Space Access Update #96 9/26/00
Copyright 2000 by Space Access Society
________________________________________________________________________
This issue will be almost entirely about NASA's SLI ("Space Launch
Initiative"), a grab-bag of old and new RLV programs. We have two
main news items: One, advance work for the House-Senate conference on
the final version of next year's NASA funding is underway and the
actual conference could take place in the next few days. Two, we're
changing our goal from zeroing funding for the core (and we think
badly misdirected) "RLV Competition" SLI line-item, to getting
language into the bill preventing NASA from spending all the money on
NASA's own peculiar launch needs (as they currently look far too
likely to do) and none on genuine commercial launch support.
________________________________________________________________________
Contents:
- What's Wrong With SLI? One-Page Summary
- FY'01 NASA SLI Funding: The Tactical Situation
- Alert: Urgent! Contact House, Senate Appropriators And Ask Them To
Fix NASA SLI By Adding Commercial Support Language
________________________________________________________________________
What's Wrong With SLI? One-Page Summary
We hear some people are still puzzled as to why we've opposed funding
the central part of NASA's new "Space Launch Initiative". It seems
our Updates #91-95 (at www.space-access.org) aren't short and simple
enough. OK, we'll try to boil it all down to one page:
The heart of our problem with NASA SLI is that it looks far too likely
to spend all available RLV development funds for another five years on
NASA's internal launch needs, while doing little or nothing for US
commercial launch requirements - requirements NASA has a statutory
obligation to support. (42 USC 2451 section c.)
Just as bad, SLI as currently conceived looks like it'll end up not
even meeting NASA's launch needs:
- Officially, SLI aims to support only those commercial launch needs
that can be "converged" with NASA's desire for continued Shuttle-class
lift to Station. This is like a government "Road Travel Initiative"
that will fund any plausible design submitted - as long as it can
carry eight people a thousand miles while towing a thirty-ton trailer.
Tough luck for anyone who believes the road vehicle market "sweet
spot" isn't an eighteen-wheeler Winnebago...
- Unofficially, commercial considerations that conflict in any way
with NASA Shuttle/Station's needs will lose at NASA, every time. The
Shuttle/Station organization makes up half of NASA, by far the largest
power center within the agency. No matter how good the intentions of
the SLI planners, recent history demonstrates that the Shuttle/Station
bureaucracy dominates NASA's decisionmaking process on any issue they
care about - and they care very much about new launcher development.
- Recent history also demonstrates that launcher designs resulting
from such a process will have no luck finding commercial investors
willing to pay for them, absent massive government subsidy, because
the Shuttle/Station bureaucracy's idea of a useful launch vehicle
flies far too seldom, eats far too many man-years per flight, and has
far too many political strings attached.
- It doesn't help that the established major aerospace contractors
have little real incentive to compete with their own existing high-
cost launchers, and thus tend to give low-cost launch projects less
than top priority for internal corporate resources.
On its current path, SLI "RLV Competition And Risk Reduction" looks
all too likely to spend $2.4 billion over the next five years on
nothing of any use to anyone at all, NASA included.
By "recent history", by the way, we mean both Shuttle and the more
recent X-33 project. Every last one of the preceding conclusions is
glaringly obvious given rational examination of the abject failure of
X-33. Unfortunately it's still taboo within NASA to even admit that
X-33 is a failure, let alone hold open discussions of its lessons.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", and SLI
despite minor tinkering with the X-33 formula is dead on course to
repeat most of X-33's major conceptual mistakes.
We recommended at the start of the year that NASA separate support for
their in-house launch requirements from support for US commercial
launch needs, and pursue the latter via multiple smaller projects from
both established and startup vendors rather than via one or two
megaprojects from the established major aerospace firms.
We see no reason to change these recommendations. We will be pursuing
implementation of them for the forseeable future. We expect that
support for our position will only grow as the abysmal failure of
SLI's predecessors becomes more obvious.
________________________________________________________________________
FY'01 NASA SLI Funding: The Tactical Situation
Background
NASA is asking the Congress for $145 million in Fiscal Year 2001
(Federal FY'01 begins this October 1st) to start their new $2.4
billion-over-five-years "RLV Competition and Risk Reduction" project
as the largest single part (over half) of "Space Launch Initiative"
(SLI), a program nominally aimed at reducing costs and improving
reliability for both NASA and US commercial space launch customers.
(The total request for SLI this year is $290 million, the overall SLI
five-year budget is $4.5 billion. We currently support the other non
"RLV Competition" components of SLI.)
The Current Situation
The Congressional budget process has gotten caught up in Presdential
election year politics. The Republican Congress is now very unlikely
to cut anything the Democratic White House has requested, lest the
President veto spending bills then again accuse the Congress of
committing "train wreck" and "shutting down the government".
The House passed their version of the "HUD/VA/Independent Agencies"
appropriation bill (NASA is the largest of the "independent agencies)
earlier this summer, with all $290 million for NASA SLI cut. The
Senate Appropriations Committee has now "marked up" and approved their
version of the HUD/VA bill with the $290 million for SLI restored.
The next step is for a House-Senate Conference Committee to work out a
compromise version HUD/VA appropriations bill, which will then go back
to the full House and Senate for approval (likely rubber stamp at that
point) then to the President for signature into law. We hear that the
HUD/VA conference will include negotiators from the White House to
make sure the final product won't become election-year veto bait.
Our Response
Under these circumstances, we see the chances of sustaining any
significant part of the House's SLI cuts as essentially nil. We are
shifting our focus to inserting language directing NASA to do SLI in a
manner less likely to waste the time and money involved, a goal we
have a real chance of achieving if enough of you decide to help.
The HUD/VA conference could take place late this week, or it could be
postponed from days to weeks. Either way, the staffers are working
out the shape of the final version right now, and the time to contact
members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and ask them
to fix NASA SLI is before the end of this week.
The essence of the changes we think needed are:
1) NASA SLI should give US commercial launch technology needs the same
priority as NASA internal launch needs.
2) NASA SLI should support a variety of US commercial needs without
regard to their degree of "convergence" with NASA internal needs.
3) NASA SLI should devote a significant proportion of their resources
to supporting US startup launch companies as well as the established
launch vendors, via formal small business setasides.
We support addition of the following language to the HUD/VA
appropriation in conference:
The Committee finds that NASA Space Launch Initiative as currently
planned give undue precedence to NASA's internal launch requirements
over US commercial launch requirements. The Committee reminds NASA of
its statutory obligation to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent
possible, the fullest commercial use of space." (42 USC 2451 c)
The Committee directs NASA to revise its Space Launch Initiative plans
to address commercial space launch requirements as well as NASA
internal launch requirements regardless of the commercial
requirements' degree of "convergence" with NASA internal launch
requirements, and to report these revised plans back to the
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate within ninety days.
Funds appropriated under the "RLV Competition And Risk Reduction" line
shall not be released until this report is made and accepted by the
Committees.
In order to reduce program risk by assuring greater diversity of
projects, no more than one quarter of the "RLV Competition And Risk
Reduction" funds over the life of the program shall be awarded to any
one project.
In order to encourage entry of new vendors into the space launch
field, at least one quarter of the "RLV Competition And Risk
Reduction" funds over the life of the program shall be awarded as
Small Business Setasides, no more than one third of this amount to be
awarded to any one project.
________________________________________________________________________
Alert: Urgent! Contact House, Senate Appropriators And Ask Them To
Fix NASA SLI By Adding Commercial Support Language
What happens in the next few days could affect the direction of US
space transportation development for decades to come. Please, help us
try to steer things in a positive direction. The stakes are huge.
We ask all of you most urgently to write, fax, or phone Representatives
Walsh and Mollohan and Senators Bond and Mikulski, the Chairs and
Ranking Minority members of the House and Senate HUD/VA subcommittees,
and tell them there's a major problem with NASA Space Launch
Initiative that needs fixing in the HUD/VA conference.
Also, if your Representative is on the House Appropriations HUD/VA
Subcommittee, or if either of your Senators is on the Senate VA/HUD
Subcommittee (see attached list or take your nine-digit zip and check
at http://congress.nw.dc.us/c-span/congdir.html) we ask you to write
fax or phone their Washington DC office and tell them NASA SLI needs
fixing. Alabama activists especially, work Senator Shelby and
Representative Cramer - most of the SLI money is going to NASA
Marshall in Huntsville, and they need to be warned that absent fixes,
the SLI money will likely end up as wasted as the billion already
poured into X-33.
How To Do This
We strongly urge you to write letters, then either snail-mail them or
fax them before the end of the week. Yes, we know, writing letters
and physically mailing them is a thrash, faxing them only a bit less
so. The congressional staffers who'll be dealing with your messages
know this too. They tend to give weight to incoming messages
according to degree of difficulty in sending them - the harder it was
for you, the more they figure you care. Paper mail gets the most
consideration, faxes a bit less, voice calls less (but still
significant), and email, alas, gets almost no consideration at all.
Please, send letters if you can, otherwise phone.
Letters
Keep it to one page, short, neat, to the point, and above all polite.
(Convince one staffer in the right place and we may win, annoy one
staffer in the wrong place and we're sunk. Be nice.) Attach a page
or two of background material if you must (our proposed legislative
language, for instance) but make your main points in one clear page.
Tell them:
- Who you are (Dear Senator XYZ, I'm Joe Smith from Schenectady.)
- If you're not a constituent, tell them you're writing to them as
Chairman (or Ranking Minority Member) of the House (or Senate) HUD-VA
Subcommittee on an issue of national importance.
- Tell them what the problem is (NASA's new Space Launch Initiative
looks like neglecting US commercial needs in favor of NASA's own
agenda, and likely will ultimately fail in meeting NASA's needs too.)
- Tell them what you want them to do (Insert language in the HUD/VA
Appropriation telling NASA SLI to meet US commercial launch technology
needs as well as NASA's need's.)
- Give them a bit of detail backing this up if you feel like it, or
don't, or give them www.space-access.org/updates/sau96.html as a ref.
- Thank them for their time and/or attention in this matter, print
it, sign it, and send it.
Calls
Phone the DC office numbers during east coast business hours, and tell
whoever answers you have some questions about the NASA budget. (See
above on being polite.) Once you're connected to the staffer who
handles NASA questions (or more likely their voicemail) tell them:
- who you are and where you're from (if you're not a constituent,
mention you're calling them because their boss is chair or RMM of
HUD/VA and this is an important national issue etc.)
- Tell them what the problem is (NASA's new Space Launch Initiative
ignores US commercial needs in favor of NASA's desire for a Shuttle
replacement, and likely will end up not meeting NASA's needs either.)
- Tell them what you want them to do (Insert language in the HUD/VA
Appropriation telling NASA SLI to meet US commercial launch needs as
well as NASA's.)
- Answer any questions they have as best you can (you can always give
them www.space-access.org, Update number 96 as a ref.)
- Thank them for their time, and ring off.
House Appropriations Committee, HUD/VA/IA Subcommittee
(An address of "Representative XYZ, US House, Washington DC 20515"
will get paper mail to your congressman, if his/her name is "XYZ".)
voice fax
Walsh, James T. (R-25 NY, Chair) 1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042
DeLay, Thomas (R-22 TX) 1-202-225-5951 1-202-225-5241
Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH) 1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
Knollenberg, Joe (R-11 MI) 1-202-225-5802 1-202-226-2356
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11 NJ) 1-202-225-5034 1-202-225-3186
Northup, Anne M (R-03 KY) 1-202-225-5401 1-202-225-5776
Sununu, John E (R-01 NH) 1-202-225-5456 1-202-225-5822
Goode Jr, Virgil H (I-05 VA) 1-202-225-4711 1-202-225-5681
Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01 WV, RMM) 1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564
Kaptur, Marcy (D-09 OH) 1-202-225-4146 1-202-225-7711
Meek, Carrie P (D FL) 1-202-225-4506 1-202-226-0777
Price, David E (D NC) 1-202-225-1784 1-202-225-2014
Cramer Jr, Robert E (Bud) (D-05 AL) 1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392
Senate Appropriations VA/HUD/IA Subcommittee
("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
voice fax
Bond, Christopher (R MO, Chair) 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
Burns, Conrad (R MT) 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
Shelby, Richard (R AL) 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
Craig, Larry (R ID) 1-202-224-2752 1-202-228-1067
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R TX) 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
Kyl, John (R AZ) 1-202-224-4521 1-202-224-2207
Stevens, Ted (R AK) 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354
Mikulski, Barbara (D MD, RMM) 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
Leahy, Patrick (D VT) 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3479
Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ) 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
Harkin, Tom (D IA) 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-9369
Byrd, Robert (D WV) 1-202-224-3954 1-202-228-0002
________________________________________________________________________
Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions
in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in
any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety.
________________________________________________________________________
Space Access Society
http://www.space-access.org
space.access@space-access.org
"Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System"
- Robert A. Heinlein