When NASA decided to put $150 million of the $1 billion in stimulus funding the agency received this year towards development of commercial ISS resupply capabilities, although not specifically towards Capability D (crew transportation) of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, agency officials likely thought they were taking a prudent step towards eventually securing commercial access to the station. However, that decision was criticized yesterday by two senators in two different hearings, for very different reasons.
In Thursday morning’s hearing on the NASA FY2010 budget request by the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, ranking member Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) expressed his concern that money was being spent on ISS commercial options, either cargo or crew, rather than on Constellation. “I believe that manned spaceflight is something that is still in the realm of government, because despite their best efforts, some truly private enterprises have not yet been able to deliver on plans of launching vehicles,” he said in his opening testimony, specifically mentioning SpaceX. “The reality is that, out of four attempts, they’ve only delivered a single dummy payload to space, have never delivered any payload to the space station, much less a human.” He added: “However grandiose the claims of proponents” of COTS-D, “they cannot substitute for the painful truth of failed performance at present.”
“I ask, is this the hope we will hitch our dreams of the future of manned spaceflight to? Will unproven cargo capabilities close the manned spaceflight gap faster than the work NASA has done on Ares and Orion?” Shelby asked. “Are we to entertain the idea of placing people on a rocket that has yet to deliver a single real payload of any kind to space? I would have trouble, Madam Chairwoman,”—referring to Sen. Barbara Mikulski—”supporting a budget that is poised to eliminate a real, manned space program and instead maintains the fantasy of one.”
In a separate hearing Thursday afternoon by the Science and Space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee on the same topic, chairman Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) lit into NASA for not explicitly funding COTS-D. The $150 million that NASA is planning to spend, acting administrator Chris Scolese explained just before the hearing recessed briefly for a vote, is split into two pieces: $70 million for developing capabilities “that any visiting vehicle would need”, including developing human spaceflight rating requirements for commercial vehicles; and $80 million “to stimulate activity for commercial crew”.
After the hearing resumed, Nelson pressed Scolese for why NASA decided to spend the stimulus funding in that fashion rather than a “milestone-based demonstration flight”. “We believe we need to take a measured approach to developing commercial crew” because of the difficulty in developing such systems, Scolese responded. That means starting with activities that broadly help the community by establishing standards, he continued.
“But that wasn’t what the legislation said,” Nelson countered, referring to the 2008 NASA authorization act. That legislation includes a provision that required NASA to enter into funded Space Act Agreements with two or more entities “for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program.” Nelson said that $150 million was supposed to be funding for COTS-D (although I don’t see that in the version of the authorization bill signed into law). “And in this case you would not even have to pay until the COTS-D partner was able to successfully demonstrate that capability,” Nelson added. Later: “This is an example of where NASA has not followed the legislation.”
Nelson then asked Scolese if he thought $150 million would be enough to demonstrate a commercial crew capability. “We’d have to look at it, but I don’t think so,” he responded. When Nelson asked how much would be needed, Scolese thought it would be “several times that”. (SpaceX’s COTS-D option was about $300 million.)
“We had a unique opportunity this year, between the 2009 operating plan and the additional funds provided by the stimulus bill, and the development of the 2010 budget, to craft a COTS-D plan that would have funded the program at the level the folks needed,” Nelson said. “And that path was not pursued. NASA did not obey the law.”
WoW!!! Senator Nelson!! That is a VERY good news and would seem to dispel all my previous issues with him. I had to re-read several times! This is the spirit! Please, make sure the likes of COTS are being funded per the law.
As to Senator Shelby. QUOTE: “Are we to entertain the idea of placing people on a rocket that has yet to deliver a single real payload of any kind to space?” Is he talking of Ares I or of Ares V?… Crazy me, of course the $150M are the reason of the current status of Constellation. I’d laugh if it was not so sad. QUOTE: â€supporting a budget that is poised to eliminate a real, manned space program”. $150M are going to eliminate a real, manned space program? I assume that here he means Shutlle? Because the only REAL human space program is Shuttle in the US. And it’s not manned, women fly too these days. Well, y’all know elephants are afraid of mice.
Good for Sen. Nelson. He’s earned the moniker “Stickman” in some quarters for his unwavering support of Ares I, but Nelson’s comments on COTS-D here demonstrate that the nickname may be undeserved.
The total lack of research or outright mistruths on the part of Shelby’s staff made him look like an idiot, on several points:
“private enterprises have not yet been able to deliver on plans of launching vehicles”
Totally untrue. Pegasus was developed using wholly private funds back in the 1980s and is a successful launcher to this day. Commercial variants of Atlas and Delta have been launching since the Challenger accident, and industry invested billions of dollars in the Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs — all of which are successful vehicles.
“The reality is that, out of four attempts, they’ve only delivered a single dummy payload to space… Are we to entertain the idea of placing people on a rocket that has yet to deliver a single real payload of any kind to space?”
Falcon 1 is a small payload LEO launcher. It can’t take cargo to the ISS or launch crew to anywhere, Space-X has not proposed to use it as such, and it’s not part of the COTS program. It demonstrates extreme ignorance to criticize COTS-D spending on the basis of a launcher that has nothing to do with the program.
“Will unproven cargo capabilities close the manned spaceflight gap faster than the work NASA has done on Ares and Orion?”
An operational Falcon 9 is sitting on a launch pad in Florida. Ares I has yet to complete its preliminary design review. Assuming proper funding, it should be obvious, even to a member of Congress with parochial interests at stake, which is closer to shortening the gap.
“I would have trouble… supporting a budget that is poised to eliminate a real, manned space program and instead maintains the fantasy of one.â€
Ares I/Orion is receiving tens of billions of dollars for development. Even if the COTS D option were exercised today, total NASA development expenditures on Falcon 9/Dragon wouldn’t top $1 billion. It’s ridiculous to argue that spending on the former is “poised to eliminate” spending on the latter. On the contrary, given the multiple technical issues, multi-ten billion budget problems, and continued year-for-year schedule slippage on Ares I/Orion, it would be stupid not to invest a fraction of Constellation spending on some alternatives to Ares I/Orion.
Methinks the Senator from Alabama doth protest too much, and is worried that any competition, even a poorly funded COTS-D effort, is likely to overtake the slow, expensive, and technically crippled Constellation program and render some Huntsville positions RIFable.
Of course, were Augustine to go the EELV route or NASA just open up COTS to EELVs, increased EELV production at Decatur would go a long way towards offsetting Huntsville job losses. (Even then, a more efficient ETO approach should leave enough dollars on the table to refocus MSFC jobs on developing new space capabilities, instead of reinventing the intermediate-lift ELV wheel.)
FWIW…
@Major Tom:
Not that you are actually stating the contray – hmm did I just make sense or not? – but no matter if NASA goes the EELV route NASA MUST ensure a properly funded COTS(-D) program. I believe COTS is part of Exploration, not Constellation (?). COTS is the immediate future that should get more attention.
“but no matter if NASA goes the EELV route NASA MUST ensure a properly funded COTS(-D) program.”
It depends on how the EELV route is pursued (if it is pursued). NASA could just expand COTS funding and let EELV-based solutions (e.g., ULA’s Atlas V/CTV for Bigelow) compete in future COTS solicitations. Or, if NASA wants to maintain more control, NASA could procure EELVs for Orion separately from COTS. Either way, given that COTS represents a better way of doing business that has attracted a lot of new industry entrants, I agree that COTS should be continued/expanded, regardless of whether EELVs are part of or separate from COTS. (I personally prefer the former, but that’s just me.)
“I believe COTS is part of Exploration, not Constellation (?).”
COTS is under Constellation, but has its own project manager and a very different development and procurement approach than the other Constellation projects.
“COTS is the immediate future that should get more attention.”
More to the point, with Ares I/Orion receding over the horizon and the Obama Administration’s decision to maintain Shuttle shutdown in 2010, COTS is now in the critical path to maintaining a six-person ISS crew for the five-year plus interim and having much hope of a U.S. crew transport capability for ISS. Without COTS, NASA doesn’t have access to enough upmass to keep ISS crewed with six astronauts, and probably won’t have a U.S. crew transport capability until 2016-17 at the earliest (absent Augustine recommending an EELV solution).
FWIW…
EELV + commercial capsule under COTS-D and EELV + Orion outside COTS-D could be pursued simultaneously – and should be in my opinion. In the mean-time, the Shuttle could be extended for one or two years.
@Major Tom:
The problem I think is the current level of funding for COTS and an immediate competition to the current Constellation’s Ares/Orion. If NASA wants to see progress it will have to defer LEO and possibly the Moon to COTS like program. Still, NASA will provide necessary support and technology transfer to COTS to keep some employed. At the same time NASA would pursue the real difficult task of Solar System settlement using available budget and a combination of all talents available to them. This is long term, this is much like VSE in spirit and should be done. Is there risk? You bet there is but some of those risks can be mitigated and not that different from those found by Ares/Orion. The overall result would be a lot less expensive program to go back to the Moon with the added benefit of public/commercial access.
[…] Conflicting guidance on ISS commercial resupply funding – Space Politics […]
[…] week Sen. Bill Nelson made a vigorous defense of COTS Capability D (COTS-D) during a hearing with acting NASA administrator Chris Scolese, pressing Scolese on why NASA […]
[…] funds directed at NASA over reported disagreement in DC on the direction the agency’s use of some of the money stemming from the Recovery Act: When NASA decided to put 150 million of the 1 billion in stimulus […]
[…] funds directed at NASA over reported disagreement in DC on the direction the agency’s use of some of the money stemming from the Recovery […]
[…] including early work to support commercial crew missions to the station. As you may recall, Shelby expressed his opposition to such spending in a hearing last month, saying that “manned spaceflight is something that is still in the realm of government” […]
[…] commercial ISS resupply has become a relatively hot topic in space circles recently thanks to comments and actions by one member of Congress, plans by the AIAA for an event on the topic are partocularly […]