America's space program is crashing, opinion, Mark Albrecht, Washington Times

"The conventional wisdom in the federal bureaucracy is that you can reduce spending or you can restructure, reprioritize and reorganize. You can cut programs or start new programs. But you can't do both. Now, our backs are to the wall. To re-establish our leadership in space, we must defy conventional wisdom and cut spending, start new initiatives and radically restructure a mature agency - all at the same time. It won't be pleasant, and it won't be easy, but neither was putting a man on the moon."

NASA's new journeys, opinion, John Holdren and Charles Bolden, Politico

"One misimpression is that the U.S. human spaceflight program is stalled. The truth is quite the opposite. Soon after President Barack Obama took office, an independent commission concluded that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's then-existing plan for the post-Shuttle era was not viable under any feasible budget scenario."

Report to Congress on the Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base Sustainment and Implementation Plan Redacted Version (Excerpt), DoD

"Based on the analysis and findings of the Interagency Task Force, the DoD concludes:

1. The Department must preserve the scientific, engineering and design skills and production capabilities necessary to support both large- and small-SRMs. The DoD cannot allow the SRM industrial base to shut down until DoD determines its next generation requirements because the potential expense and schedule delays of restarting the industry would be too great. The SRM production capabilities are needed to support the MM III through 2030 and the D5 through 2042. ..."

Atlantis' final launch inspires bittersweet celebration, Orlando Sentinel

"Bittersweet is the exact right word," said Titusville Mayor Jim Tulley, who retired from a career with shuttle contractors Lockheed and United Space Alliance. "For the people being laid off, it's a little more bitter than sweet. We're going to look back at this program with just an incredible sense of pride." But first, it's time to party, with celebrations starting Wednesday evening in downtown Titusville, and running through the day and all night Thursday, right up to Friday's 11:26 a.m. launch."

The empty shells of America's shrinking space industry, Daily Mail

"Soon-to-be-jobless space workers and those who've already lost their jobs are now competing for work in a labour market where more than one in 10 is unemployed. And the Space Coast is still reeling from the housing crisis, making it tougher for workers to sell their homes and move elsewhere for a job. 'Everything is taking a turn for the worst, it seems like,' said Kevin Smith, local president of the union for space centre firefighters, paramedics and workers at emergency landing sites. 'What little is out there, everybody is competing for.'

Space Coast Economic Recovery Will Be Slow, Says Economist Hank Fishkind, WMFE

"The loss of space technology jobs means the loss of very high paid jobs" Fishkind told WMFE, "so it has larger than normal consequences for the area's economy." He said the loss of so many high wage jobs is having a larger multiplier or "ripple" effect across the entire economic landscape. Still, he thinks Brevard County is better prepared now than it was when the Apollo program shut down in the early 1970s.

Behind the scenes of launch preparations: Massive job losses, Houston Chronicle

"Today NASA is down to 5,500 contractor employees and 1,200 civil servants working on the shuttle, said program manager John Shannon. That's a total of 6,700 people who process the shuttle and support it during flight. If the shuttle launches July 8, as expected, another big layoff will come on July 22. At that time NASA will lay off about 3,200 contractors, Shannon said."

Keith's note: According to a tweet by Brian Berger at Space News: "House CJS mark also "terminates funding for [JWST] , which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management".

Space shuttle's legacy: Soaring in orbit and costs, AP

"The space shuttle was sold to America as cheap, safe and reliable. It was none of those. It cost $196 billion over 40 years, ended the lives of 14 astronauts and managed to make less than half the flights promised. Yet despite all that, there were some big achievements that weren't promised: major scientific advances, stunning photos of the cosmos, a high-flying vehicle of diplomacy that helped bring Cold War enemies closer, and something to brag about."

This Friday, the Space Shuttle program is scheduled to launch its final flight. But as the shuttle era ends, new space vehicles continue to be developed -- even those that are not so new.

The Path Ahead for NASA: Lewis & Clark and the Settlers, SpaceRef

At a press conference at NASA KSC several days ago I asked the following question of NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver: "Yesterday you went on SpaceX tour [with the media] here at the Cape. We all heard talk of launching the Falcon 9 rocket with single digit number of people using launch and mission control rooms smaller than the one we are in today. And they want to do it with even fewer people. And they have competitors. NASA is about to embark on development of SLS, Orion, missions to asteroids, and the continued operation of the ISS. Will NASA ever approach the levels of innovation and efficiency as are evidenced by SpaceX and other companies? If so, when? If not, why not? I guess the real question I have is, its the 21st century. Indeed we have already used up 10% of it. Can NASA continue to justify operations that use a marching army when the private sector can do it with a sprinting platoon?"

Keith's 1 July update: According to NASA SMD: this is what SMD paid for the reception: "Planetary Program costs: $37.5K, which included the NASM facility rental, rental for chairs/stage/tables/etc, a/v, music, lighting and rigging, delivery, taxes." That's $37,500 that could have been spent on science. Instead, Ed Weiler spends it on a party.

Keith's 30 June update: According to the AAS: "AAS handled the reception, the costs of which were covered by the corporate sponsors. Over 250 people attended, and the cost per person for food was approximately $48." AAS did not handle rental for the facility, travel costs, media or any of the other things associated with this event. Rental of the floor space alone is in the range of $25,000 - even when discounted for NASA by NASM. NASA clearly wrote some large checks - and the money came from SMD - and that is money that was not available to be spent on actual EPO - or science. Yet last night at the reception SMD people were telling attendees (in response to my Twitter posts) that "no SMD money was used". I am waiting for SMD to tell me what the cost to NASA was. Stay tuned.

Earlier post below

Keith's 29 June note: NASA SMD held a reception and buffet (photo) at the National Air & Space Museum tonight to honor 50 years of nuclear powered spacecraft. Here is the non-transferable invitation I was sent. Note that no corporate sponsors are listed. These things are usually an excuse to see people you haven't seen for 3 days at some other event. Not exactly a powerhouse topic to attract attendees from around Washington - and if it did, the food was the main draw - not nukes in space. In other words this was choir practice and free chow for NASA folks and their friends.

I have asked SMD PAO to provide cost figures for the reception. Having actually arranged for NASA receptions myself at NASM years ago I can tell you that these things are not cheap. Tens of thousands of dollars - easily - even for small ones. What baffles me is why Ed Weiler is off throwing self-congratulatory parties for a niche audience inside the beltway while his staff are forced to cut Exobiology grants - a place where the cost of the reception could make the difference in a grant for a grad student or some equipment.

Given the money that was spent on this why wasn't it recorded for NASA TV? Streamed live? Tweeted @NASA? Oops. Can't do that. NASA holds parties but doesn't want to admit it. Oh well. Here in DC we all go to them and eat. We're all guilty - but that still doesn't make it the most prudent use of taxpayer dollars. Then again this is being done by SMD Education and Public Outreach which is only accountable to Ed Weiler. PAO has no control over this "public" activity.

This must have been what it was like at Nero's house when Rome was burning.

Keith's 29 June update: I am now told that the program handed out at the reception lists "sponsors". Why are they not listed on the invitation - the one with the official NASA logo and "National Air & Space Museum" (a requirement for any event held there even if they do not spend a penny on it) listed as the inviting organizations? Isn't it borderline fraudulent to send out an invitation for something this expensive with overt government agency endorsement and not say who is paying for it? Why are NASA civil servants calling people up to invite them to a reception?

Keith's later 29 June update: Well if you do some digging (NASA offers no advice) you will see that the NASA invitation that NASA employees were sending out was intentionally misleading - this page from the invitation response website link shows that AAS, Lockheed Martin, APL, Hamilton Sunstrand, and Teledyne Brown were "hosts". So NASA did not pay for all of this - but clearly they paid for some of it. We'll see what, if anything, SMD provides me with tomorrow. So let me turn down my outrage (a little) about spending research dollars. This still this begs the question, what do these exclusive parties for a select few inside the beltway do to promote the exploration of space? The same money could have advanced real careers instead of expanding the waistlines of the locals at NASA HQ.

Just for giggles, this is the WAG letter (Widely Attended Gathering) that NASA OGC put out to alert employees as to how much they can accept as gifts. They expected 500 attendees at a cost of $50/person or $25,000. I will be willing to bet that the actual cost is much more than that.

This is still fiddling - while Rome burns - regardless of who pays the fiddler.

Letter from Sen. Warner to Charles Bolden Regarding Open Competition for SLS Propulsion

Letter from Sens. Murray and Chambliss to NASA Regarding Open Competition for SLS

"I am writing to encourage NASA to initiate a competitive bidding process for the propulsion component of the new Space Launch System (SLS). I believe the greatest challenge we face as a nation is the need to balance our spending priorities with principles of fiscal discipline. Rather than consider a non-competitive sole-source contract, NASA should undertake a competitive bidding process to ensure billions of taxpayer dollars are spent in the most cost-effective and responsible manner possible. Furthermore, increased competition will encourage new, innovative technologies that can lead to lower costs and higher value for Americans in the long run."

Keith's note: Some staffer needs to get the name of the agency, address, etc. correct next time. These letters are all the same and are addressed to "National Aeronautics and Space Agency" at "200 E Street, SW, Room 9F44".

Message from the Administrator: What's Next for NASA

"In just a couple of hours, I am delivering an address at the National Press Club to talk about NASA's future, and before I do so, I wanted to share with you what I'm going to be discussing. You can also watch the speech at 1:00 P.M. EDT on NASA TV or the Web, or if you are at Headquarters, in the James Webb Auditorium. ... Some say that our final shuttle mission will mark the end of America's 50 years of dominance in human spaceflight. As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I want to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success - and here at NASA failure is not an option."

Into the sunset, Economist

"Disasters apart, the shuttle generally succeeded in at least one aspect of its mission: its regular launches (not to mention stunts such as flying a 77-year-old astronaut, and assorted senators and congressmen) made space travel seem routine, almost mundane--which helped to dampen public interest."

The end of the Space Age, Economist

"But the shuttle is now over. The ISS is due to be de-orbited, in the inelegant jargon of the field, in 2020. Once that happens, the game will be up. There is no appetite to return to the moon, let alone push on to Mars, El Dorado of space exploration. The technology could be there, but the passion has gone--at least in the traditional spacefaring powers, America and Russia."

Families of Challenger and Chairman of the Board of Challenger Center for Space Science Education Regarding the Future of Human Spaceflight

"We, the families of the Space Shuttle Challenger crew and founders of the Challenger Center for Space Science Education--heroes we lost to further the exploration of space--strongly support the continuation of human spaceflight under a new paradigm of commercially led efforts to low earth orbit, and government led efforts beyond.

We recognize that commercial development in human spaceflight is a new paradigm, but so was America's government-driven space program at its birth more than 50 years ago. Our nation and others have been quite successful in moving the aviation industry from a military and government led operation to a viable commercial industry; we believe a similar approach is now necessary in space.

We also recognize that the commercialization of space will bring new innovations, capabilities, public interest, and economies to the grandest of human endeavor. This will also allow NASA to focus on deep space exploration, as it should."

Internal NASA GSFC Report: Weekly Input May 14, 2011- May 21, 2011 Submitted to Code 550

"JWST ISIM - Davila and Mehalick/551: The JWST Standing Review Board (SRB) outbrief to the project was held last Friday. The SRB heard from the project regarding the new baseline plan (including budget and schedule) for a launch date of fy18. The SRB reported that the new baseline plan for JWST was not viable due to lack of sufficient funding in fy11 and fy12, rapid ramp-up of support planned for fy13 and marginal reserves for the years fy13 fy18. The SRB was very complimentary of the new OTIS testing structure, and systems engineering take-over by GSFC."

Webb telescope delayed past 2018?, Nature

"Hubble's successor -- the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) -- is in a heap of trouble. Things were already bad in October, when it was supposed to launch in 2014 and its price tag stood at $5 billion. Then in November, an independent review said its costs had risen to $6.5 billion and that it would not launch until 2015. Now, a review board says the 6-metre segmented telescope may not even get off the ground in 2018. A baseline plan that includes the telescope launching in fiscal year 2018 is "unfeasible", according to an internal memo from Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, that was first disclosed today by NASAWatch."

Keith's note: According to NASA PAO: "NASA is still developing and discussing a new cost and schedule baseline plan for JWST. It's simply premature to make any conclusions until a plan is completed and reviewed within the agency and by an outside team of experts. This will ensure adequate levels of both cost and schedule reserves are in the appropriate years to successfully complete JWST development."

Keith's update: The National Press Club (NPC) invited Charlie Bolden to speak at a luncheon and he accepted. No cost to NASA. NPC makes a lot of money renting out their rooms for press conferences and hosting these luncheons so having Bolden there is a guaranteed money maker. The original NPC notice for this event said it was for NPC members and their guests. That was eventually amended to say that the public could attend too (and pay $36) or watch the event on TV and web streaming. But no one will be allowed to ask Bolden questions directly. You have to submit them ahead of time and then NPC screens them and asks the questions they have selected.

They also added that the media could "cover" this too. When I inquired what media "coverage" meant they said that I had to have a "hard badge" credentials. When I asked them what credentials they mean (NPC, NASA, NASA Watch, etc.) they did not answer. NASA HQ has not issued "hard" media credentials for more than 5 years - so media who only cover NASA are not going to have these things. I asked NPC if I could simply make a laminated badge (as editor of NASA Watch) and credential myself (other media outlets/publications do this). I have asked them three times. No response. As such I have to assume that I will not be allowed on the premises to cover this event - but if I want to pay $36 (the food is awful so I never eat it) I can sit and listen but not ask questions.

How odd. The NPC is supposed to be promoting journalism and news coverage - yet they put a barrier between media who cover their events by requiring all questions be submitted in advance. In addition, they pick and chose as to what media allowed to "cover" the event based on whether or not they have some sort of laminated name tag (they are not exactly clear on where you get these tags). And those who do not meet their criteria have to pay money to have access to the government official who is speaking. What is really odd is that I have covered events at the NPC multiple times in the past decade and asked questions of the speakers. Now they suddenly go retro.

NPC is a business, so they need to make money I suppose. What is odd is how they hold themselves up as some sort of bastion of journalistic integrity and excellence when in fact they are stuck in the the way that the news media used to work - not the way that it actually works today. Its like having lunch at The Dinosaur Club - they follow a process that is quickly becoming extinct. They invite a newsmaker to their club and then go out of their way to prevent news media from doing their job i.e. covering (interacting) with that same guest. How this is promoting excellence in journalism and news coverage baffles me.

Funny thing: I have discovered that a number of reporters on the space beat are inclined to skip the event (since no questions will be allowed) and just watch it back in their office. So much for fostering interaction between newsmakers and reporters. Bolden is not expected to make any "news" either since nothing about SLS etc. is included in his prepared remarks and questions will be screened/filtered in advance.

The food (money making) part of the event begins at 12:30 pm EDT. Bolden's remarks will begin just after 1:00 pm EDT, followed by a staged question-and-answer session. To submit a question in advance, type BOLDEN in the subject line and email president@press.org before 10 am EDT tomorrow. The luncheon program will be on C-SPAN, NASA Television and webcast live via NPC.

You can follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #NPCLunch and at @PressClubDC. You can also submit questions during the live event by sending them to @QNPCLunch. I will be live tweeting the event at @NASAWatch

Shielding Bolden From Unfiltered Questions, Earlier post

Rocket Launch Completed From NASA Wallops

"A U.S. Air Force Minotaur 1 rocket carrying the Department of Defense Operationally Responsive Space Office's ORS-1 satellite was successfully launched at 11:09 p.m. EDT yesterday from NASA's Launch Range at the Wallops Flight Facility and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in Virginia. "We are very pleased to continue our support to the U.S. Air Force and the Operationally Responsive Space Office (ORS) with today's successful launch," said Bill Wrobel, director of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. "This is the fourth Minotaur 1 launch from Wallops since December 2006 and we look forward to collaborating with the Air Force and ORS on future projects."

NASA OIG Report: NASA's Challenges Certifying and Acquiring Commercial Crew Transportation Services

"NASA is still developing its acquisition strategy and has not settled on the specific mechanisms it will use for procuring commercial crew transportation services. The Commercial Crew Program Planning Office (Commercial Crew Office) plans to present its proposed acquisition strategy to Congress by late summer 2011. Mindful of national policy to limit the use of high-risk contracting vehicles such as noncompetitive and cost- reimbursement contracts, among the options NASA may consider is an acquisition strategy that relies on funded Space Act Agreements, competitive procurements, in particular fixed-price contracts, or a combination of both."

Keith's note: NASA is looking at no longer using Space Act Agreements for this sort of thing (at least that is what they have told OMB/OSTP) and they may soon be falling back on bad habits when it comes to dealing with the private sector. Stay tuned.

Keith's note: A personal note about aerospace companies and corporate giving. Every company who supported the nuclear space event at the Air & Space Museum tonight has a clear, consistent record of giving to meritorious causes. All aerospace companies do. I know many of the people who write the checks and the professional associations that participate. I have worked with these people on educational and outreach projects. Their intentions and generosity, while facilitated by commerce, are honest and true - and if at all possible they'd love to be able to spend much, much more if only the funds were there. Indeed, some of their projects are simply inspired. Often times they fill in the gaps where NASA is lacking in funds or flexibility and push their employers to squeeze out a few more dollars.

But at the end of the day these companies take their guidance and hints - subtle and overt - from NASA civil servants. In the case of this reception, it would not have been possible to do this event if NASA was not in the loop driving the event to begin with and making the arrangements with the Smithsonian. Just look at the invitation - the NASA logo is on it - not the donors. These donors need to be acknowledged up front without any deception - both for the sake of transparency as well as to say thank you.

NASA's Education and Public Outreach efforts in the mission directorates (SMD, ESMD, and SOMD) do some really valuable things that touch many lives and encourage careers. But they also do self-serving, goofy, backslapping, inside the beltway stunts like these parties. If the intent was to promote the role and value of nuclear powered spaceflight then would it not have been better to focus the effort outward at the public and not inward i.e. the space cadet attendees' stomachs? Think of all the pseudoscience, arm waving, and blatant misinformation that is promulgated every time an RTG flies. Why not spend these party funds on enlightening the public and training students with facts?

Corporate giving is good and should be encouraged. It enhances overall social responsibility and offers flexibility that is often needed. But corporate donors follow NASA's lead. As such, NASA needs to think long and hard about how it drops hints and approves the endorsement of projects.

I organized two large events for NASA In 1987 and 1988 and rented the very same space for a big shindig. I have attended countless events and eaten the food for the past 25 years. Guilty. Been there, done that. That said, I have to ask, was this party worth the equivalent of one year of college for someone? That is what it cost. Did it promote the intended issue or just feed people chow next to Skylab?

Tonight I went outside with my wife and watched the ISS soar over our home in Reston, Virginia. It is indeed "one of the brightest objects in the sky" as we promised it would be when I worked on it 20 years ago. An hour later I managed to catch ORS1 as it was launched from NASA Wallops - from the same spot in the street in front our home. We were distracted by a plethora of fireflies sparkling in the cool summer air. I went inside and Twittered a note - with this link to a clip from "The Right Stuff". Watch the whole clip - but focus on 09:10. Fireflies leaping from an ancient people into a sky with astronauts flying above it.

It is things such as this that NASA and its corporate family should be focusing on. Bring the value to everyone, everywhere, and then derive value and support in return from the very same wide audience. Feeding a bunch of Washington, DC insiders and bureaucrats food they shouldn't be eating in the first place is not the way to promote the value of the exploration of space. Just say no.

Atlantis: The Grand Finale Photo Special at Launch Pad 39A Part 1, SpaceRef

"The Grand Finale of NASA's three decade long Space Shuttle program is less than two weeks away. Recently NASA allowed reporters unprecedented access to photograph the Space Shuttle Atlantis while it waits on the pad. Here is part one."

NASA Launching Department of Defense Rocket And Satellite From Virginia June 28

"Further information on the mission, including where to view the launch, is available here. The launch will be web cast beginning at 1:30 p.m. on launch day here. Launch status can be followed on Twitter."

Minotaur Rocket Launch from NASA Wallops Re-scheduled for 29 June

"NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia has rescheduled the launch of an United States Air Force Minotaur 1 rocket carrying the ORS-1 satellite for the Department of Defense's Operationally Responsive Space Office. Originally set for June 28, the new launch date is June 29. The launch on June 28 was postponed due to thunderstorms in the area."

Letter From Astronauts and Apollo Veterans Regarding Space Shuttle Retirement and Risk to ISS Operations

"To maintain this vital life safety margin for long-term ISS operations we are requesting the following: ... To avoid any gap in providing independent repair spacewalks as a safety contingency for the space station, Congress, NASA and the ISS partners should evaluate the option of postponing the launch of STS - 135 until more external fuel tanks and other parts can be built to support additional shuttle flights in 2012."

Final NASA shuttle mission clouded by rancor, Washington Post

"Garver and other administration officials are getting heat from some of the most famous astronauts on the planet, not to mention members of Congress and aerospace industry executives. Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, and someone never known to be a rabble-rouser, recently co-wrote with fellow Apollo astronauts Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan an op-ed in USA Today declaring that the space policy of the Obama administration is in "substantial disarray." The astronauts protested the decision to kill the Constellation program, the George W. Bush-era plan for a new lunar mission with new rockets and spacecraft."

Keith's note: The timing of this letter and editorial effort by these folks is odd to say the least. The authors wait until the last possible moment and then expect the White House, NASA, and Congress to suddenly do a 180 degree course change in policy - with all of the associated and unbudgeted costs - 6 to 7 years after that policy was announced and agreed to by all parties.