This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Senators Tell White House: We Decide The Future Of ISS

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 18, 2018
Filed under , , , ,
Senators Tell White House: We Decide The Future Of ISS

Cruz, Nelson: Congress, And Only Congress, WIll Decide When To End Funding For ISS, Space Policy Online
“Cruz grilled Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, on why NASA missed the statutory deadline to submit the ISS Transition Report. He also demanded to know why NASA had not provided all drafts that were sent from NASA to the White House and rejected as he and Nelson requested in a February letter. The implication is that OMB, not NASA, picked the 2025 date. Cruz’s effort to get Gerstenmaier on the record as to who chose the date were unsuccessful. Gerstenmaier carefully navigated the intense questioning without implicating any particular part of the Administration.”
Statement by William Gerstenmaier – Hearing Examining the Future of the International Space Station: Administration Perspectives
“NASA is preparing to secure the Nation’s long-term presence in LEO by partnering with industry to develop commercial orbital platforms, and capabilities that the private sector and NASA can utilize after the cessation of direct U.S. Federal funding for ISS by 2025.”
NASA Quietly Submits ISS Transition Plan To Congress (Update), earlier post
What About That Space Station Transition Plan NASA?, earlier post
Did NASA Deliver The ISS Transition Plan To Congress Required By Law? Update: No, earlier post
Is NASA Going To Break The Law By Not Delivering An ISS Transition Plan To Congress?, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “Senators Tell White House: We Decide The Future Of ISS”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    What ever your politics are, it is important to note that one good thing coming out of the Trump Administration is that the other two branches of the government are publically excerising and therefore reminding the public of their historical role serving as a check and balance on the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is free to suggest/recommend the direction NASA should go, but it’s Congress, with the power of the budget that makes the actual decisions as they just reminded everyone.

    Project Apollo succeeded because after President Kennedy Recommended it as a nation goal Vice-President Johnson and Administrator Webb worked the Congress to get them to agree to it. Vice-President Pence and Administrator Bridenstine are going to have to do the same on ISS as well as SLS, Orion, LOP-G. Let the games begin!

  2. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    Once again the enemies of progress show that money for districts and bureaucracy is more important than moving out of the shallow waters and out into the Expanse. When did we as a society turn over space exploration expertise to a bunch of lawyers? As the documentary fight for space summed up it has been decades since the president, Congress and the agency have been on the same page. Not like Congress is going to give the agency a $3B bump to keep doing ISS while also trying to go to the Moon and beyond. Cruz and Nelson basically just postponed for NASA leaving Low Earth Orbit until 2028 though I am sure others here and abroad will not stand idlely by. The engine of innovation the agency used to be grows colder with each passing day

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      When did we as a society turn over space exploration expertise to a bunch of lawyers?

      I’m guessing that you know the answer to this question, but for those who don’t, here’s the answer:

      When we elected them.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        Frankly, I’ve not seen much expertise coming out of NASA in recent years. About the only expertise seems to be at Space X.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I don’t know where to start with the charge that little expertise is demonstrated by NASA, except to point out that the Agency is not monolithic.

          NASA frequently shoots itself in the foot, it’s true. It is also true that we are witnessing a very public wailing and gnashing of teeth over the direction Americans want to see in space policy.

          While this is a good thing, and while it is a natural and proper that a free people slog it out, it is also the case that NASA is in a very awkward position; serving a multiplicity of masters is but one.

          • Nick K says:
            0
            0

            In the past, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, ISS, NASA decided which program and what kind of spacecraft was needed, figured out the way to get the resources needed tro do the job, and got the job done. Up through Shuttle they got the job done pretty much in the time required. Things began to go awry with Station.

            I am not hearing about a plan; have not heard of a reasonable sensible plan in a decade. Even the foollishness of Orion, Ares and SLS have been poorly implemented, not on a reasonable schedule. That is what I mean by lack of expertise.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Now I see your point- and you are right. We’d probably both agree that NASA>>HSF, a relationship often described as an equality.

    • Mark says:
      0
      0

      Abandoning ISS isn’t progress. Especially when they have viable programs. SLS and the “gateway” station aren’t viable long term programs that will get us anywhere.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        I agree. 10 years ago Gerst decided shutting down Shuttle soon was best since that safe simple soon Orion would be carrying astronauts in 2011. Now maybe by 2021? And he needed that Shuttle money so desperately? Where did it go?

        In retrospect a wiser move would have been to draw Shuttle out by flying once every 6 months and studying how to either I the foam or the tiles. In the meantime Shuttle C would have been a much more cost effective and faster option. And once Elon demonstrated Dragon, Orion is no longer needed at all. Shut ISS down? What exactly does LOPG provide that ISS cannot? ISS is far more effective, far less expensive to use as technology testbed.

  3. buzzlighting says:
    0
    0

    Ted Cruz grilled Bill Gerstenmaier about who set 2025 deadline to end ISS funding. He cleverly avoid giving names or any particular part of the Administration. But rumors point to OMB office set the 2025 deadline to end ISS funding. It’s about Ted Cruz and Bill Nelson protecting Houston and Kennedy Space Center, NASA Personnel from massive jobs layoff .

    • Mark says:
      0
      0

      It’s also about letting ISS fall back into the atmosphere while it’s still a decade behind getting all the research originally envisioned on it. Especially with no real viable successor.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The ISS is a very complex machine and decision makers need to understand that and recognize the limits of their power over it.

        Just like the Shuttle, which was kept in service three times as long as planned when they built it, they are playing Technological Russian Roulette. Someday, maybe tomorrow, or maybe in the distant future when the science is “done”, a key system will fail, it will need to be abandoned and will, like Skylab, crash uncontrolled to the Earth.

        What they really need to be thinking about is not commercialization of the ISS, but how to prevent that by doing a controlled re-entry while they have control, or by moving it to a higher storage orbit. Then replacing it with an PPP alternative that is designed to be commercialized from the start.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Without disagreeing, I’d just like to say moving ISS to a high “graveyard” orbit has a huge number of advantages. No need for disassembly. Maneuvers which can infrequent and/or low acceleration. Possibilities of reuse as a museum. There are other cases where I don’t like a mandatory disposal plan and favor using the spacecraft until it dies. But this just isn’t one of them.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            NASA has a [very] long history of abandoning hardware, mostly because the funding dries up.

        • Mark says:
          0
          0

          The space shuttle was supposed to have a 15 year service life and fly over 600 times. So the 30 years was only twice, not three times the service life and it flew less than a 1/4 of what it was supposed to.

          Also, the station was delayed and then took a lot longer to actually build, so trying to hold it to it’s original expected service life is unrealistic. It’s also been very well taken care of (better than Mir was) and its holding up much better than was expected.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Actually this contingency, and many others, IS covered- somewhere! If/when I come across it I’ll post a link.

  4. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    Gerstenmaier is the top guy in human space flight in the free world. What does he think?

    • Richard Brezinski says:
      0
      0

      From what I observe, I would say Gerstenmier wants “new things”. Mind you, he does not want high tech new things. Orion and SLS are good examples; neither is high tech. Both are throw backs to earlier eras. So apparently he is not too keen on NASA staying in the business of R&D. Mind you, he doesn’t feel NASA or the the US needs to build the new things. He is just as happy giving responsibility to international partners like ESA building the Orion Service Module; as long as NASA gets the cash. Of course that brings up another question, where is the money going if NASA is not using it? The Orion SM is being built as a contribution to ISS in place of ATV which was already bartered years ago. And he does not seem to be too concerned about using the new systems once they are built. He threw Shuttle away without complaint. The money that used to go to science on ISS was taken to build new hardware, and has never been returned to the science budget, and now I am guessing he will not complain if ISS is simply shut down without further use. Personally I have come to the conclusion that he really does not know what NASA’s role is or should be. Mayhbe he has lost his way?

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        I was hopeful the new Administrator would begin to offer some guidance. But his first moves seem to be to rely on Gerstenmaier. The last Administrator did that and got us to the situation US human space flight now finds itself in; I don’t think there is a program any longer and not even a plan for a program. All we hear is them chanting the mantra “we’re going to Mars”. But at the rate NASA is moving, that is sometime after 2075 now.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        “Orion and SLS are good examples; neither is high tech”

        This brings to mind something I’ve wondered, and which stays a bit from the topic. Lots of flight hardware is composed with aged tech, and for lots of very good reasons. STS is a very good example. And Dr. Crary has frequently included tidbits about his flight hardware that make the point.

        So what I am wondering is this: how do the level of tech that is included in SLS and that included in F9 v5 compare?

        This isn’t an easy question to summarize, I’m aware. But we constantly compare these lifter systems, and almost exclusively in terms of throw weight, development costs, and direct launch costs. And admittedly these criteria are very useful.

        But what if we learn that while SLS has a host of problems, the SLS system also contributes mightily to the launcher ‘body of knowledge’, while, say, F9 does not? Or what if the case is reversed? Similarly Orion and SX’ efforts?

        What can be said about the relative technology levels?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That’s hard to say, since quite a bit of the technology is different, not more or less advanced. The Aerojet RS-25 (SSME) is certainly more complex and higher performance than a SpaceX Raptor. But the use of methane and supercooled oxygen is innovative and probably a better choice. So is the use of 3-D printing in manufacture, and that is more advanced production technology.

          One thing we might look at is the staffing. One thing technology is good for is reducing the number of person-hours required for a given task. So we could ask how many person-years it takes to build a Falcon Heavy or BFR, and how how many it takes to build a SLS. That might be a good indication of how well technology has been used to make production efficient. Or not, since the complexity of those rockets isn’t really comparable. A better comparison might be the staffing for a launch campaign. That involves much more comparable tasks. I don’t know those numbers, but doing the same job with fewer people might be a fair indicator of more sophisticated technology.

          SpaceX has, with the Falcon replaced a range safety officer and quite a bit of the usual track from the launch site with an autonomous safety on the launch vehicle. I don’t know if SLS plans anything similar, but I suspect not.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            “the complexity of those rockets isn’t really comparable”

            I’m not certain of your thinking here. The Tesla drive train is smaller, lighter, simpler, and cheaper than an ICE, and with (possibly) an order of magnitude fewer parts. Measured against the intended purpose these are all positive.

            Extending the idea: isn’t a rocket with fewer parts somehow “better”?

            What a quagmire! Perhaps it is impossible to say anything actually useful about the two systems that is short, definitive, and quantitative.

            Why should it be so? Both designs do exactly the same thing. It’s a curious question on several levels.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            It’s definitely a bit of a quagmire. I suppose part of it is clearly defining terms (sorry, scientists are trained to be picky about that sort of thing.) You said higher technology, not better.

            The RS-25 is very high performance, but at the expense of being very expensive and complex. If SpaceX had found a way to develop an equally high performance engine which was less complex and/or cheaper to manufacture, I’d call that a major, technological advance. But they didn’t; they realized the high performance wasn’t required and didn’t justify the cost and complexity. So they developed a lower performance engine (and are developing another) which probably wouldn’t be called high tech. It’s better than an RS-25 for the job they need it to do, but it isn’t clearly higher tech. (Note I’m talking about the engine itself; the manufacturing process, with 3-D printing, is a different matter.)

            I guess that’s a longwinded way of saying an electric drill is higher tech than a hammer (even if you 3-D printed the hammer), but you wouldn’t want to drive in nails with an electric drill.

        • Richard Brezinski says:
          0
          0

          If you are saying that Shuttle was designed around old technology, you are quite wrong. It was very state-of-the-art in the 1970s and 80s. The hydrogen fueled engines were much more sophisticated than anything used previously. The thermal protection system was a very new concept. The robotics, fly-by-wire and computer control system were more advanced than virtually any vehicle of the time. The idea of a 250000 pound orbiting vehicle with a 7 or 8 person crew and a payload the size of the satellites it could carry, and the fact it was hypersonic winged fly-back and almost entirely reusable; the entire vehicle was as significant an advancement as had ever been made. Not to mention the fact it was developed within a 10 year plan and on a shoestring budget.

          BTW, SLS is largely based on the Shuttle’s components, ET, SRB, and engines with very little advancement on any systems. It was redesigned structurally in order to have it carry its payload and an upper stage on top rather than on the side.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            And again I should have been clearer!

            What I *meant* was that it’s old tech only from the viewpoint of 2018.

            Thanks for pointing that out.

          • Richard Brezinski says:
            0
            0

            Actually, it is more sophisticated even than anything operating today. No other vehicle has the kinds of capabilities to put a crew with a large payload in space with the robotics to be able to have it do assembly, maintenance, logistics, etc and certainly not on the scale that Shuttle could, and it is turning out not at the cost Shuttle could either. NASA should have been improving on safety and efficiency incrementally. NASA did not. Now they have thrown away the capability entirely. Instead NASA is trying to use an Apollo look alike that really has none of these capabilities at all and which is so expensive we already know it is unsupportable and unsustainable. The only ‘new’ capability Orion offers is Lunar (not Mars) return, and for that Dragon is far more affordable and sustainable especially since it is built on an assembly line, not to mention Dragon is a US product. Orion is turning out to largely be ESA in in origin.

  5. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Over the past sixty years I have watched a long series of human spaceflight programs that have been proposed on the basis of the public interest and national prestige they would generate for the US, have been heavily funded for a time, and have ultimately lost public and political support. I do not see it as serving any meaningful purpose to continue this cycle of appealing to public excitement and ultimately seeing the public become bored and the program abandoned.

    If human spaceflight is to be economically and politically sustainable it must provide practical benefits and commercial services that exceed its cost. If we cannot accomplish this in LEO we certainly cannot accomplish it at a more distant location that will be far more difficult and costly to reach. If we abandon NASA funding for ISS before either the ISS itself is receiving sufficient support from other sources to continue effective operations or a new LEO station is operational, then progress towards this goal will cease.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, we need to just move beyond NASA as it is currently seen and convert it to an tool for the economic development of space.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I’m surprised to read that from you. Do you really think an organization like NASA can be converted in such a major way? Wouldn’t you recommend scrapping and starting over, or replacing and making redundant?

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        A fairly radical notion, and like Dr. Crary, I’m also surprised- delighted, too, that an expert thinks this is even possible.

        However: NASA has far more important things to do than ‘develop space.’ Many of these tasks have been decremented, but remain important: contributions to airplane design stands as a good example. NASA is solely positioned to do the deep level of basic research private companies cannot begin to envision.

        • Richard Brezinski says:
          0
          0

          While I agree that NASA ought to have important things to do, at least in the realm of human space flight, I would say they are doing little or nothing. They managed to throw away the tremendous capability they built into Shuttle, and they are rapidly throwing away the capability invested in the ISS; every day that goes by is a day they are wasting in not making adequate use of a tremendous resource.

          You might argue that perhaps other organizations ought to be ensuring good use of the resources they provided, but in the US that was never previously established, and without proactive efforts made today there is no reason to believe that anyone is going to move n to take over today.

          Probably the only thing of significance NASA human space flight is doing today is the seed money and contracts they are providing in commercial cargo and crew. NASA is doing little to no R&D to give us new and better systems; NASA has not been working on improving processes to make space accessibility faster or less expensive; they are not sponsoring research that might serve to develop space; they talk a lot about “exploration” and missions to the Moon and Mars, but they are not doing any of that. The system they are developing, Orion, you really have to wonder what the reason is behind it. And besides I would put ‘flags and footprints’ in the same category with space commercial development. Why would NASA be the agency to be doing exploration with humans? They have not done anything like that in nearly half a century. Is that a NASA role?

          In short, I think NASA needs a re-examination of just what the role of human space flight is supposed to be for. I don’t think they remember any longer. It uses up an enormous part of the budget, and yet I think we, the taxpayers, are getting very little for our money.

      • Richard Brezinski says:
        0
        0

        There used to be an entire NASA Directorate or Code, Code C, that was aimed specifically at commercial development. In the case of human space, they procured the services of Spacehab specifically to fly commercial payloads when it turned out that Shuttle and Spacelab were too tedious and expensive to use.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      It’s been debated before, but LEO has the disadvantage of having no natural resources. Or, to be more precise, none but energy and a very, very tiny bit of atomic oxygen. Arguably, given the use of in situ resources on the Moon, Mars or an asteroid, those destinations could be more sustainable than LEO.

      • DougSpace says:
        0
        0

        Yes, and potentially less costly to support because of local sourcing of supplies as compared to having to ship everything from Earth’s deep gravity well.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Would you agree that the ability to look down as the planet goes by counts as some sort of resource?

        And I’m not being ‘picky.’ We’ve discussed here over and over the sorts of economic activities that might be conducted from LEO. Those activities lie in one of three areas:

        1. The ‘look down’ or remote sensing;
        2. A *possible* home for some type of internet fleet (though better a few hundred KM higher (and communications satellites don’t count since we are talking about LEO);
        3. And a third category espoused by many that can be summarized as ‘Build It And They Will Come!’ chanted mostly by the faithful members of the Church of Free Enterprise’, and which includes tourism.

        I suppose that as LEO is becoming easily attainable and as the prices plummet that the defense industry may find some unknown use.

        Bottom line: ISS is in the wrong place. It should be regarded as a learning experience (and we have learned a lot, including how hard it is to maintain).

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I suppose you could call the view from LEO a resource, as well as the value of those orbits for communications. Certainly a renewable resource (baring orbital debris issues making LEO unusable.) When I said no natural resources, I was thinking in terms of something which can be used for supplies and logistical support. Even at the South Pole, you can get water with a shovel and a stove.