50 Years Ago: President Kennedy Defends Space Budget

President Kennedy awarding NASA Administrator James Webb.

I almost missed this item from yesterday's look at the NASA archives. On April 24, 1963, President John F. Kennedy  participated in a press conference where he was asked if he "had any cause to reconsider" his commitment to goals to US lunar program. I think his answer is was not only important for his day during the development of the Apollo and Gemini programs, but it also applies to the importance of our space program today. Let's look at his profound answer:

"We looked at it, of course, when we proposed our budget for this year. We are looking at it again in relationship to next year's budget. We are also looking at it because of the concern that has been raised in the Congress and out of the Congress. I have seen nothing, however, that has changed my mind about the desirability of our continuing this program.

"Now, some people say that we should take the money we are putting into space and put it into housing or education. We sent up a very extensive educational program. My judgement is that what would happen would be that they would cut the space program and you would not get additional funds for education. We have enough resources, in my opinion, to do what needs to be done in the field, for example, of education, and to do what needs to be done in space.

"Now this program passed almost unanimously a year ago. What will happen, I predict, will be a desire, perhaps, possibly, to cut it substantially, and then, a year from now or six months from now, when the Soviet Union has made another new, dramatic breakthrough, there will be a feeling of, 'Why didn't we do more?' I think our program is soundly based. I strongly support it. I think it would be a mistake to cut it. I think time will prove, even though we can't see all the answers which we will find in space, that the overall expenditures have been worthwhile. This country is a country of great resources. This program in many ways is going to stimulate science. I know that there is a feeling that the scientists should be working on some other matter, but I think that this program – I am for it and I think it would be a mistake to arrest it."

It certainly looks like President Kennedy understood Congress.  Let's examine a couple of Kennedy's points. First: Cutting Space Program money to spend more on education and housing. History shows, that after Kennedy's assassination and President Johnson's extremely expensive "war on poverty" and enormous increases in education, Congress cut the space program drastically. For a period of 6 years, we were unable to send astronauts up into space (does that sound familiar?) And did the increases in spending achieve their goal. The result is a giant NO. Poverty levels have increased since then, and America places worse in educational results than we did in 1963. We can easily see through history that Congress is terrible at budgets and cannot control its spending habits. On the other hand, we can easily see that the spending in the space programs were of enormous benefit to the country, and the world, in the spinoff technological developments that went from exploring space and into the private sector. Few government programs have the spinoff benefit record that NASA has. SOmething we should consider today.

Second: Kennedy foresaw that other countries, in this case the Soviet Union, sought to beat the US in technological leadership, and that eventually something would happen and we would regret giving up our leadership in space. The same holds true for today. Although the Soviet Union is no more, Russia under Putin is determined to eventually replace us as the world leader in space technology. China seeks to do the same, AND is also involved in advancing techniques to destroy their opponent's satellites in space. 

Third: Kennedy believed that the space program would stimulate science. We certainly saw that with the Space Race. The drawdown from the space program of the last decade also takes lace during a time of a loss of industry and technological advances. We hear our leaders talk about a famine of American science students in our industry. Foreign students learn in our universities and then take that knowledge back to their countries, instead of immigrating to America. There is a push now for STEM and more science education. Well if you want that area to grow, we need to have some space heroes, some space adventures, and some great discoveries. As much as I believe in the importance of the science programs in the ISS, I think we have reached the point where it is up to private industry to make the leap from government support to finding wealth in space. We need to have a gold rush in space.

Going Back to Space! Part One

NASA's CCD poster, displaying the various commercial projects underway to support the ISS.

With the cancellation of the space shuttle program, America finds itself once again at the unenviable position of lacking a ride into space. The last time this happened was in the 1970's, as the Apollo-Soyuz project came to an end in 1975, the Skylab space station burned up over Australia, and the Moon landings were terminated by a government trying to get out of the Vietnam War. American astronauts did not return to space until the first flight or orbiter Columbia in 1981.

With the destruction of Columbia on mission STS-107 on February 1, 2003, President GW Bush directed NASA to revise the shuttle program and examine the agency's priorities and direction. Eventually it was decided by President Bush in 2005 to cancel the space shuttle program in 2010 once the ISS finished construction. NASA was then directed to use the savings from the termination of space shuttle missions to design and build a new, less expensive rocket system (The Ares-1 rocket and the Orion capsule) for flights to Earth Orbit, as well as a larger heavy lift vehicle (Ares-V) which would lift large satellites, space stations, and lunar explorers into Earth orbit. A plan was developed to build Lunar landers and a base would be placed on the Moon. This plan was called The Vision For Space Exploration and the rocket development program was named the Constellation Program, reminiscent of the Apollo Program and the Saturn series of rockets.

Ares 1-X launch, pad LC-39B, October 28, 2009.

Program patch for the Ares 1-X mission. Collectors, good luck getting this one. At least I've got the pin.

The Constellation program did not succeed as hoped. There were the inevitable delays in design and testing of hardware, the program began running up costs, and there were many disagreements in NASA management and fights between the government and NASA. Basically, when the government tries to make things, it always costs more than they plan. Furthermore, Congress did not provide extra funding for the Constellation program, which meant that as savings from the  shuttle retirements failed to be realized, and costs went up on developing new rockets, money had to be found by moving it from other projects. Eventually, only one test flight of the early Ares  (Ares 1-X) was performed on October 28, 2009.

President Obama announced the cancellation of the Constellation Program in 2010, but then modified the idea two months later. Gone were any ideas of a program to return to the Moon, plan for Mars, or any part of the Constellation program. Instead, NASA would spend its money on technology development, astronauts would fly to the ISS on Russian rockets, and the ISS would be shut down in 2015. After enormous gasps of shock by the space-supporting public and Congress, the life of the ISS was extended to 2020. A fight in Congress over the change in the program led to...  a new change in the program. The White House and the NASA administration developed a plan to give seed funding to private corporations to develop new rockets and capsules to provide America with access to low Earth orbit and the ISS, while NASA would develop the SLS (Space Launch System) heavy lift vehicle, with the goal of eventually exploring deeper space beyond the Moon and perhaps visiting asteroids. (Actually it would take an entire book to cover the history of how the Congress and White House fought over what direction NASA should take.)

Logo for the Commercial Crew Program initiative.

The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office, which oversees the seed funding to private companies developing new systems into Earth orbit, is run by NASA and is intended to eventually choose two independent rocket/capsule programs which will support the ISS. This includes cargo delivery as well as an eventual manned crew capability. Since the program began in 2010, there have been some significant developments to the point that there are about seven companies seeking CCD development money. There are actually only a few contenders capable of making the grade in the next little while. This coming weekend, one of the competitors, Space Exploration technologies (SpaceX), will attempt a grand mission to send the first private corporation's cargo craft to dock with ISS and deliver supplies. Also this last week has seen other companies make important announcements about their programs in the new race to put Americans back in space.

While we wait for the SpaceX Dragon launch to the ISS on May 19, I'll cover each of these major CCD programs and give you some links to learn more information. In the meantime, peruse these Wikipedia links on the programs I've mentioned:

Vision for Space Exploration: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_for_Space_Exploration

Constellation Program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

National Space Act of 2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Authorization_Act_of_2010

Commercial Crew Development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

NASA Torn over AGW

GOES-15 satellite in assembly. This satellite, launched in 2010, studies the Earth's weather and climate for NASA.

The struggle over Global Warming takes on a new dimension. Three years ago, President Obama gave NASA a new directive to build new satellites to study the problem of Global Warming, and to use its resources to push the government's agenda of using AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, meaning "man-caused") to legislate new rules against energy providers and new rules to change how Americans live. This agenda would cause many job losses and cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, in an attempt to "stop" Global Warming. Appointed by President Obama, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden (former shuttle astronaut and BIG fan of Barack Obama) has accepted this mission enthusiastically and directed NASA resources and facilities to cooperate in this endeavor. This effort has been pushed relentlessly by NASA's Goddard Space Center director Jim Hansen, who recently said that Global Warming is morally equivalent to slavery, and earlier said that people denying Global Warming should be prosecuted! Hansen has been politically active beyond his NASA responsibilities, working as an environmental advisor for AL Gore during his run for the Presidency (and well paid for the effort), as well as being arrested several times since 2009 for actively protesting energy issues such as the Keystone pipeline.

Well, things are getting tougher for NASA to follow the President's lead and the failing push for Global Warming belief. Yesterday, 49 NASA astronauts, scientists and employees sent Adminstrator Bolden a letter of complaint, stating that NASA should "refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites." The group is concerned that NASA's Earth studies have not proven yet that Man-made carbon dioxide release is causing Global Warming, and in fact that there is a great unsettled debate about if it is actually happening. This contradicts the politicalized belief in AGW, and its adherents who claim that the science is "settled". You can read more of the letter and its argument here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa’s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

In fact, NASA's own studies are now showing that the Global Warming danger does not even exist! Data from NASA satellites, climate stations and new studies are showing that there actually hasn't been warming for the last 15 years. Even Britain's own East Anglia Climatic Rwsearch Unit (which has previously been a HUGE proponent of AGW) now supports the studies which show the SUn itself has largely been a culprit in the cycles of warming and cooling over the centuries. Now, it seems the Sun is entering a period of little sunspot activity, which relates to the 11-year solar cycles. If the Sun continues in this direction, we may even see unusual COOLING in the climates which is reminiscent of several "mini-ice-ages" recorded in the last 500 years. To read more about the new studies, go here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

So what is NASA to do? Well, for one thing, they might consider firing Jim Hansen, who has been very controversial and in fact embarrassing to the agency. He continually takes money from pro-AGW political groups (such as Al Gore) and his recent arrests do nothing for the reputation of NASA. Second, how about actually performing some science? Pay attention to the actual data coming in and stop "spinning" it to match the demands of the White House.

Harrison "Jack" Schmidt, one of the signers of the petition. He was the only scientist among the astronauts to explore the lunar surface on Apollo 17.

Russian Mechanical Problems Delay Launches

Soyuz manned capsule in orbit in better days.

The Russian Soyuz TMA-04M was discovered through a test to have failed its ability to correctly pressurize. It was originally scheduled to have been the next manned Russian craft to travel to the ISS in March. Now, the Russians will have to delay that mission as they build a replacement. The next launch is now postponed until mid-April and may even reach back into May.

While this event does not impact the number of astronauts that can stay on board the ISS, it does bring up a point made by many space enthusiasts about the end of the shuttle program. As President Obama cancelled the Constellation program before the end of the series of shuttle retirements, many of us predicted there could be trouble relying on the Russians. Of course the first thing that happened was that the Russians took advantage of our weakness and promptly raised the taxi fares by $20 million per seat. Then to add insult to injury the Russians began declaring that perhaps the ISS should be a mostly Russian operation, since NASA had no way to replace astronauts or get supplies to the station. And congressman and pro-US human spaceflight enthusiasts fumed at the embarrassment of watching our government fumble with budgets (it's been over 1000 days since our Senate approved a budget- NASA has had to get by with less than they needed) and leadership.

Then suddenly the Russians began experiencing problems. Last year there were serious worries about accidents that could occur during the Soyuz landings, and then the Russians had to put a stop to all rocket launches while they searched for answers resulting from rocket failures. They then assured us that the problems were fixed.

Progress resupply rocket on pad.

Now we have another series of Russian failures that hold up the program. Not only the Soyuz seems to have problems, but the Proton rockets as well. A Proton-M rocket ready to carry the SES-4 communications satellite has been delayed a second time because of failures with either the avionics or an unspecified problem. Will this result in grounding Progress rockets? The World wants to know.

Phobos-Grunt probe readying for launch.

All of this latest trouble follows on the heels of the Phobos-Grunt disaster. That Russian Mars probe failed to leave Earth orbit and tumbled to a fiery re-entry this month. It was finally reported that before launch, problems with the probe's construction had led to more than a dozen welding repairs while the craft still had fueled tanks! As late as last week, Russian space leaders had even blamed US radar on causing the malfunctions while the craft launched to orbit. Now this week, we have the Russian space circus claiming it must have been cosmic radiation that affected the craft's avionics. At latest report, Russian investigators are blaming the problem on a cheap faulty counterfeit microchip, unable to withstand the rigors of outer space radiation. Some Russian engineers are quietly looking at the probability of internal problems with Russia's space manufacturing.

This causes NASA leaders untold headaches of course, but also deserves an appropriate "I told you so" response from those of us who warned about relying on the Russians for our space transportation.

Miss the shuttle yet?

Less Money for Commercial Space Development

Orion capsule drop-tests into water.

Once again, Congress cuts the wrong budget.

No doubt most readers are aware of the difficult economic times. Job losses are at an agonizing high level, and businesses are so worried about the current and future impact of business-strangling government regulations that they won't invest in hiring or new products. For space enthusiasts, we agonize over the poor planning of the White House over the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the lack of an American manned spacecraft. We go hat-in-hand to the Russians, who promptly raised the price of a seat on their venerable Soyuz spaceship, now the only path to carry humans to the International Space Station.

Soyuz spaceship approaches the ISS.

Supporters of the space program have known for a long time that one of the best investments of American tax dollars has been NASA. The spin-off technology derived from human and robotic space exploration has transformed the world over the last 50 years. Private businesses developing new products from this technology have produced millions, if not billions, of jobs worldwide and especially here in America. So it should be a no-brainer to our leaders in Washington as to which budget to keep, and if possible, expand. Apparently Not.

For several years NASA has been budgeting money to invest in companies who are also investing their own money in creating the first man-rated commercial-(as opposed to NASA-) made spaceships to reach low orbit and the ISS. The poor planning of the Bush and Obama administrations has resulted in a gap of time where America does not lead the world in manned spaceflight. This is unacceptable to the pride of our country.

This year, NASA had planned to invest $850 million spread amongst four companies in an effort to advance the development of new human-rated spaceships, aimed at getting a new system by 2015 or 2016. At the same time, NASA has been ordered by Congress to revive the Obama-cancelled Orion capsule design, even though a rocket has not yet been designed for it (Ares-1 was also cancelled, but not revived).

Although Congress praised the efforts of the commercial companies and urged them to hurry, Congress has instead cut the budget. NASA will receive only a budget $1 billion less than it needs, and in fact is $648 million smaller than last year. Therefore, NASA has announced it will only have $406 million to share amongst the competitors. The result is that the programs will be slowed down, and we will have to wait even longer to close the human spaceflight gap.

SpaceX's Dragon supply capsule will reach ISS in February 2012.

The worst part of this frustration is the waste of money by the Obama administration. WHile screaming in front of the cameras about the importance of creating jobs and investing in technologies for tomorrow, they have spent billions of dollars on failing solar-power companies which are now going into bankruptcy. The failed Solyndra company alone received over $500 million dollars, all sucked down a hole of a collapsing company. What's offensive to me, and anyone following this scandal, is that it is known that the White House knew the companies were failing and STILL SPENT THE MONEY.

Imagine what that wasted money could have done if instead invested in the companies that are attempting to build new rockets and capsules for astronauts to get to low orbit. Imagine how much shorter the spacecraft gap would be if the companies had the funds and support necessary to speed development. Imagine the jobs created as these companies ramp up production and sell seats to space. Well, it's gonna take longer now.

Funny thing, though. NASA has not cut the budget for the continued development of its own Orion capsule. Of course, Orion doesn't yet even have a rocket to get up into space. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Dockings in space

Steady... steady... careful now...

On Wednesday morning November 2, Progress 45, a robotic cargo delivery spacecraft, approached the International Space Station and successfully docked to the Russian PIRS module. Supplies included food, fuel, oxygen, water, and electronic supplies. I'm sure what the astronauts of Expedition 29 were REALLY waiting for were the 2 Apple iPads that were stored on board!

THis docking brings a sigh of relief from Russian space program managers, who were no doubt worried to death after the failure of the last Progress mission. That crash resulted in a delay of the Progress missions. Looks like the bugs have been worked out... for now.

Steady... steady... careful now...

Celebrations in China this week as a major milestone has been achieved for the Chinese SPace Program. Earlier this year, China launched the Tiangong-1 science module, basically a mini-space station. Tee T-1 will be used for practice in rendezvous and docking practice, and later next year Chinese Astronauts will actually dock with the spacecraft. In this event, a Shenzhou-8 Space ship robotically docked with the T-1 module. China is continuing to make strides forward in their development. No doubt this is due to all the scientific help we have either given them or they have stolen. I do not make that claim lightly.

Challenger disaster thoughts

Crew of mission STS-51 L, lost January 28, 1986

Commander Francis R Scobee

Pilot Michael J Smith

Judith A Resnik

Ellison S Onizuka

Ronald E McNair

Gregory B Jarvis

Sharon Christa McAuliffe

Wreckage of Challenger during recovery from Atlantic ocean.

While we commemorate the loss of the crew, and recognize the courage of those who explore space and understand the value of the risk, let's also remember why it happened. I'm not talking about the actual failure of the frozen o-ring which allowed hot gas to escape the solid rocket motor. I'm talking about the failure of leadership. Someone was too eager to please superiors and succumbed to the pressure of a schedule, ignoring warnings from those who understood the danger. Seven lives were lost. The failure was doubled later, when those guilty of the failure tried to cover up their mistakes by blaming and persecuting the very engineer and team that warned them about the danger.

May NASA and ATK (formerly Thiokol) never make that mistake again.

Challenger in orbit, picture taken from the SPAS satellite.

After the accident, America endured a period of waiting while engineers and scientists examined the cause of the accident and modified the shuttle boosters so that the same problem would not occur. Let's also remember that there were great sacrifices made by NASA and contractor workers to solve the problems and get us flying again. Eventually, shuttle Discovery returned our nation to space travel.

We need to encourage private companies to continue their work on new launch vehicles and crew capsules which will give us alternatives to just one government launch system. With the competitive nature of Boeing, Lockheed, Space X, and Virgin Galactic, we look forward to a more prosperous space travel scenario.

NASA Remembrance Day

Today has been set apart as a Day of Remembrance for the lives lost during the great exploration of Space. Although we specifically honor American lives lost, we also remember the lives lost by the Russian explorers in tragic accidents of the past.

As symbolized in the space patches shown above, we specifically remember the loss of Apollo 1 on the test pad in 1966, the crew of the shuttle Challenger in 1986, and the loss of the crew of the shuttle Columbia in 2003. All these brave men and women were lost due to mechanical errors, and each was different from each other. That means we learn from our mistakes and press on, overcoming the obstacles to achieving the goal of making risky space exploration as safe as we can.

Every year when we commemorate our fallen space explorers, we are told that the explorers felt the risk was worth it. History proves that this is generally true. Closer to Earth, think about the many losses in the past of exploration history. How many voyagers lost their lives to unexpected storms crossing the oceans to discover opportunity in the New World? How many lives have been lost in the attempt to conquer air travel? And don't forget that lives have been lost by explorers who have sought adventure discovering underground passages and treasures.

But today we remember men and women like Ed White (first American to walk in space) who perished in the fire of Apollo 1, Christa McAuliffe (chosen to be America's first teacher in space) who was killed in the Challenger explosion, and Ilan Ramon (first Israeli to fly in space) who died in the breakup of Columbia during re-entry.

While Senators, Representatives, and Presidents argue over how much money to cut from NASA and cannot find a consistent path for our American space program, let's remember the true cost of space exploration and remind ourselves that we cannot let those sacrifices be made in vain. In a year that will see the end of a major space program, let's hope that we may also see the birth of a compelling and exciting new space exploration program.

For more information, go to NASA's website commemorating the losses of our explorers: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/dor11/

Congress Finally Decides!

No Bucks, No Buck Rogers. Until now.

It has taken over a year. When President Obama unveiled his plans for NASA's new direction, it set off a firestorm of complaints, praise, arguments and confusion. For many space enthusiasts, it seemed he was deliberately shutting down our only actual plans for continuing human spaceflight and surrendering our lead in space exploration to other countries. To other advocates, his plan seemed to put NASA on a flexible path to developing the new technologies we would use in the future. To be honest, it was a bit of both. The problem was, his plan definitely would have resulted in a longer "space gap" where the US did not have it's own ability to launch humans in space, and worse, there would have been a greater number of layoffs for specialists and engineers from the program.

Late last night, just as Congress prepared to adjourn so they could return home to campaign before the November election, they finally voted on and passed Senate Bill S.3729. This last vote now sends the bill to the President's desk for his signature. Once that is done, the Bill passes into law and the provisions therein become enacted. The money will begin to flow. The actions will be taken, the direction assured.

Many members of congress were not satisfied with the Bill. Many felt it was a poor compromise of the many, many ideas that had been bantered around, argued over and revised time after time. But most felt the time was right to do SOMETHING, and get NASA moving in a direction that felt better than what the White House was choosing. The final vote was 304 for passage, 118 against, with 10 not voting.

There are many details in this bill which require explanation and reporting, which I'll cover during the days ahead. But one thing very important to Utahns is assured: local space manufacturer ATK will continue to have the opportunity to provide motors for the space program, thus possibly saving hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.