E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rocketeers ranging from SpaceX's millionaire founder to the maverick engineers behind the DIRECT heavy-lift design effort are sounding the alarm over a space spending bill due for consideration by the House on Friday. Their bottom line: Support the Senate version of the bill instead.
H.R. 5781, the House's version of the $19 billion NASA authorization bill for fiscal 2011, lops off most of $6 billion being sought by the Obama administration for boosting the development of commercial spaceships capable of bringing astronauts to the International Space Station over the next five years. Instead, it would put more money into the internal NASA rocket development program - although not as much as previously budgeted under a plan that an independent panel said was "not viable."
For a detailed analysis of the various plans, check out this comparison from the Space Foundation, and this Popular Mechanics commentary by Rand Simberg.
Many folks on the entrepreneurial space frontier say the House spending plan is so deficient that the Senate version must prevail, even though it also short-changes commercial space development. They say the alternative could be an extended period of dependence on the Russians for crew transport.
Interestingly enough, folks on the other side of the argument - including Apollo spacewalkers Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan - mirror that argument, insisting that relying on commercial space would lead to dependence on the Russians. They don't think commercial space providers will be able to deliver on their promises. House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., said last week that "we cannot be dependent on yet-to-be-developed commercial crew systems for U.S. access to the ISS and low Earth orbit, lest we make the would-be commercial providers 'too big to fail' before we have proof that they can succeed."
Cernan, who commanded the last Apollo mission to the moon in 1972, has been quoted as saying that "the commercial sector is still walking around like a young kid learning to walk. They don't know what the risks are. They don't know what they don't know."
Such claims, however, run counter to the fact that commercial ventures, including the Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin, have been involved in the human spaceflight effort since Apollo. The difference is that NASA would be paying fixed prices for space services rather than following its traditional cost-plus pricing formula. It's really a question of rethinking the financial underpinnings of the space business rather than its technological foundations.
Critics of the commercial approach to spaceflight also worry that it will lead to widespread dislocation for the nation's aerospace workforce - with this week's layoff notices for space shuttle workers held up as an example. Preserving traditional space jobs is a prime motivation for the House's approach to the spending bill. But up-and-coming players in the space business - including California-based SpaceX, which conducted a successful first test of its Falcon 9 rocket last month - say they are creating thousands of new jobs to offset job losses elsewhere.
Friday's debate in the House could lead to a quick vote under a "suspension of the rules" that would limit the time for debate and amendments, but would also require a two-thirds majority. That prospect led to a chorus of bugle calls from the House bill's opponents:
• In an e-mail alert, SpaceX founder Elon Musk asked recipients to call their representatives in Congress and urge them to vote "no" on H.R. 5781. "SpaceX rarely asks you to take action, so you know it really matters when we do," he wrote. Musk said a five-minute phone call could make a big difference. "The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel in space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress," Musk said. "SpaceX does not have the enormous lobbying power of the big government contractors to stop them, however with your help the day can still be saved."
• In a rare news release, the DIRECT rocket development team urged the House to back the Senate bill, which has the support of the White House as well. "The president's support for the Senate bill is a big step in the right direction, a wise meeting of the minds between all of the various stakeholders," DIRECT team founder Ross Tierney said. "If approved, the newly proposed $6.9 billion, 75-ton 'Space Launch System' project, very similar to our 'Jupiter' shuttle-derived system, would represent serious cost savings compared to the $15 billion, 20-ton Ares 1, and would also prevent the repeating of the tragic mistake of the 1970s, when Apollo vehicles, infrastructure and highly skilled personnel were simply discarded at the end of that program." Tierney complained that the House approach would continue work on the "current, problematic and far more expensive medium-lift Ares 1 development program, which is incapable of sending humans beyond Earth without a heavy-lift vehicle needing to be developed later."
• In a statement, the nonprofit Planetary Society urged the House leadership to put off consideration of the bill until after Congress' August recess, "allowing a full and open debate and for amendments to improve the bill." The society said it was concerned that the bill deviated significantly "from any plan offered by NASA or any previous administration" - by abandoning any significant investment in exploration technology, turning back the White House's commercialization initiative, leaving out any mention of specific goals for U.S. human spaceflight and reinstating programs "that have been determined to be unsustainable."
• In an urgent update, the Space Access Society noted that both the House and Senate versions of the authorization bill fell short of what the White House was asking for in terms of support for commercial space development. But it said that the House version was "far worse" than the Senate's - and that any attempt to approve it should be rejected. "There is a good chance that constituent pressure (that's you!) on congressmen in general can either delay this attempt till August if the votes aren't there, or defeat it outright," the Space Access Society sayd.
• In a Twitter update, planetary scientist Alan Stern asked his followers to "call your Congress rep TODAY @ 202-225-3121" to urge a "no" vote on H.R. 5781 and voice support for the Senate version. Stern is a former associate administrator of NASA who now serves as an adviser to suborbital space ventures (and hopes to take a suborbital research flight into space himself). Stern told me that he prefers the Senate wording on support for suborbital research trips under a program known as CRuSR.
For more about the space policy showdown, monitor RLV and Space Transport News as well as Space Politics. And as Stern has said, you should let your representative in Congress know how you feel, by calling 202-225-3121 in Washington, or calling your representative's district office, or sending an e-mail.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
fact of the matter, NASA isn't getting the funding they need to do things right.
I have called my representatives and sent emails. there is no way anything will be done right. and by right I mean spend the money and get men to the moon, asteroids, Martian moon, and Mars in a reasonable time frame.
Am I really the only one that thinks all of these things could be accomplished in the next 20 years?
I am glad you agree. I looked at your site. very good ideas all around!
I know a ton of us exist who think all NASA needs is more money. In fact I know of several House representatives who are right there with all of us nerdy space and science types.
There are so many ideas out there, so many ingenious ways of getting people into orbit, of building moon bases, of settling inhospitable planets.
It's sad. The main reason NASA doesn't have the astronomical amount of funding the NEED for this stuff is simple. all those people who come on here and complain about the fact that there are "other, more important" issues facing mankind. that it. it's that simple. (I for one feel space exploration should receive money like National Defense - if not more!)
But Congress won't put that kind of money into NASA's hands. If NASA had a budget like the U.S. Military's then we'd have a moon base already. but the bureaucracy of financial management doesn't believe space exploration is important. they look at the bottom line.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, THERE IS SOOO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE IN SPACE the United States is crazy not to take advantage of it. think about it. how many people need jobs? Put them to work in the space program. invest in space exploration and I guarantee there will be a HUGE return on that investment. the bigger the investment the bigger the return.
"I know a ton of us exist who think all NASA needs is more money."
Regardless of how it is spent?
E-mail Alan.
Referencing my comments on the Moonday discussion I stressed the need to establish the parameters of this Space Mission (and any space mission) as was done with great gusto in our Apollo mission. and followed by our broader planetary space exploration activities. Then, most unfortunately, in my opinion (and others) we then squandered our national resources and precious time in decades of marginal returns.
Specifically, and expressed in the most unflattering terms - we exchanged a visionary and courageous accomplishment -- literally assuming the mantle of Caretakers of another heavenly body -- and then settling to become attendants aboard an extremly high-priced, go-no-where orbital merry-go-round! We are now bogged down on a maximum mission with minimal returns. ( that was just preluded today with a duck-and-cover space junk episode) Unfortunately this promises to come back to bite us in the a-- (2015) when we cut that behemoth loose!
Gentlemen, get back on target! Money alone will not solve the problem. You are revealing yourselves to be in total disarray! Once again, think big. set lofty and achievable goals ... and then rally all mankind to reach for a Higher Order....
"as was done with great gusto in our Apollo mission"
There were geopolitical reasons for that 'great gusto' that do not exist today. Human expansion into space should and must be done, but not in the same crash program, money is no object manner, dedicated more to meeting the letter of reaching a destinational 'goal,' but having done little to give us an affordable, sustainable human spaceflight capability overall.
Repeating Apollo (as as a certain 'on steroids' program would have) will only repeat Apollo's endgame.
A more evolutionary approach may be more 'boring,' but it will still be happening, and acheiving new things, long after an Apollo-like approach has been Apollo-like canceled...
gaetanomarano is an idiot-just check his website where he takes credit for everything NASA's ever done
WikiLeaks just revealed there are more than 900,000 TS/SCI Top Secret mercenary contractors now, pulling
down $225 BILLION every year for undisclosed and unaudited programs we are not allowed to know about.
NA$A is chump change, a side show. Look over there, it's a shiney object! Nothing to see at NSA, move along.
Just imagine what the real NASA engineers could do with even $125B/yr...they would be ecstatic and we would have at least one base on the moon, Geostationary space stations, a vessel heading towards Mars and be looking at moving a metal rich asteroid into lunar orbit for processing into yet further spacecraft. within that 20 years. Most of the engineering has already been done, it is mostly only a matter of taking it from old blueprints, updating them to today's tech levels and turning them into the real thing. There are so very many good ideas that have been well thought out and planned for only to be shot down by budgetary concerns and infighting due to the lack of money. If NASA has 1/4 of the income that the Military receives then we would have a full blown space program hiring hundreds of thousands at the very least and an active, actually orbital space tourism business. Having Civilians (non NASA) in the Space Business is a very good thing, they are less constrained by the agency infighting and are able to focus on Building Things!
All those things could happen with the current budget, if one goes about it properly.
But:
1. Don't expect all of them simultaneously...and
2. NASA does not know what it means to 'go about it properly.'
And that means, among other things, NOT an Apollo-like 'crash' program (which is how too many people in and out of NASA think, having been warped by the Apollo experience), optimized to meet one narrow goal, on or before one specified date, with one big rocket, and not good at anything else. But by a steady, evolutionary general improvement of human spaceflight capability (Not all of which will constitute 'exploration,' some will be commercial, a few will be DoD, but launchers, propulsion, life support, etc. don't care about your purposes, they just give you what they're built to give you)...and that means some 'boring' yet vitally important things.
But things that would get and keep humans operating in the inner (at least) solar system, and in ways not dependent on the whims of any given President or Congress.
However, if you just want to throw more money at the problem (not that $125 billion/yr, or even 1/4 of that is ever going to happen to NASA), trust me, it'll be used, and you'll get something...but it won't give you what you really want.
I guess I should clarify my post a lil bit.
If that money was given to the Engineers, and not to the political managers of NASA, whether they are actually working for NASA or not, but give the ability to the engineers to come up with the solutions then our space program would be really rocking. Instead a lot of it is eaten up in the political and advertising side of NASA which does nobody any good.
The science and engineering side has grown by leaps and bounds as far as ideas and how to implement them, too many things get shot down by the politicos because it does not funnel enough money to their pet corporations and districts. If more of the decision making was left up to the engineers, letting them decide who can build things best/most efficiently (based on past performance) then we would have a lot more things getting off the ground. (pun intended)
Having the non-NASA people working on things gives a much wider set of possibilities and will be a very good thing in the long run. We just need to keep the political hands off from them and allow them to rise or fall based on how well they can actually do.
I agree, a crash program like Apollo is not the answer. That was as much a publicity stunt as anything else, they barely had time or the ability to do real science. We need something with real staying power, not just a set of disposable one-off's.
Elon Musk is doing what any responsible CEO would do to try to ensure maximum profits for SpaceX by dipping into our pockets. The choice is simple. Does Congress allow NASA to reach out to the Moon and Mars, or does it instead give the money to a few for-profit private businesses so that they can develop small rockets that can deliver crew safely to low earth orbit for a slightly lower cost to NASA, other space agencies, and a small handfull of very wealthy individuals?
We need to revive the Apollo program most of the tecnology there just has to be brought back and updated with the new technology of today. It would be cost effective. They could also build it bigger to hold more cargo and more crew. This could also be a launching platform for a spacecraft that could be put together and launched in space. We have the technology to do it now . All we need is the will to do it.
@!$%# nasa is just federally backed and about big bucks. They don't want to go the commercial route because they - nasa couldn't remotely compete with for one their wages, but overall costs. So I see it as a reasonable means to promote the space program. If nasa can't compete with commercial than they need to suck it up and do something about it. When the smartest astronomical scientists on the planet can't find their moon landing clips or accidently erased them or recorded over them then I have a problem. When a 3rd party or country can provide extremely detailed images and nasa blurs them out then I have a problem with nasa. Bottom line a 3rd party or company can do all of what nasa does at a fraction of the cost and more detail with no bull s h i t lies or cover ups nasa frequently engages in.
It's simple: if you want Americans and American business in space, support the Senate bill. If you want a make-work jobs program, support the House bill.
Telephone your Congressional representative now via the House Switchboard at (202) 225-3121. Ask them to vote NO on H.R. 5781, and instead support the bill unanimously agreed to in the Senate last week.
Find your Representative here: http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html
House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., said last week that "we cannot be dependent on yet-to-be-developed commercial crew systems for U.S. access to the ISS and low Earth orbit..."
Oh...you mean like Constellation? At the moment, they have *exactly* the same number of proven launches as SpaceX's Falcon 9. Oh...except that the F9 made orbit; the Ares 1-X didn't.
And SpaceX is way cheaper, and if funded, would get humans to LEO 2-3 years sooner than even the optimistic side of projections for Constellation (2015 rather than 2017).
First, knowing how this is as much about politics as engineering, literally going to the Russians for access to LEO is galling enough for some people, but the thought of bringing in Russian launchers and spacecraft to fly out of KSC is about politically unacceptable as it gets. It won't happen. Period. Just accept that. (You really don't think they won't also come with Russian support crews, do you?)
Second, you'd also have to build at least one, preferably two launch pads for the R-7 and Soyuz at KSC. Even as a non-recurring cost, it does nothing to help the economics. (And then there's the parts and consumables supply chain, reaching all the way back to Russia. They aren't going to license U.S. companies to manufacture any of that stuff here...)
Third, are the Russians offering to ship R-7s and Soyuzes here? No? Then case closed. You can't buy what the owner isn't selling. Period. (Those either hoping for, or fearing Chinese involvement in ISS, this is for you, too. They've never said that they even want to be in on it. Until and unless that happens, it's irrelevant.)
Fourth, it does nothing to answer the question; "What happens if there's a downturn is U.S.-Russian relations?" We would be as much, if not more dependent than we will be, post-Shuttle, on continuing good will between us, to get our people to ISS. Realistically, how likely is that?
Fifth, a US system will hardly be able to build up a safety and experience record, if it doesn't start somewhere (and EELVs already have a respectable record behind them), will it? No matter what happens, Soyuz and R-7 will always be an older design than anything we have, and someday they will leave both of them behind for something better, as well (more than once, it looked as if they were on the verge of doing so)...
Then where would we be? Dependent on technology they no longer make, and a new system (that they may also not offer to us) that may be perfectly good, but is no more 'proven' than anything we could build ourselves.
Ask the Irish what it means to be highly dependent on one vital resource, that suddenly goes away.
The "commercial" players are standing on the backs of the NASA engineers and government programs that went before them, and developed the underlying technologies. True commercial companies won't develop technology and plan missions without a profit motive, and they shouldn't. Since the potential profit of, say, a Mars exploration program is unknown, it must be a government program that is done because the people of this nation (or nations) WILL it to be done, and are willing to fund it. Humans are a race of explorers - we want to see what's over the next hill, or beyond the sea. Until that WILL exists with regards to space exploration, we're going nowhere.
And who has done a manned Moon or Mars mission, lately...?
Right now, everyone is starting pretty much from square one.
Except for humans everything can be launched into space using a proven hydrogen gas gun technology and a single stage rocket for 1/20th the cost of shuttle. http://www.quicklaunchinc.com./
Great artical as always Alan. Here is the letter I sent to my congressman. Cheers!
Test
A longer term national strategy must be a consideration;
It is in the best interest of the United States that the commercial human launch space industry develops under the auspices of the United States and not a foreign government. That certain controls are held by officers of the US government.
Any other choice imperils the future of US national security. The US spends a Billion a year trying to keep terrorist off US planes, out of US skies. If commercial is not developed under US control we risk opening this venue to unfriendlies in the next decade.
What returns? Who would be paying for what products or services?
A satellite market (launch, repair, retrieve) is all I can think of currently. How many more are needed?
Are you talking about lunar H3?
What a difference a day makes... yesterday we had the Space Shuttles occupants preparing to duck-and-cover from debry impact -- and today we have the threat of a Continent-busting Asteroid impact by 2182! Again, referencing my Moonday entry {"... Forget Doctor Strangelove -- just remember Siberia - 1907 -- it happened there! ") These events, and their ever=present recurrent potential, doesn't necessarily suggest an evolutionary approach...
There is much to be said for precautionary and systematic approach as suggested by Frank Glover, but if this is to suggest we should use the Space Station approach asr the dynamic model for our future space enterprises -- let me off the bus...! It is apparent to many enthusiastic space supporters that today's Space Satellite/Shuttle program... is truly lost in space!
Giving due respect to all the component parts -- Governmental. Private and Inter Agency concerns ... and seeking the continued support of the International community, we may yet forge a workable paradigm that would serve as a template for not only our Space responsibilities, but, who knows... could also serve to make our fractured National and International concerns more manageable.....
Web Master: E-mai Alan
Is this entity (Showdown over space policy) still available for comments?