private sector can or cannot do on the lunar surface in light of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that prohibits countries owning the Moon (or other celestial bodies).
  • Gold said that it’s not specifically property rights, but that the private sector needs to be certain that it can operate on the Moon in a “safe and secure environment” where, “if we put the money into” building a base on the Moon, we can “operate on a non-interference and non-impingement basis … not that we own it,” but that “we wouldn’t face interference from other domestic entities.” 
  • Rehm exclaimed that she didn’t understand what Gold meant because the “language you’re using” sounds “proprietary” and one cannot own the Moon.   Gold began answering, but apparently the show ran out of time for that segment (music began playing) and he was not able to fully respond.  Rehm said it “sounds confusing to me,” and cut him off.  That was the extent of his participation in the program.
• Rehm later pressed Garver to identify two programs she would cut at NASA.
  • Garver:  I would cut programs “that are built on previous technology … like the huge rocket called the Space Launch System,” which was “dictated” by Congress because of the Orion spacecraft and “a holdover” from the Constellation program.  “It’s $3 billion a year.”    “Where is it going to go?  When will it even fly?”   
  • As for the second program, Garver said she would cut Mars 2020.  “I would not redo the Curiosity mission, I would invest that planetary science mission in doing something new like Europa or going to Mars in a more creative and innovative way where we can drive technology.”
• Achenbach then asked Pace about his position on SLS and Orion.
  • Pace said the advantage of Constellation was that it started with the smaller Ares I (needed for the Moon), with the larger Ares V (needed for the Mars mission) waiting until after commercial crew and cargo systems were developed.  “It was a very, very tightly integrated system that proceeded out in a logical fashion.”
  • Garver stressed again that SLS is being built on 1970s technology.  “Would you really go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old?  That’s not what innovation and our space exploration program should be all about.”
• Rehm then asked about SpaceX.
  • Achenbach said Elon Musk is clear on what he wants to do — put thousands of people on Mars.  He added that SpaceX offices have pictures of Mars as “terraformed with water and plants” because they envision “human destiny is there.”  He also talked about SpaceX’s recent first launch to geostationary transfer orbit and SpaceX’s goals to capture part of the military space launch business.  “They’ve gone from being a startup to being a major player.”
  • Pace praised SpaceX for bringing commercial launches back to the United States.
  • Garver praised SpaceX for “doing things in new ways” and reducing the cost of launch and “that is what we should be doing in our space program, driving innovation and help this country again lead the world.”
• A listener called in and wanted to know why anyone would spend billions to send people to Mars when so much can be accomplished virtually today.
  • Garver said she believes “there is a human imperative to explore,” but agrees that a lot can be done virtually.   The billions of dollars that are spent on human spaceflight should be only for things that return value.    “I don’t think we should keep reliving the past” like Apollo.  It’s like nostalgia for old cars, which is “not what we need today.”

UPDATE 3, January 6, 2014:   SpaceX’s launch of Thaicom-6 is now scheduled for today, January 6, at 5:06 pm ET.  Orbital’s Orb-1 launch is now scheduled for Wednesday, January 8 at 1:32 pm ET and the associated pre-launch briefings are now on Tuesday (January 7) instead of today.  They still are at 2:00 pm ET (science) and 3:00 pm ET (mission status).  (India’s GSLV launch did go off on as planned on January 5.)

UPDATE 2, January 3, 2014:  The Orb-1 Antares/Cygnus mission to the ISS has been delayed from January 7 to January 8 or 9 because of weather.  Orbital Sciences Corp. says January 9 is the more likely day — launch window 1:10-1:15 pm ET. (But January 8 is a possibility — launch window 1:32-1:37 pm ET).

UPDATE, January 2, 2014:  Multiple sources report that the SpaceX launch scheduled for January 3 has been postponed to no-earlier-than January 6.

ORIGINAL STORY, January 1, 2014:  Happy New Year everyone!  Hopefully you’ve been having a nice few days of rest because, for space policy aficionados, the New Year gets off to a quick start with three interesting launches and Congress returning for the second session of the 113th Congress all within the first seven days — and that’s just the beginning.

During the Week

OK, so we’re defining “week” loosely this time to mean the first 10 days of 2014.  We don’t cover all the launches that take place each year since not all have space policy implications.   There are three coming up that are of special interest though:  SpaceX’s launch of Thaicom-6 on January 3, India’s return-to-flight of its Geosynchronous Space Launch Vehicle (GSLV) on January 5, and the rescheduled first operational launch of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares/Cygnus system to resupply the International Space Station on January 7.

Admittedly the SpaceX launch is less exciting than its successful SES-8 launch last month, the company’s first launch to geostationary transfer orbit, but getting another rocket ready to repeat that success just a month later is a sign of maturity for the entrepreneurial launch firm so deserves a mention here.  It’s interesting to note that we couldn’t find anything about the upcoming launch on SpaceX’s website other than a mention on its 2013 launch manifest when the launch originally was scheduled to take place.   NASASpaceflight.com, however, reports the launch window on January 3 as 5:50 – 7:17 pm ET from Cape Canaveral, FL.

Two days later, on January 5, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) will try to launch the return-to-flight-mission of its GSLV, the first flight since two failures in 2010.  This is India’s most capable launch vehicle, with a cryogenic upper stage.  The return-to-flight was supposed to occur last August, but was scrubbed an hour before launch because of a second stage leak.    The payload is India’s GSAT-14 communications satellite.

Two days after that, on January 7, Orbital Sciences Corporation is scheduled to launch its Antares rocket with the Cygnus cargo spacecraft to take supplies to the ISS.  The launch was delayed from last month because of a coolant loop problem on the ISS that necessitated a couple of spacewalks to resolve and NASA needed to focus on that instead.  This is Orbital’s first operational cargo launch to the ISS, designated Orb-1.

Separately, the United States is hosting an International Space Exploration Forum (ISEF) concomitantly with an International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) symposium and “Heads of Agencies” summit on Wednesday and Thursday in Washington, DC to discuss the future of space exploration and international cooperation in space.

Just outside Washington, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) is holding its annual winter meeting all week with major announcements of scientific discoveries from ground- and space-based instruments expected.

Meanwhile, the second session of the 113th Congress will commence. The Senate convenes on January 6 and the House on January 7.   They have a lot of work to do! 

Friday, January 3

• SpaceX launch of Thaicom-6 satellite, Cape Canaveral, FL, launch window 5:50 – 7:17 pm ET

Sunday, January 5

• ISRO’s return-to-flight of its GSLV, Sriharikota, India, 16:18 Indian Standard Time (5:48 am Eastern Standard Time)

Sunday-Thursday, Janary 5-9

• American Astronomical Society Winter Meeting, National Harbor, MD (outside Washington, DC)

Monday, January 6

• Senate begins the second session of the 113th Congress

Tuesday, January 7

• House begins the second session of the 113th Congress
• NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee, NASA HQ, Washington, DC, 1:00-2:00 pm ET
• First operational launch of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares/Cygnus cargo resupply system for the ISS, Wallops Island, VA, launch window 1:55 – 2:00 pm ET

Wednesday-Thursday, January 8-9

• NASA Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG), Embassy Suites Washington D.C. Convention Center, 900 10th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Thursday, January 9

• International Space Exploration Forum (ministerial meeting), Washington, DC (limited attendance)
• AAS “State of the Universe” briefing, 2325 Rayburn House Office Building, 12:00-1:00 pm ET

Thursday-Friday, January 9-10

• International Academy of Astronautics Heads of Agencies Summit on Exploration, Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, DC
  • Thursday, IAA conference on planetary robotic and human spaceflight exploration
  • Friday, Heads of Agencies Summit

Happy Holidays!   Except for the hard working astronauts aboard the International Space Station, and the need for Congress to officially adjourn for the year, everyone can take a well deserved break for the rest of 2013.

The astronauts completed the first of two or three spacewalks to fix a coolant loop problem yesterday.  A second is scheduled for Christmas Eve day (7:10 am ET) and a third could be scheduled if needed.   The second was delayed by a day so the astronauts can get a backup spacesuit ready for Rick Mastracchio to wear because something went awry with the one he wore yesterday.  Details are pending.

The House and Senate have completed their legislative work for the year, but both chambers are scheduled to meet in “pro forma” sessions this coming week, the House tomorrow and the Senate on Tuesday.  The Senate meeting will take place only if the House has not approved an adjournment resolution by then.  Chances are that’s what the House will do tomorrow, so the Senate session is tentative.

Things will get hopping very quickly in the New Year with the winter meeting of the American Astronomical Society on January 5-10, NASA’s Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) on January 8-9,  the International Space Exploration Forum with ministers of more than 30 space-faring countries on January 9, and the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) Heads of Agencies Summit on Exploration on January 9-10.   All of those meetings will take place in the Washington, D.C. area.  

Oh, and Congress is expected to return to work that week, too; the Senate on January 6 and the House on January 7.

So enjoy the holiday break — it’s busy, busy, busy after that.

The final version of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that just cleared Congress includes language prohibiting the President from allowing Russia to put GLONASS monitor stations on U.S. soil without the approval of the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) and Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

The State Department has been considering a Russian request to place monitor stations within the United States for Russia’s GLONASS navigation satellite system, its equivalent of the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS).   The stations would increase the accuracy of GLONASS.   GLONASS and GPS are elements of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and U.S. objectives with regard to GNSS are to ensure compatibility, achieve interoperability, and promote fair competition in the marketplace.

No agreement has been struck to allow GLONASS stations in the United States, but the possibility raised concerns in the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community that became public in an article in the New York Times last month.

The language in the NDAA (sec. 1602(b)) prohibits the President from authorizing or permitting “the construction of a global navigation satellite system ground monitoring station directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign government” on U.S. territory unless the SecDef and DNI “jointly certify” to Congress that any such ground station “will not possess the capability or potential to be for the purpose of gathering intelligence in the United States or improving any foreign weapon system.”  The SecDef and DNI may jointly grant a waiver to that requirement if certain conditions are met, however.   The section includes a 5-year sunset clause so will be in effect for only 5 years from the date the President signs the bill into law.

The National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory Board advises the government on issues concerning GPS and GNSS.  It was briefed on Russia’s proposal at its May 7-8, 2013 meeting and expressed no concerns according to the meeting’s minutes.  It received another briefing at its December 3-4, 2013 meeting.  The minutes of that meeting are not available yet, but the presentation by Ken Hodgkins, Director of the State Department’s Office of Space and Advanced Technology, points out that “no final decisions have been made” and Russia’s proposal has “evolved” based on discussions that have taken place already.

The FY2014 NDAA cleared its final congressional hurdle on Thursday, passing the Senate by a vote of 84-15.  The President is expected to sign it.

The Senate passed the Ryan-Murray budget today in a 64-36 bipartisan vote.   The budget sets top line spending levels for FY2014 and FY2015, allowing House and Senate appropriators to finalize the FY2014 appropriations bills that actually fund the government.

This budget compromise (H. J. Res. 59), crafted by House and Senate Budget Committee chairs Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), sets FY2014 government spending at $1.012 trillion, halfway between what the House wanted and what the Senate wanted.  It also provides $63 billion in sequester relief split evenly between defense and non-defense spending.    Some Republicans opposed the measure because it does not cut spending enough, and some Democrats opposed it because it does not extend unemployment benefits, but in the end, all 53 Senate Democrats, 2 Independents who usually vote with Democrats, and nine Republicans decided that it was better than no agreement and continued gridlock in Washington.

Passage of the budget compromise does not ensure that a government shutdown can be averted when the current FY2014 Continuing Resolution (CR) expires on January 15.  The budget agreement sets limits on how much can be spent, but only appropriations bills actually provide money for departments and agencies to spend.  Still, expectations are high that House and Senate appropriators will indeed be able to reach a bipartisan compromise on the 12 regular appropriations bills by that date.  They likely will be combined into a single package called an Omnibus Appropriations bill for consideration by both chambers. 

The Senate agreed this morning to a procedural measure that clears the way for a vote on the compromise budget deal approved by the House last week.   Separately, a vote on the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act could occur as early as tomorrow.  They are the last two major pieces of legislation expected to clear Congress this year.

The budget deal negotiated by House and Senate Budget Committee chairs Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) sets overall federal spending for FY2014 at $1.012 trillion, half way between what the House and Senate each passed earlier in the year, and eases cuts required under the sequester.   Members of both parties oppose the compromise — Republicans because it does not cut spending enough, Democrats because it does not extend unemployment benefits — but there was a sufficient number of Senators to surpass the 60-vote threshold needed to bring the bill to the floor for debate:  all 53 Democrats, two Independents who typically vote with Democrats, and 12 Republicans, for a 67-33 vote.    Thirty hours of debate are allowed for the bill, but it is expected to pass easily, since only 51 votes are required for passage, and the final vote could come much earlier.

Once the budget is approved by both chambers (it does not need to be signed by the President although he signaled that he supports it), the appropriations committees still must craft the 12 regular appropriations bills so they fit under that limit.   The hope is for those bills, probably merged into a single Omnibus Appropriations measure for consideration by the House and Senate, to be approved by January 15 when the current Continuing Resolution (CR) expires.

The other major bill many members hope to finish this year is the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act, maintaining a 51-year streak of passing the defense bill despite whatever political situation exists in Washington.    House and Senate Armed Services Committee chairs Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) worked out a compromise last week that passed the House.  Senate agreement is expected.

The budget and NDAA agreements were negotiated by the relevant committees and brought to the House and Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.    With time running out on 2013, no amendments were permitted on the House floor and none will be permitted in the Senate, since any changes would require the bill to return to the other chamber for approval.  The House already has left for the year, so the Senate needs to adopt the bills as is or delay action until 2014.  Weary of fighting and the “do-nothing Congress” label, enough members are willing to accept less than perfect bills to move legislation forward.

 

The House passed the Ryan-Murray budget plan today.  It still must pass the Senate and be signed by the President.  President Obama has signaled his support for the measure.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, reached a two-year compromise agreement on the federal budget for FY2014 and FY2015 on Tuesday.   The budget conference committee they chaired was created by the deal that reopened the government after a two-week shutdown in October and had a deadline of December 13 to complete its work. 

Expectations were low that any agreement could be reached, but the two announced it on December 10, several days ahead of schedule, an important milestone since the House is scheduled to adjourn for the year tomorrow.  Tea Party Republicans strongly opposed the agreement because it provides more money than agreed upon in the Budget Control Act of 2011, and some Democrats opposed it because it did not extend unemployment benefits.  But enough Members on both sides of the aisle were willing to vote in favor of the plan (H. J. Res. 59) to ensure its passage on a 332-94 vote.   Of the 94 no votes, 62 were Republican and 32 were Democrats.

Questions remain as to whether the Senate will pass the measure, but this is one step forward.  If adopted by the Senate and signed by the President (who supports it), the agreement would mean budget stability at least for FY2014 and FY2015 without the Damoclean sword of a shutdown hanging over the government.

How much money it would mean for specific agencies like NASA, NOAA and DOD is yet to be determined, but the total amount available for government spending in FY2014 ($1.012 trillion) is about half way between what the House approved in its Budget Resolution ($967 billion) and the Senate’s version ($1.058 billion).