Space Stories: Planning Commercial Space Stations, Sloppy Black Holes, and Happy Birthday Voyager I

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Artist’s earlier rendering of a commercial space station called Orbital Reef envisioned by Blue Origin and  Sierra Space. (Blue Origin)

Here are some recent space-related stories of interest.

—Space News: “NASA Releases Details on Revised Next Phase of Commercial Space Station Development“

NASA expects to spend up to $1.5 billion to support at least two companies to demonstrate crew-tended space stations as part of the agency’s revised approach to transition from the International Space Station. NASA released Sept. 5 a draft version of an announcement for partnership proposal, or AFPP, for the second phase of its Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development Program. NASA is seeking comments on the draft through Sept. 12. The draft reflects a new approach for supporting development of commercial space stations outlined in a July 31 policy directive by Acting Administrator Sean Duffy. Rather than award fixed-price contracts to cover certification of commercial space stations for use by NASA astronauts, it called for the use of funded Space Act Agreements for continued support of the design and development of such stations.

—University of Michigan News: “Small Black Holes are Surprisingly Sloppy Eaters“

When stellar-mass black holes—”small” black holes that are still a few times more massive than the sun—are actively gobbling up matter, they’re even more of a hot mess than scientists expected. That’s according to an international research team, led by Jon Miller of the University of Michigan, that uncovered this surprise that could have galactic implications. What researchers learn from stellar-mass black holes can help them better understand supermassive black holes, the behemoths that steer the evolution of galaxies like our Milky Way.

—USA Today: “Voyager 1 Marks 48 Years in Space. Here’s What to Know About Ramous NASA Mission“

For nearly five decades, NASA’s twin Voyager probes have plumbed the cosmos in search of answers to some of astronomy’s most perplexing mysteries about our solar system and its place in the wider universe. And now, both of the pioneering spacecraft – which launched two weeks apart in the late-1970s into space – have officially turned 48 years old. Voyager 2 was the first to have its birthday in August, followed now by Voyager 1, which marked its anniversary early in September.

Will NASA Lose its Acting Administrator?

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Credit: Image by Jörg Hertle from Pixabay.

One might think that acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy’s job is now in question given a recent report from ProPublica that found three Trump administration officials have mortgage issues similar to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. One of those officials is Sean Duffy.

Pro Publica reported:

…at least three of Trump’s Cabinet members call multiple homes their primary residences on mortgages. We discovered the loans while examining financial disclosure forms, county real estate records and publicly available mortgage data provided by Hunterbrook Media…Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer entered into two primary-residence mortgages in quick succession, including for a second home near a country club in Arizona, where she’s known to vacation. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has primary-residence mortgages in New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has one primary-residence mortgage in Long Island and another in Washington, D.C., according to loan records.

Notice I said “one might think,” but this is not the time for thinking individuals and the expectation that the law applies to everyone. The likelihood of Mr. Duffy being dumped for mortgage problems is pretty low. We know that the real threat to his job would be any indication that he donated to a democrat in the past (which President Trump did many times) or said anything even mildly even-handed about American politics.

NASA does not need any more disruptions, and the same could be said for the nation as well. Yet I think the political atmosphere ahead is more likely to mimic Space Mountain rather than It’s a Small World After All.

Sorry, Disney.

More From the Senate Hearing on NASA

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Artist’s rendering of the Artemis Gateway. (NASA)

The hearing earlier this week held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation contained some clear warnings about the future of the US space program. In addition to comments by the Chairman and Ranking Member, we heard plenty from the witnesses about the importance of Artemis program in terms of political and economic outcomes, concerns about how the program is currently structured, and frustration with the continuing uncertainty about long term funding.

For instance, James Bridenstine, a Former Administrator for NASA, stated these concerns about NASA’s ability to land on the Moon under the Artemis program:

While the United States should celebrate orbiting the Moon in 2026, the United States does not have a lander. Unless something changes, it is highly unlikely the United States will beat China’s projected timeline to the Moon’s surface. Our complicated architecture requires a dozen or more launches in a short time frame, relies on very challenging technologies that have yet to be developed like cryogenic in-space refueling, and still needs to be human rated. While the capability could be transformational over time if payload capacity increases (so far it has decreased), the complexity of the architecture precludes alacrity.

Michael Gold, President of Civil and International Space for Redwire, emphasized the need for NASA to continue to resist White House cuts, such as the planned elimination of the Gateway piece in the initial budget proposal, in order to keep the program on track. He stated:

NASA’s waffling on Gateway has left our international partners confused, frustrated, and exploring alternatives to American partnerships. If we fail to continue with Gateway, we will force our partners to consider shifting support from Artemis and America, to China and its International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) program. Unlike the U.S., China has maintained strong and consistent continuity for its lunar beyond [low Earth orbit] spaceflight program, making a collaboration with China potentially far less risky than gambling on what, prior to Artemis, has been a mercurial American beyond LEO space strategy. If our international partners make such a shift to China, it will not only impact the space field but will have substantial diplomatic, geopolitical, and economic consequences on Earth.

And not to be outdone, Lieutenant General John Shaw, Former Deputy Commander of the U.S. Space Command, wanted to ensure the Artemis program was part of a “grand strategy” that could match the Chinese grand strategy integrating the exploration, economic opportunities, and security needs. In his testimony, he stated:

During my military career, I watched and studied – as any good soldier would of a potential adversary – as China slowly but surely developed and deployed its own civilian and military space capabilities and set its own agenda for space achievements. It is clear to me that the Chinese Communist Party is already employing its own integrated grand strategy for the earthmoon system, with only superficial distinction between civil, commercial, and national security activities, and all focused on a common purpose. I believe if we do not unify and synchronize our efforts, we will find ourselves, rather than the space leaders we are today, instead in a position of increasing disadvantage in space as we progress further into this century.

It was clear from what was said throughout the hearing that everyone in the room saw the benefits of a thriving Artemis mission that continued far beyond Artemis II. In fact, Artemis IX was mentioned as well. The real question was whether the US was willing to commit to a Moon and Mars mission for the long term and fund it appropriately so that our country, our commercial partners, and our country partners can realize the benefits for years to come.

That is the question that no one can answer here. However, the Chinese have already answered it for themselves. We can either watch them succeed, or fully commit to the Artemis program and win this latest space race.

Senate Committee Hearing Discusses the Race to the Moon

Posted on by onespaceman2000

If you heard about this week’s hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, one memorable bit was the title of the hearing – There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: Why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in the Space Race. The play on Creedence Clearwater Revival’s song was clever, but the topic of the hearing was anything but fun.

Here are a few sentences from Chairman Cruz’s opening statement:

This is a pivotal moment for our nation’s space programs. America must maintain leadership in low Earth orbit, while also embarking on a new era of exploration with Artemis. Make no mistake: we are in a new space race with China, and if we fail, there will be a bad Moon on the rise.

China has made no secret of its goals. It is investing heavily in its space capabilities, maintaining a permanent presence in low Earth orbit with its Tiangong station, and working to plant its flag on the Moon by 2030.

The stakes could not be higher. Space is no longer reserved for peaceful exploration. It is a strategic frontier with direct consequences for national security, economic growth, and technological leadership. If our adversaries achieve dominant space capabilities, it will pose a profound risk to America. This is not just about exploration. The choices we make now will determine whether the United States leads in space or cedes it to an authoritarian regime.

That is why continuity in NASA’s programs is not simply good practice — it is a matter of national security. Any drastic changes in NASA’s architecture at this stage threaten U.S. leadership in space. Delays or disruptions only serve our competitors’ interests.

And this is part of the opening statement by Ranking Member Cantwell:

…I am concerned about the current plan and what we are doing to make sure that we continue to push forward. I would love to see the continued focus on dual landers, given how important they are going to be for the future. It’s not just one time. It’s many times. This is an operation where we’re going to continue to return and be an operational system. So I want to make sure that we have the best. I want to make sure that NASA has backup plans that takes advantage and ensures that the already delayed mission does not slip any further.

I don’t know that it takes a genius to figure out that while China may be projecting 2030, or some time period, there’s nothing to say that they won’t go sooner. There are people we talked to in trying to brief the press about this today, who are betting that they are going to go sooner and that they are going to beat us. So we don’t need another Sputnik moment. It’s already happened. The only thing we have to do is make sure we in Congress get the budget right and support the Artemis mission. I appreciate everything the Chair has done in putting money towards the Artemis mission, and I appreciate everything that we are doing collectively to assure that the administration spins it.

But I also want to point out that, as Lieutenant General Shaw also says, this whole cislunar communication architecture — that is the space between the Earth and the Moon — that is what China would love to do, go dominate the communication system between the [Earth] and the moon. That’s what they’re already working on. We can’t allow that to happen. We need to continue to move forward quickly, fastly, with these investments, because our national security and defense depends on it.

It appears we finally have some bipartisan consensus on the importance of NASA. If only the Congress had some type of legitimate power to pass budgets and keep the funding on track. Wouldn’t that be nice at a time when the White House is finding cute tricks to rescind congressional priorities?

The statements of worry continued with the testimony of the four witnesses (you can watch their presentation and read their prepared statements here):

  • Mr. Allen Cutler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
  • Mr. Michael Gold, President of Civil and International Space for Redwire
  • The Honorable Jim Bridenstine, Managing Partner of the Artemis Group and Former Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Lieutenant General John Shaw, Former Deputy Commander of the U.S. Space Command

Note: I am surprised the Ranking Member used the word “fastly” in her opening statement. It is not a real word. Is she trying to compete with the strange jargon coming out of the White House?

Pew Study Reports on NASA’s Support Among the Public

Posted on by onespaceman2000

A recent Pew Research Center report titled Republicans’ Views of Justice Department, FBI Rebound as Democrats’ Views Shift More Negative found that NASA was among the fourth most favorably viewed federal agency from among 16 agencies. Not surprisingly, the IRS placed last. However, it was joined at the bottom by ICE and the Department of Justice.

As shown in the graphic above, 64 percent of the American interviewed had a positive view of NASA, 15 percent did not, and 20 percent were not sure about what they thought about NASA. In another graphic, we learn that the 64 percent figure comes from 61 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats.

This comes at a time of planned deep cuts at the space agency. So what troubles the Republicans most about NASA?

According to Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, one of the problems at NASA is the climate science focus. Mr. Duffy recently stated:

All the climate science and all of the other priorities that the last administration had at NASA we’re going to move aside, and all of the science that we do is going to be directed towards exploration, which is the mission of NASA.

Is that consistent with what the public says it wants in terms of priorities? Not at all. In fact, the public has the opposite view according to another Pew Research Center report from 2023, Americans’ Views of Space: U.S. Role, NASA Priorities and Impact of Private Companies, where monitoring the Earth’s climate was a much higher priority to Americans than sending astronauts to the Moon or Mars (see graphic below).

So the current White House is cutting a favored program and shifting the remaining resources in a direction that is inconsistent with the pubic’s stated preferences. This does not sound like a winning strategy for the White House or, more importantly, the American public paying the bills.