Trump Advisors Send Mixed Signals On ISS Support
Keith’s note: Meanwhile former Trump Transition Team member Charles Miller can barely contain his enthusiasm for this “leadership” which involves abandoning ISS – all with another Transtion Team member’s (Greg Autry) approval. Meanwhile other Trump advisors tell say that such a plan to prematurely abandon support for ISS is exactly the opposite advice that they have been giving the Administration at the highest levels with regard to encouraging the commercialization of Low Earth Orbit.
NASA FY 2019 Budget Hints: ISS Lifespan To Be Limited (Update), earlier post
|
|
Keith’s update: I engaged in a Twitter exchange via @NASAWatch with @GregWAutry. Try as I did, I could not get this Trump Transition Team member to answer a simple question about the defunding of ISS after 2025.
|
|
The question should be; would we be keeping ISS active because of an emotional attachment, or because it’s more capable than a commercial station? What if the commercial station also offers lower operational costs, more pressurized volume and increased capabilities? Given the techs under development in NextSTEP the latter may be true.
How dare you bring simple economic logic to a political issue 🙂
We will cling to the ISS until it falls from orbit simply because of bureaucratic inertia and political pork. The various Congress Critters are not emotional about ISS, they are emotional about the $3.5 billion flowing into their Districts each year, money that equals jobs that equal votes.
By contrast Robert Bigelow has a standard offer of a 30 day lease of his proposed BA330 for one astronaut for $36 million including transportation. So that $3.5 billion would pay for 97 astronauts for 30 days or 8 astronauts for a year, compared to the 2 per year on the ISS. But that money would not be flowing to the current Congressional Districts, so its a non-starter.
Sorry to say you may have miscalculated the costs. The last published numbers I saw were 25 million to lease 1/3 of a BA 330 for two months and the cost for people was 26 – 36 million depending on if you chose to ride SpaceX or Boeing. But Bigelow stated that each additional month would cost 3 million, so a six month stay would be 36 million +12 million or 48 million per six months. 96 million for two people each doing a six month stay + 150 for 1/3 for a year. So to keep one person year round and have a leased lab 246 million a year.
So more like 36 per year not including the leasing fees for the station.
Yes, I was using the higher number $36 million to give the benefit to the ISS. I did missed the add-on figure for additional months, which if you use the current 6 month cycle which NASA is using on the ISS the case is much stronger.
Also, since Bigelow Aerospace Astronauts would be running the station, the time for research on the part of NASA astronauts would go way, way up. If I recall 1/6 of the time of the current crew is spent on research, the rest on keeping the ISS running. So with the B330 the amount of time for research would, using you numbers, increase by 3600 percent.
There is nothing stopping Bigelow from launching a private station to compete with ISS, but one thing we should NOT do is shut down ISS before there is another permanent LEO station in orbit and operational. DSG has some open questions remaining.
Nothing but the lack of transport since the ISS is using up all the Soyuz flights and NASA used taxpayer money to out bid him for the services of SpaceX and Boeing. Lockheed also stopped working on the Orion-lite for servicing the B330 so they could focus on their NASA contract on Orion.
At least Boeing is partnering with him to ensure the CST100 is available to support his station when NASA doesn’t require it to serve the ISS.
Soyuz probably cannot get to the DSG on its current launch vehicle. Right now the DSG is compatible only with Orion/SLS.
Yes, NASA is repeating all of the mistakes it made with the ISS, including the key one, basing its design on something to justify the Orion/SLS, just as the ISS was used to justify the Shuttle’s existence, and then trying to find a mission for the DSG. it’s basically backwards to how real strategic planning is done.
At first I thought this point makes sense, but does it, really? If you’re driving NASA you’ve got lots of programs on the board, and you want them to work together, dont you? If you are committed to SLS as the long-term horse for the Agency, doesnt this ‘strategery’ make sense?
It makes sense in that once you commit to building a DSG built around the SLS/Orion it becomes impossible to kill off the SLS/Orion.
Remember, the only reason the Shuttle returned to flight after the Columbia Accident was because there was no other option for finishing the ISS.
Why does NASA need another leo station? If commercial wants to take it over or put something newer up fine, but NASA needs to move out towards the moon like president asked.
As NasaWatch has pointed out, Senators Nelson and Rubio have insisted that OMB set NASA’s budget. So they are getting exactly what they want.
How about some Art of the Deal. Bridenstine for four more years of ISS. I think this could be a negotiating posture.
Really? What if ISS is a fake?
Why is a flat Earther here?
Now that the President has Senator Nelson’s attention I see the makings of a deal. Approve Rep. Bridenstine and the ISS will be extended. Reject him and the ISS will be dropped in the ocean. If Senator Nelson wants an engineer the President could probably agree to all Deputy Administrator Lightfoot to stay on as Deputy Administrator.
Given the Russians have little interest in extending the ISS, and the work that was needed to get the other ISS partners to hang on with them wanting to shift to the DSG, dealing with the President is Senator Nelson’s only hope, especially if this is his last term of Office.
Anatola Zak wrote a piece the other day that said the russians are now on board for the DSG .. didn’t mention much funding though.
can soyuz fly to DSG?
No. Not without many modifications. It would have to launch on a different (and larger) rocket, just to get there. It would also need an upgraded life support system. I don’t think the current one isn’t good for the more than a week. Also, isn’t the plan (such as it is, at this point) for each crew to bring along supplies for the full duration of their stay at the Deep Space Gateway?
I doubt it because the soyuz only flies to suborbit and then crashes. They are building that new angara series https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
There is also a soyuz 2 variant three stage rocket .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… that can put 7000 pounds into GEO
Recall that the original version of the Soyuz was designed as part of their system for reaching the Moon, and an earlier uncrewed version, the Zond, has done so. So in principle the capability is there for it to do so.
http://astronautix.com/s/so…
https://solarsystem.nasa.go…
oh sheesh .. my apologies… I gapped out .. I was thinking of the soyuz rocket .. not the orbital vehicle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Not quite. The original version was not capable of a manned lunar mission. It was capable of being upgraded to do so. Those modifications never happened. Instead, there have been decades of modifications and new versions, making it a better-and-better ground to LEO crew transport. Using it to get people to lunar orbit would mean backing out many (most) of those changes and putting in the originally planned ones. That would be expensive, and as you’ve noted, the Russians don’t exactly have money to spare.
True, but the Russians seem to think they could do it for Space Adventures for a reasonable fee.
http://www.businessinsider….
http://www.spaceadventures….
It is difficult for a nation as broke as Russia to fund anything so that is not surprising.
Russia is broke.
—
To elaborate, the failure of Russia to diversify an economy built heavily on the exports of natural resources, especially hydrocarbons, gives it a bleak future.
https://www.theguardian.com…
Russia’s future looks bleak without economic and political reform
by Kenneth Rogoff
“But while the economy is enjoying a modest rebound after two years of deep recession, the future no longer seems as promising as its leadership thought just five years ago. Barring serious economic and political reform, that bodes ill for Putin’s ability to realise his strategic ambitions for Russia.”
The severe decline in the Ruble has double the cost of living for consumers who have not received any increase in income. Currently 10% of all bank loans are not performing. And prospects get worst as the main markets for Russian hydrocarbons switch to renewable energy. President Putin’s spending binge on the military will likely just make matters worst.
https://www.bloomberg.com/n…
Russia Weighs Biggest Spending Spree Since Putin’s Re-Election
Recall it was a similar spending spree in the 1980’s and the resulting economic collapse that ended the Soviet Union. It appears history may well be repeating itself, especially with several recent high profile bankruptcies of major Russian firms.
So although it may be dreaming big, the reality is Russia is too “broke” to really spend anything significant on space.
Interesting observation, Dr. M. I read recently (NewYorker?) that Mr. Putin has managed to change the sensibilities in Russia from “It’s the Economy, Stupid” to “It’s the World Position That Matters”.
The issue of diversification and leadership is stuningly confounding and replete with exemplars: any of the oil mid-east, Venezuala, come to mind; to a lesser extent, Florida’s based on tourism and growth.
And here’s perhaps a single benefit of a ‘command economy’: the chinese are pretty good at bald self-assessment and are preperaed to make the choices needed for a strong country decades down the road.
Yes, just as under the Soviets they are been sold on national welfare before personal well being. In Soviet days they stood in bread lines to “bring communism to the world.” Now they accept less purchasing power to ensure Russia is “safe” from invaders as President Putin upgrades their military. But you need someone at top with a strong personality cult to make it work and you still lose the incentive to work when you see no personal gains another less measurable factor in terms of their economic future.
The problem with China is it is looking at a demographic time bomb as it’s population ages and rural areas especially lose workforce. Debt is also an issue now that total Chinese debt is about three times its GDP compared to only 1.5 for the US. That is a major factor driving their new “Silk Road” initiative, an attemp to keep the party going before it implodes. If it fails it will get ugly fast.
Plato imagined a ‘Philosopher King’, one with many qualities not found in modern China. Still, those who use the term ‘command economy’ as a derisive epithet must surely realize that within certain bounds such an economy has certain benefits, not the least of which is the authority to drive a huge economy in a singlar energy direction, for instance.
Remember when we were kids? We’d all marvel at photos of ‘Peking’? All Mao outfits and bicycles?
He, Ma! Look at me now!
ISS is a legislated program. The President has no authority to end it without Congressional approval (not to mention the other partners.)
And the President has veto power over budgets. It will be a grand fight 🙂
Trump hasn’t been given line-item veto. He can only approve or disprove the entire budget, not selectively alter NASA’s. Whatever your personal fantasy, Trump isn’t going to hold the entire budget process to hostage over ISS.
Personally I don’t care. It is just an assessment of possible outcomes given the political situation. Remember, President Trump is not a politician, he is a “wheeler dealer”, and he prefers to deal from a position of strength. The recent government shutdown is just the first round of what will likely be a number of battles he will have with Congress this session.
No it’s not. It’s your juvenile fantasy.
Do you really think the odds of President Trump vetoing a budget bill that included NASA are zero?
Oh stop it. You said something stupid and I called you on it. Accept it and walk away. Don’t try to twist it in to something else.
What is stupid about pointing out politics in Washington is all about deal making? President Obama wanted to kill President Bush’s VSE, especially Constellation and going to the Moon, so Congress let him in exchange for not opposing the SLS. That is simply the basic politics of Washington. President Trump just plays it rougher and in the open.
So President Trump using the prospect of an ISS extension to get Senator Nelson to approve Rep. Bridenstine is no different than using DACA to get the votes needed to get the wall funded, the basic reason for the recent government shutdown.
You said if Trump doesn’t get his way on Bridenstine, he can arbitrarily defund ISS.
I pointed out that, as a legislated program, it is not in the President’s power to kill ISS.
So you said he could veto the budget.
I pointed out that he can only veto the entire Federal budget, not pieces of it. And he won’t hold the entire Federal budget to ransom over just ISS or Bridenstine.
(Just as Obama didn’t veto it when Congress refused his own program and inserted SLS.)
This is all just your juvenile fantasy, your personal man-crush on Trump. It bears no relationship to reality.
If ISS has support in Congress, it will continue. If it doesn’t, it will be ended. It doesn’t matter who the President is.
Wrong, the President has the power to veto the various independent spending bills that are used to fund the government. It is not the entire federal budget. There are a number of bills, about 18 separate ones if I recall, and he only has to veto the one that funds the independent agencies like NASA, NSF, NIH, etc.
The President also presents the budget to Congress and if he zero outs an item Congress as a whole must eventually pass the bill that includes it. If the President makes a case against it that is strong enough the non-NASA Congress members may use it for political cover to support the President’s position with their votes, a chance the NASA Congress members may not want to take.
President Obama didn’t care about the SLS being added as long as he was able to brag about ending Constellation and take going to the Moon off the agenda. The fact that he actually proposed and bragged about the SLS in his speech at Kennedy shows a behind the scenes deal was reached.
https://www.nasa.gov/news/m…
“Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket” — a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit
the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space.”
“And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it. (Applause.) And I want everybody to understand: That’s
at least two years earlier than previous planned — and that’s conservative, given that the previous program was behind schedule and over budget.”
https://www.nasa.gov/explor…
“In 2015, NASA completed the critical design review – a first for a NASA exploration class vehicle in almost 40 years — and continues to move forward with production of the launch vehicle. Engineers are making rapid progress aimed toward delivering the first SLS rocket to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for its first launch. Flight hardware currently in production for every element.”
It is not unreasonable to assume a similar deal will be reached behind the scenes on Rep. Bridenstine now that he has Senator Nelson’s attention.
The fact that you need to resort to personal attacks shows you have not done your research on how Washington politics works nor the process that is followed to fund the government.
” Moon program should be supported with ADDITIONAL FUNDS for NASA – no more robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Well the four times President Obama asked the republican house for addiitonal funding for NASA they voted no on straight party lines because of the deficits. The deficits are going to rise again and will deficits matter under republicans?
Yes, that left me flabbergasted. On the one hand, deficits clearly don’t matter, even to Republicans. On the other hand, the money added to the deficit may be needed for the wall.
The money for the wall could come out of money we spend on NATO. Our government should be more concerned defending our borders than they are with defending Europe’s borders…not the Europe is concerned with defending them.
If you don’t think that defending Europe is in US interests, then your view might be a bit myopic. An isolated US is a weaker US.
I really don’t sense in building a wall along the Canadian border.
I think the military could spare 2 or 3 more billion so that NASA could at least see a modest increase in budget. With that increase, NASA might be able to develop space based technologies that allows us to better monitor our northern border and put an end to the flood of Canadians illegally crossing the border. Win-Win.
Those pesky Canadians are invading all ready. They can so easly pass as Americans.
Each agency fights separately for its budget. A cut in the DOD budget would be fought by DOD, and fought for by all other departments. It would be a matter of chance if any got to NASA.
That’s an increasingly popular POV. But it’s also wrongheaded, giving short-shrift to history.
We don’t live in a world of ‘should be’. We take it as it is. And Europeans, bless them, are a contentious bunch of folks that, from time to time, prey on one another; when this happens, the world economy is in turmoil. WW1 and WW2 are only the most recent exmples; history is replete with dozens more.
And then there is Russia. Europe does the US a huge favor by being shoulder-to-shoulder with the pesky Russians.
While this is a huge subject, I’ll just say that helping Europe defensively is so much in our interest that the money we spend there is one of our best investments.
Ever.
True, France and Italy are making noises about leaving the EU now and the application process for Turkey has stopped.
Nationalism is rearing its ugly head. And in the midst of a world with a rebounding economy.
No they aren’t.
Well, in France, Front National seems to have imploded. But in Germany Alternative fur Deuchland now has 92 seats in the Bundestag (13% if memory serves.) And that’s just a year after they seemed to implode, so I’m not sure if we can forget about FN in France. I’m not sure what the comment about Italy was about, but recent election in the Netherlands, Austria and several Eastern European nations showed growing support for far-right and eurosceptic parties.
Evidence.
https://www.express.co.uk/n…
Macron admits France would vote to LEAVE EU if country held referendum
https://www.forbes.com/site…
So That’s France To Leave The EU Then – For Macron Won’t Get It To Reform
And for Italy
https://www.express.co.uk/n…
Italy goes to polls in MARCH: Could Rome decide to leave the EU?
The reason is not embracing far-right politics as much as folks wanting to have local control over their future. The economic benefits promised by the EU have failed to emerge while the negatives are all too visible. This is what the folks in the power centers are failing to understand. But this is off topic so I will not post further on it.
If you look further than a UK tabloid that is the mouthpiece of the far-right UKIP party, you’d know that Macron is just being rhetorical (“French”) while discussing reforms. The EU has higher favorability ratings in France than ever before. Indeed, since Brexit, the numbers are up in every country except Italy. And even there, only 38% disapprove.
The argument is that European nations are spending a lower proportion of their GDP on defence than the US, therefore they “aren’t doing their share”, and hence they are benefiting economically by not having to spend on defence, at the economic expense of the US.
However, that argument requires two underlying assumptions:
1) That spending on defence is bad for a country’s economy.
2) That if the European nations spent more on defence, the US would cut back, and thus reap the economic benefit of less defence spending. (Because there’s no point in additional EU spending if the US doesn’t intend to cut back.)
However, when it comes to US defence spending, the same claimants will always reject any cuts to military spending. They will object to any reduction in US bases/troops/equipment stationed in Europe. And they argue that US defence spending is good for the US economy.
When yelling at Europe, they are saying that defence spending is bad. When yelling at people who want to cut US defence spending, they are saying it’s good.
It seems like the yelling is the only consistent part of their argument, not the content.
It is useful to weigh the expense of any item with the benefit received. In that calculation, we come out far ahead. Unrest – or war – in Europe would hobble the US (and the world) for another half-century.
Whining about how much other nations spend is, once again, a blunt instrument applied against a nunced issue and is, in fact, nationalism redux.
The NATO Treaty requires that members spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Several NATO members, including Germany, are far out of compliance and have been for many years. Is it unfair to expect them to fulfill the commitment they made when they signed the treaty?
It’s not, no. I don’t disagree that our allies should be encouraged to shoulder a bigger share.
I am mindful of the benefit we receive. A lower price is always welcome.
That was my point, the squealing about European defence spending isn’t about lowering the cost for the US. The same people who’ve been pushing this political meme are the same people who scream bloody-murder when the subject of reducing US defence spending comes up. That’s how you know they are lying.
Moreso, why do European NATO countries need to spend more? What’s the pressing urgency? Europe already outspends every nation on Earth except the US. It massively outspends Russia, its only credible threat. Between the US and other NATO countries, you’ve got around three quarters of Earth’s entire defence spending.
What more do you need?
In general, the same people screeching about the lack of European defence spending are the same people who screech bloody-murder if the US military budget is cut by a cent.
They are lying to you.
NASA funding was been astoundingly stable since the mid-70s – no matter who has been president.
Autry is kidding himself if he thinks there’s any chance of NASA getting substantial additional funding for any HSF program, barring a killer asteroid en route.
I’ll say it again: $18B a year, judiciously spent, could take HSF to the solar system.
Of course, the majority of that $18-19 billion is not spent on HSF…
True.
Another way of saying that NASA has plenty of money but little ability to apportion how it is spent, thanks to ill-considered Congresscriters.
I agree. But just adding $18 billion a year to NASA probably will only get us more of the same.
The phrase “additional funds” is odd, coming from this source.
Nasa has a chance to “gracefully” shut down the ISS program, which is 100% fake. The problem for Nasa is that almost all their other programs are fake as well.
What does that mean? What is it about ISS (and everything else, it seems) that classifies it as ‘fake’?
Disqus profiles have a list of comments people post to the blogs which use Disqus. Based on that, “Mike I” apparently thinks the Earth is flat.
Easy. Instead of treating every iss comment as political, pursue the truth. Yes, this means doing research on YouTube and such. Not one belief vs another, just facts and proofs.
To those who think they are going to bargain with Trump, or try to kiss up in hopes of preserving the NASA budget, here is a quote lifted from Wikipedia. “Mephistopheles is a difficult servant, and Faust is challenged by his tricks, lies, and temptations. Despite their adventures, Faust accomplishes little or nothing of substance, wasting his opportunity with frivolities and indulgences offered up by the demon. Faust tries to revoke his pact under the burden of growing disgrace and damnation, but is dominated by Satan and his own doubts.“
Reading is dangerous, my friend:-)
In many ways this is just a repeat of the debate that took place at the turn of the Century on extending Space Shuttle operations far into the future. For those who have forgotten here is a link to a historic NASA .pdf on Shuttle extension strategy study from 2002. They study was planned to run from 2002 to 2003. Like the ISS it looked then like the Shuttle would fly “forever”.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/91…
Of course the Columbia accident happened and that abruptly ended the debate. The Shuttle only returned to flight to finish the ISS, a task for which it was irreplaceable.
Just as the Shuttle was a complex system, the ISS is a complex system. Indeed, the combination of modules of different ages and from different nations make it even more complex system.
So like the Shuttle, the ISS will determine when its mission is over, which will be when a failure in some system causes a cascade of events that requires it to be permanently abandoned. What is unknown is when that will happen. It may be many years in the future or it may be tomorrow. Like the Shuttle its a classic case of technological Russian Roulette.
So really, the debate should not be on how much longer we will be able to play Russian Roulette with the ISS, it should be on how NASA will be able to minimize the pain of moving beyond the ISS. A little preparation now could make a huge difference in the future.
Hoping NASA will develop that transition plan it is required to produce. And hopefully it will include things to do today to make the transition as smooth as possible.
It’s a repeat of the Shuttle in more ways than that. From the CAIB report, “National policy has vacillated between treating the Shuttle as a “going out of business” program and anticipating two or more decades of Shuttle use. As a result, limited and inconsistent investments have been made in Shuttle upgrades and in revitalizing the infrastructure to support the continued use of the Shuttle.” They also note that the potential to (or idea of) keep flying the Shuttle was one reason a replacement was not developed before the Columbia disaster. (The other reason being that plans for a replacement were overly ambitious, rather than a Shuttle v.2 based simply on incorporating lessons learned.)
My reading was that the CAIB believed a Shuttle replacement should be designed only to take personnel safely to and from LEO, i.e. the ISS, and not into cislunar space, because both cost and risk for the latter would be untenable within the budget that would likely be available. The document includes concept drawings of the Orbital Space Plane, which is some ways preceded the Commercial Crew program.
Although not part of Commercial Crew, the X-37 remains the closest thing we have to a Shuttle v.2
“the ISS will determine when its mission is over, which will be when a failure in some system causes a cascade of events that requires it to be permanently abandoned”
I think they call this ‘leadership’ in Washington.
The Executive Branch should know better, hopefully Congress does.
Out year budget plans are notorious stalking horses, but they are also part of the OMB long game. Any program that does not have out year budget plans is a target for reallocation of resources typically to other purposes elsewhere in the budget. We should all know better. The carrot of Public/Private partnerships throughout Cislunar space which would be good policy provides for space development needs a foundation in viable policy in current year budgets rolling forward. Failing to provide for a gapless transition for ISS, the evolution of ISS elements, and our intl. partnerships is a recipe for disaster.