E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Al Hartmann / Salt Lake Tribune via AP
An Ares 1 rocket motor is fired at ATK's test site in Utah on Aug. 31. The Ares1 rocket development effort was part of NASA's Constellation program, but it's hanging in limbo while Congress considers the space agency's spending plane.
NASA's future is still in limbo on Capitol Hill. This week, House Democrats floated what they called a compromise version of a bill laying out how the space agency should spend its money over the next three years, but the budget isn't likely to be sorted out until after the November elections.
The House leadership's latest proposal may represent a compromise between Republican and Democratic members, but it was not drawn up with the cooperation of the Senate — which has already passed its own version of the NASA authorization bill. The folks in favor of space commercialization are strongly urging the full House to go with the Senate's version instead.
For a while, it looked as if the House might put its version to a vote today (Friday). But as noted by Jeff Foust on the Space Politics blog, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D- Md., announced late Thursday that there'd be no more votes on the House floor until next Wednesday. The focus will be on putting together a continuing resolution to keep programs funded at their current level when the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 — and if that plays out the way it's expected to, that would extend NASA's time in limbo through the pre-election recess.
The latest revisions in the House proposal — laid out by Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and described by Space News — call for spending $1.2 billion over the next three years on commercial space taxis such as the Boeing CST-100 or the SpaceX Dragon. That's more than the $464 million the House version originally called for, but still less than the $1.6 billion proposed in the Senate version.
The bill's most vocal opponents say the money isn't the only reason why the House version should be thrown out, even in its amended form. They say the House version creates so much red tape that commercial launch providers will be hard-pressed to deliver what NASA is going to need when the space shuttle fleet retires next year.
The Space Frontier Foundation says the House bill would "result in extending our dependence on Russia, postponing improved access to the ISS [International Space Station] for scientists and engineers to do research, and pushing off Americans' chances to fly into orbit on an American rocket." The foundation also says the House bill would keep the door open for NASA's Constellation rocket development program, even though the White House and the space agency's top executives want it canceled.
So you'd think that Constellation's supporters would be happy about the House bill, right? Not really. Constellation's fortunes are a big issue in Huntsville, Ala., where Marshall Space Flight Center has been playing a key role in developing NASA's Ares 1 rocket. But The Huntsville Times' Lee Roop reports that the bill "appears to drop support for the Constellation rocket program and move closer to the Senate's vision for NASA, raising the possibility of a 2011 budget for the agency before Christmas."
Constellation or no Constellation? It really depends on how much you read into the bill's detailed provisions. Hillicon Valley noted that the latest House version "would likely result in heavy cuts to the Constellation program." The House version, like the Senate version, would provide money for an additional shuttle flight next year. It seems likely that no matter who prevails, NASA will be able to go ahead with the extra mission (STS-135), which would involve sending Atlantis to the International Space Station next June or July with a last big load of supplies.
There are plenty of hurdles to jump before any revised vision is set in stone. Even if the House and Senate settle on an authorization bill, a separate appropriation bill must be passed as well. The way things look now, NASA's spending would probably follow the status quo prescribed in a continuing resolution, at least until Congress convenes for a lame-duck session after the elections.
The folks at the Space Frontier Foundation, as well as at the Space Access Society, are calling upon the backers of commercial space efforts to contact their House representatives and urge them to go with the Senate bill. No matter how you feel about the specifics of space policy, this would be a good time to let your lawmaker know how you feel by sending an e-mail or making a phone call via the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121).
Where do you stand? Checking with these websites will give you the flavor of the debate:
- Space Transport News: One-stop shopping for space policy links
- Space Politics: House releases compromise NASA authorization bill
- NASASpaceflight.com: Discussion of FY2011 Senate and House (compromise)
- NASA Engineer: House has NASA compromise, budget squeeze possible
- Transterrestrial Musings: New space policy action alert
- Parabolic Arc: House releases compromise bill
And of course feel free to weigh in on the future of NASA and space commercialization in your comments below. Speaking of space commercialization, Space News and Aviation Week are reporting that SpaceX has postponed the second test launch of its Falcon 9 rocket until Nov. 8 at the earliest. This launch will mark the first tryout for an operational Dragon capsule, which could eventually carry cargo or even astronauts to the International Space Station.
Correction for 10:35 a.m. ET Sept. 24: Of course I meant to write $1.6 billion rather than $1.6 million for the Senate's proposed allocation for commercial space taxis. Sorry about that! Thanks to Joe Latrell for pointing out the error.
Check out my other postings on Cosmic Log, and connect with me via Twitter (@b0yle) or Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
Alan,
I think you mean 1.6 Billion at the end of your third paragraph.
The Senate version of the bill is much better, but I think we really need to let NASA focus on long range missions and leave the rocket building to the commercial sector. If NASA bought its flights like most shipping agencies, the price would go down much faster for everyone.
Fixed that, thanks for pointing out the glitch ... and thanks for your comments. It sounds as if the final resolution of the issue is going to be put off until after the autumn break.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/24/no-love-for-the-house-compromise-bill/
http://majorityleader.gov/in_the_news/press_releases/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=4533
It's all a bit of a Mess. If the current situation isn't a clarion call for getting politics out of space. Both internally and internationally I don't know what isn't!
Macrocosm vs Microcosm
There is a fundamental issue here. Space exploration takes long-term thinking and planning. Take a look at the Russians and Chinese. They do not scrap programs every four years because some new leader has been elected. We are on the verge of taking a backseat in manned space exploration because our political leaders cannot see past the next election. It is a sad thing to watch.
Yeah, but it's actually every two years to coincide with midterm elections as opposed to the presidential election. Ultimately politics is the worst thing that has happened to the space program.
The flip side of that, is that the Russians haven't fielded anything better and more capable in a very long time, either...
I know their hardware has undergone continuous incremental improvement, but at some point you have to leave that 1966 design behind. Even China based their spacecraft on it.
Still, it's better than having significant a spaceflight gap...
I think you mean: Ultimately, politics is the worst thing to happen to democracy… :D
www.buddhadude.net
Commercial my foot!!! If the "private sector" wants to fly into space, and haul/taxi astronauts to the ISS fine with me! Take tourist as well....great! But don't ask for R&D tax payer money to subsidise your project!
NASA is trying to do what the United States Postal Service did in the early days of air mail. And if NASA does indeed do this and commercial space flight does well I don't think private space flight is far behind. (you know, taking the family out on the space cruiser for a picnic- hey it could happen).
This runaway Congress is in dire need of replacement! NASA gets cut every budget year and is told to make do on a pittance, while we spend billions of dollars each month to play world wide policeman... It's just ludicrous!
If there was one entity being federally funded that needs to have the money to do their job... it's NASA!
Remember in November!
To my knowledge there is no candidate who could take the "nerd" vote. That is to say, there's no one pushing for heavily funding R&D at NASA. These midterms all we are going to here is how everyone wants to spend too much, it's going to sound a lot like EVERY politician is part of the tea party movement. It's complete B.S.
Screwing up the US space program is a bipartisan effort. Proxmire and Nixon screwed Apollo. Bush screwed the Shuttle program. Both parties in Congress underfunded Constellation and turned it into such a bloated barrel of pork that it can't possibly accomplish anything in less than another 10 years even *with* funding. Obama damned NASA with faint praise and fainter support.
And *nobody* is trying to capture the imagination of the American people, with respect to space. It's all about making Those Guys Over There look like demons from Hell.
I certainly hope that the SpaceX's of our time get their act together without relying on the shifting winds from Washington. Because if not, should the human race have descendants among the stars 500 or a thousand years from now, the language they speak won't be derived much from English.
And if there *are* no humans in space, 500 or a thousand years from now, we will have only ourselves to blame.
Poignant words. You are correct. The saddest part (to me) is that no one is trying to capture the imagination of the American people. If anything could do that it would be human spaceflight. I don't want to encourage dangerous or unsafe space policy but I would love it if there were some sort of "flexible path" to space in this decade (for Americans). I don't want to see communists on the moon. I just don't! that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I want a heavy lift NASA rocket, but.............I don't want that damned Constellation, overgrown piece of crap. It's a frigging ESTES ROCKET for a billion $$ per launch ??. Just could never understand why a redesigned Apollo wasn't considered. Even back in the 1960's, they had designed Apollo's that could reach Mars.