Uh Oh: The Space Community Is Writing A White Paper – Again
Keith’s note: Here we go again. Its presidential transition team season and all the space fans are lining up trying to get their ideas in front of the new Administration. As is usually the case someone starts a white paper and looks for supporters who invariably start to edit and nick pick and add wish lists. Space organizations such as the Space Foundation, the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, the Satellite Industry Association, and the Aerospace Industries Association are supporting this particular white paper/position paper effort. There may be other organizations lurking in the shadows. Meanwhile, organizations such as the Commercial Spaceflight Federation and the AIAA are shunning the effort. For now. Other organizations have not been approached. Then there’s swarm of space advocacy groups, pundits, and thought influencers, whose views will be all over the map. Welcome to the space community.
Eventually, since these efforts inevitably turn into a circular firing squad with everyone wanting everything they want – but not what anyone else wants, some early participants will walk out in a huff and badmouth the effort. In the end this will be yet another example of choir practice by the usual suspects in an echo chamber. Invariably, since only a subset of the usual suspects are involved, other efforts will pop up and the net result will be a inconsistent bunch of noise from the space community. Surprise surprise.
At one point the white paper says “It is imperative to fully fund the nation’s space exploration enterprise in the face of competing policy priorities.” Why is that at all imperative? Isn’t defeating COVID-19 and bringing our economy back more of an imperative? Space fans seem to not be listening to President-elect Biden or reading the newspapers. It may well be that NASA’s budget and the budgets of other agencies will need to take a hit to get us through this. Or maybe NASA can tweak what it does to be more of partner in a whole-of-government effort to solve pressing national challenges.
Oh and then there’s the whole climate change issue that the Biden team has listed as one of its top 4 priorities. That is not even mentioned. Nor does this paper even reflect a cognizance of what the Biden team has been saying that it wants to do in other areas – and why it thinks that these things are important. Is NASA Independent of the national priorities that affect the rest of the government? Indeed the word “Biden” appears nowhere in this paper. Nor is there any mention of the pending issues affecting the new Congress. Cluelessness abounds within this paper that purports to represent the consensus of the space community. But space fans know more than the Biden folks do, I guess.
Meanwhile, the Biden Transition Team is having to work with zero cooperation from the Trump Administration while facing a raging pandemic and an economy that is spiraling downward. Yet space people seem to think that there is going to be a lot of interest by the Biden Transition Team in the self-serving wish list of all the space fans who think that all of their things are important because they think that these things are important. Read on and you will see every tired and worn justification for spending piles of money on space stuff in a shopping list meant to make everyone’s Christmas stocking full.
And when the Biden Transition Team gives the space fans a look of bewilderment in reaction to a totally self-serving laundry list of “gimmies” the space community will turn and tell everyone that Biden is anti-space. Truth be known, the space community has lived in a little alternate reality bubble for far too long – a bubble inflated to near bursting with fairy dust and unicorns by the Trump Administration and its Make Space Great Again memes. Oh and then there’s the Space Force waiting to beam everyone up.
The exploration and utilization of space offers to enable an incredible future full of promise, benefits, and adventure for both our nation and the rest of the world. Yet if we just leave it to the space community to call the shots then all we will get is a disjointed collection of more of the same – and less of the immense potential of what could otherwise come to be.
As such, here is the latest iteration of the space community wish list I have seen. Stay tuned. There will be more …
“Leading the next generation in space – A vision for the 117th Congress”
“Space impacts every facet of 21st-century life. Business, governance, security, education, manufacturing, healthcare, communication, and many other sectors rely on space-based infrastructure and technologies. The nation’s space exploration enterprise is facing unprecedented challenges and demands attention and action from policy makers.
To ensure that the United States continues to prosper and lead in outer space, the incoming 117th Congress will have to:”
“Support Key Space Policy Decision-Making Bodies
The global space policy environment is rapidly evolving. Increased global space development is bringing forth untold opportunities for peaceful collaboration in space between peaceful, like-minded nations.
Addressing the complex international policy environment requires a whole-of-government approach to space policy. The National Space Council, chaired by the Vice President, and the Users’ Advisory Group, have been effective in coordinating the United States’ space exploration enterprise. While NASA is the leader of national efforts in civil space, there are dozens of agencies, departments, and organizations throughout the U.S. government with a role in space operations, policy, funding, and other matters. Further coordination of regulatory frameworks across government agencies, such as those for space traffic management and spectrum allocation, will be vital in ensuring access to space and continued growth of U.S. industry.
The United States should maintain strong bipartisan support for the national security space community. Recognition of increasing space threats and reliance of the military on space technologies, including robust satellite communications, remote sensing, and the Global Positioning System, demand coordination across military space organizations. The United States Space Force, in partnership with U.S. Space Command, is essential to addressing space threats, properly streamlining military space acquisitions, and nurturing a dedicated military space warfighting culture.
The commercial sector continues to be key to U.S. space preeminence, and the Office of Space Commerce has sought to promote the broader space economy through mechanisms such as regulatory streamlining and promoting U.S. government utilization of commercial space products and services. Therefore, maintaining the structure and role of the National Space Council and its coordinating agencies will enable the United States to have a unified and coordinated vision for space.
Protect Space as Critical Infrastructure
Space continues to be the backbone of America’s infrastructure. As of 2019, the global space economy constituted an estimated $424 billion across a wide variety of economic sectors. Satellite services continue to support our nation’s food supply, providing the precise agriculture services and high-resolution imagery that improves the efficiency of an industry that feeds our nation.
When terrestrial services fail, space-enabled services are essential to save lives. After Hurricane Maria, space-based communications provided crucial emergency services to affected populations after impact, connecting first responders and enabling life-saving weather forecasting.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, space-based assets have played critical roles in providing connectivity for lifesaving telework and telehealth options for remote communities. GPS services continue to be vital for supply chain tracking and the financial services sector, providing approximately $1 billion per day of value to the U.S. economy.
Presidential Policy Directive 21 designates the vast majority of the space economy as critical infrastructure, including the defense industrial base and satellite communications, as well as defining Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) series as a key enabler of many sectors. rotect and funding space as critical infrastructure would enhance capacity to assess and respond to threats related to space missions, assure American access to space, bridge the digital divide in rural America, and promote economic development.
Ensure that NASA Is Consistently Funded
Funding NASA development of new technologies such as robotics to further planetary exploration missions improve life on Earth demonstrate technical prowess and advance the United States’ role as a global power. According to the Pew Research Center, 75% of Americans believe it is essential that the United States continue to lead the world in space exploration. It is imperative to fully fund the nation’s space exploration enterprise in the face of competing policy priorities. NASA must have budget stability to maintain continuity of major programs and mitigate mission delayscost. It is also important to encourage a balanced science portfolio across NASA’s directorates as informed by the National Academies’ Decadal Surveys.
Over the decades, investments in NASA research have unlocked the secrets of the universe and have drastically improved life on Earth. Probes throughout the solar system allow us to rove across the Martian surface and glimpse the most distant solar objects, revolutionizing our understanding of the universe. Microgravity research conducted aboard the International Space Station has led to advancements in manufacturing and medical research that are contributing to dramatic advancements in health and industry on Earth, and the commercial sector increasingly is participating in research. ensures the development of robust low-Earth orbital (LEO) economy.
Closing:
Supporting key decision-making bodies such as the National Space Council will enable cross-agency coordination in addressing regulatory concerns, promoting the growth of the United States’ space industry. Protecting space as critical infrastructure the of space technology for Americans across the country and supports other domestic industries. Maintaining continuous funding for NASA would further scientific advancements and ensure . With rapidly expanding space access, miniaturization of technology, growing scientific knowledge, and the enduring human desire to explore our universe, we must continue to develop these priorities to maintain the benefits from operating and exploring in space.”
Well this is how democracy is supposed to work, besides, I thought Biden wanted to listen to experts and scientists…
The experts and scientists are not the ones who do the talking for the space community for the most part.
https://www-cdn.law.stanfor…
I want to see the pink papers.
That is an interesting outline describing various papers. Yes, the pink papers (federal and state agencies policy papers with limited internal circulation) would be interesting to see. I was also thinking some of these later disclosed decades later and has interesting historical insight.
I think of the OCS lecture series MIT had in 2005 on systems engineering describing the Space Shuttle. First lecture with Dale Myers about vehicle selection in 1970/71 when it sure looked like Skylab 3 will be the last manned spaceflight for the US (Apollo-Soyuz wasn’t formally planned). Following 14 lectures also insightful as we hear from those who made the Shuttle program the way it was, it gave me better understanding of the tradeoffs. A huge contrast to how I thought back in the 1970s and 80s of what and why the Shuttle was to be.
First video of this lecture series, https://www.youtube.com/wat…
I just need 12 more good years…That’s my mindset right now.
I served on two transition teams. On one hand, the enthusiasm to provide input to the process from external organizations, not to mention every program within NASA, is admirable. While having an input will make the provider feel part of the process, the amount of information submitted can be overwhelming and not necessarily helpful. We already have enough reports on the shelves and white papers in the files.
In my two experiences, the inputs from NASA weren’t coordinated to present a unified front of agency priorities, it was every program for itself, while the external organizations were each promoting their own agendas. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but given the brief amount of time it’s a tall order to digest all the material and thoroughly understand the issues. This is especially true this time around because the Trump administration is doing nothing to cooperate with the transition teams and most of the work is being conducted virtually.
It’s useful to understand the audience for the final product. Will it ever make it to President Biden’s desk? If Vice President Harris takes on the traditional role as head of the National Space Council (and if it is maintained) it should certainly get in front of her. One would assume it will also be of interest to the staff director of the Space Council, the head of OSTP, and hopefully the Director of the National Security Council, to name just a few office within the White House. And, of course, it should help a new administrator get up and running quickly. It would also be interesting to know if the NASA Transition Team has been asked to present a list of candidates for the four Senate-confirmed positions at the agency and if this is to be part of the final report, or as a separate document.
Instead of turning in countless volumes of briefing charts, reports and white papers, it might be more appropriate to focus on a single document, perhaps more akin to a strategic plan. After all, the official NASA Strategic Plan should have already been vetted, received input (hopefully) and shared with the eternal space community. The submission should identify the top five issues that deserve the president’s attention, highlight how his administration can influence the issue, and summarize the affiliated budgets. As Keith pointed out, since the environment is a top issue for Biden, the document should most certainly address the resources and capabilities NASA offers to help him meet his goals in this area.
In an ideal world I’d also like to also see the following issues presented to the new administration, and to the extent possible, included in the submitted document:
Milestones that will occur during the first 100 days that might involve the White House; a list of launches that will occur within the first year; an explanation of what does finding water on Moon and Mars actually mean (and while we’re at it, explain it to the public); is there a small problem facing NASA that the administration can fixed immediately?; How is/will COVID impact NASA near-term plans and programs?; and, show how NASA programs are aligned with other Federal agencies engaged in space.
Before the critics descend on me, I offer these suggestions based on my own experience. This is not to say other transition team members I served with will agree and will undoubtedly have their own thoughts on the process. As one of my early mentors once told me, “There are many roads to get to Chicago.” Everyone will have there own opinion on how the transition team should proceed.
I completely agree with Keith’s closing point, “The exploration and utilization of space offers to enable an incredible future full of promise, benefits, and adventure for both our nation and the rest of the world.” It will be most helpful if the NASA Transition Team can develop an innovative way to transmit that message and the capabilities of NASA to the new administration. Given the excellent caliber of the team members, I am confident they will represent all segments of the aerospace sector exceedingly well.
Thanks Keith and Alan. Good perspectives. I wonder if NASA, along with many other D&As who account for much domestic spending, will find themselves constrained, as Republicans in Congress rediscover a penchant for fiscal restraint? Sequestration II, anyone? I have to believe that Mr. Biden favors R&D that may eventually lead to practical sol’ns to challenges such as climate change and energy independence. In other words, I’ll not be surprised if human space flight programs aren’t slowed, or even changed, considerably by these two considerations.
Thanks for the thought you put into this. As a reminder, you do recall who left you the first message at your desk at the first transition team … before you even knew where your desk was 😉
I remember!
As we’ve discussed previously we did not anticipate the Democrats would be too supportive of any big NASA goals, certainly not in human space flight, and probably not in any area. Their focus will be on climate. In four or in eight years they will still be proclaiming a climate emergency and will have accomplished nothing towards resolving it. All the tens of trillions they want to put into third world development of alternate energy sources will have little effect. Fortunately we have a space station and we have a commercial transportation vehicle that can support it. That is our new steady state. Meanwhile NASA will play with Orion. Maybe by 2024 they will have flown a manned mission (but I would not count on it, its just in the range of possibility). ISS, maybe can be used for some serious work. For the first time they have enough crew hours to get some reasonable amount of work done. Its too bad they have not been developing payloads that could make use of the crew expertise.
wow .. can you pick lottery numbers too?
“we did not anticipate the Democrats would be too supportive of any big NASA goals, certainly not in human space flight,”
You mean like when democrats had to fight republicans for funding commercial crew? Now the United States is the only country on the planet with commercial transportation to LEO. is this a bad thing the Democrats are responsible for as it relates to human space flight?
I find it ironic republicans get all this credit for human space flight and the democrats are demons from hell but the record is the opposite. Kennedy and LBJ were democrats and got us to the moon, Clinton signed the Commercial Space Act which called on congress to have NASA acquire commercial cargo and crew services and saved the Space station. President Obama brought us commercial crew services.. He also signed a historic bill that allowed ownership of space resources. But you do not mention them in a positive light at all when the history is plain.
Nixon ended the Apollo program.
Bush retired the space shuttle and called for deorbiting the ISS
Shelby is responsible for the boondoggle SLS and Orion that is killing commercial opportunities for NASA.
What is NASA mandated to do:
“Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.
(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:”
And the NUMBER ONE objective of NASA?
“(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;”
https://www.history.nasa.go…
Studying the earth .. number one.. you do not think understanding any change to the climate of the earth is important? How much of the population of the planet revolves around understanding the weather and what it will do as it relates to feeding ourselves?
This is commercial crew funding proposed by the democrat President Obama.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
The situation is definitely more nuanced than what OP stated. Just want to point out:
1. Yes, Obama started Commercial Crew and tried to switch US space program to a commercial footing, but he faced major opposition from congress, and at the time of the debate (release of FY10 NASA budget), Democrat controls both House and Senate, so the opposition to commercial space also came from Democrats.
2. I’m not sure the objectives in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 is ordered by importance, do we actually know that? Anyway, the original act did not have the phrase “of the Earth and” in it, originally objective #1 is “The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;”. The phrase “of the Earth and” was added in 1985, under Reagan administration.
3. Back to today, while there’re a lot of Republican support for pork projects like SLS, we also have Democrat like Kendra Horn (she’s also a future NASA administrator candidate) who tries to kill lunar lander public private partnership.
Horn was mentioned by one reporter in an article. That does not mean that she – or anyone else who is being mentioned is being considered.
“Democrat controls both House and Senate”
I would suggest you google:
did Obama really control the house and senate for two years
That has been repeatedly debunked yet it still remains a talking point for republicans. But there were some democrats in space states that voted for pork.
If you look at the unamended version of the Space Act of 1958 it actually never even mentions humans in the objectives, only living organisms are mentioned. You are correct in earlier version but the fact they changed it to specifically point to the Earth and kept it at number one I do find that significant.
True about Horn and I would not like to see her as Administrator but someone else would have to offer a new bill as she is no longer in congress and can propose anything anymore and drive it through the Senate. I would like to see someone with the ability to manage a huge organization and with a heavier leaning to commercial / NASA partnerships or NASA being a customer.
Commercial crew started long before Obama. Obama depended on it because he cancelled any other prospects for travel to ISS. Johnson terminated funding for Apollo and Saturn in 1966. By the time Nixon took office in 1969, few, even in NASA leadership, expected any continuation of lunar exploration which they considered dangerous. They did not want the legacy of a dead crew on the Moon. Nixon started Shuttle. Carter tried to cancel Shuttle. Reagan started what became ISS.
You clearly have a bias against Dems. Commercial crew was first discussed under Goldin and Bush 1 and then again under Clinton. Discussed. Then under Bush 2 it moved into an organizational stage under O’Keefe and then Griffin. Obama fought for it for 8 years and funded it when congressional republicans wanted to fund a large government-designed rocket (SLS) instead and sought to cut commercial crew finding year after year. When Trump arrived al that was left was final testing and flights. All they had to do was pay the bills.
“Commercial crew started long before Obama.”
Show me ACTUAL BUDGETS for commercial crew before President Obama …. please.
The people at NASA that I have read and conversed with said that COTS Part D got a few token dollars but it was NEVER seriously funded at all.
” because he cancelled any other prospects for travel to ISS.”
I suggest you revisit Civics 101. The president offers a non binding budget proposal. A bi partisan congress REFUSED to appropriate funding for the constellation program. If Obama canceled heavy lift why did congress immediately appropriate funding for heavy lift and Obama simply strike it from the budget again? Once congress appropriates funding for a project/program the president can only end that program through a veto. NASA funding is tied to a much larger bill and no president in our history has vetoed that larger funding bill to cut a program at NASA.
“Johnson terminated funding for Apollo and Saturn in 1966. By the time Nixon took office in 1969,”
Here again, Johnson offered a budget PROPOSAL to congress to not fund more sat v builds. Congress voted to NOT fund more builds but what he did not do is retire the program. In 2004 President Bush proposed retiring the space shuttle and congress agreed. What is the difference between the two?
With the sat v they were still producing the final launchers and Nixon canceled launching them to Luna and retired the program.
When Bush retired the Space Shuttle manufacturers built out the parts needed to finish the manifest and IMMEDIATELY started tearing down the production lines and started producing other products, they have moved on.
As Wayne Hale outlined in a long article when President Obama took office the shuttle program was dead. It would have taken billions to reestablish those production lines and congress REFUSED to even consider it as they had already moved on too.
But the shuttle was supposed to retire in 2010 but President Obama had to fight against the republicans to get 600 million for that final EXTRA space shuttle launch this used up the remaining spare parts and no more launches could occur until the production lines could be reestablished.
edit:
” other prospects for travel to ISS”
If you actually listened to Griffin up on the hill testifying to congress you would see that the schedule for utilizing Orion for the ISS became a NON STARTER. Both as a cargo version and crew. The cargo version got cut because the budget and schedule busting ARES I. That is why the cargo version got moved up. As Gerst testified the Orion was plan A and commercial plan B. But then he had to goto the hill for ADDITIONAL funding for cargo as commercial cargo was moved up to Plan A and Orion moved to Plan B. then the it was REMOVED as a plan B for cargo altogether.
Griffin had to keep reshuffling the deck chairs cutting other programs to keep Ares I going and that is why commercial crew didnt see a dime. It was supposed to get 500 mil and ended up with less than 20.
“we did not anticipate the Democrats”. Um who exactly is “we”?
Just swap to the transit from Dems to GOP… Does the sarcasm and derision on other’s side anxiety and longings would be kept?
Too many of the white papers or policy or Op-ed pieces out there about NASA are puff pieces. Worse, some are sales brochures. A good many are justifications about a goal, lacking actions and decisions that connect to these within realistic budget prospects (meaning no big changes in historical budget trends, and the occasional setback). “Space is important, please send blank check” is not a policy paper, or a plan. Repeating this is not a strategy. It’s the denial phase of grief since Apollo died.
The new General does not need another briefing about what you would do to take the valley of you had some theoretical extra million troops and endless time, they need to know what you might do to take the valley soon with the frankly limited resources available. Alternately, the General also needs to know if the cause is lost with the resources at hand. Better yet, what might change in strategy and approach so those resources are more than adequate?
It’s worth reminding any incoming administration of what they already know -that most NASA resources have congressional representatives in charge. NASA programs (and much internal leadership, and contractors) see an incoming presidency as transient, and even a threat, whereas Senators and Representatives are safe bets, around to stay –assuring programs persist. It’s not difficult to show an incoming administration just how too many NASA human spaceflight dollars have little connection to advertised results. Anyone want to look under the hood again? Remember who’s the boss, and it’s not congress.
Worse, programs that have already captured funds with their congressional support have little reason to innovate, improve, or reduce yearly budgets while producing more, leaving all next steps to go figure out how to get their funding – knowing this strategy has never worked to date. SLS, Orion and even the current HLS budget are continuations of this pathology. It’s only some parts of an exploration program – with every part out for themselves.
Policy pieces connect actions to results. If actions can’t connect to advertised results within existing resources the first step is not to stall and spend decades whining about needing more resources, all the while squandering the resources you have. Significantly more resources for NASA, as proven for decades, are likely not in the cards, and at best deserves only fleeting attention as an alternative in an appendix, under the scenario “Wishful Thinking”.
Immediately you ask what has to change to implement new approaches that will connect to goals within existing resources. Many people will not like the answers. Be honest and NASA may move forward again. Say significantly more resources* are the only answer and well, you’ve waited decades for that, be prepared to wait decades more. Alternately, we may just check the appendix for that scenario where someone else goes and figures out how to move more and more people beyond LEO to stay, sustainably, growing activity in space, without NASA.
(Oh, and please don’t do the “doubling NASA’s budget is not
significant in the grand scheme of things” plan, I’ve laughed enough today).