Congress, NASA

More on NASA funding in the FY12 conference report

Here’s the breakdown of the final conference report funding for NASA compared to the President’s original budget request (PBR) and the versions of the budget passed by the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) and Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC):

PBR HAC SAC Final
Science $5,016.80 $4,504.00 $5,100.00 $5,090.00
Aeronautics $569.40 $569.93 $501.00 $569.90
Space Technology $1,024.20 $375.00 $637.00 $575.00
Exploration $3,948.70 $3,649.00 $3,775.00 $3,770.80
Space Operations $4,346.90 $4,064.00 $4,285.00 $4,233.60
Education $138.40 $138.00 $138.40 $138.40
Cross-Agency Support $3,192.00 $3,050.00 $3,043.00 $2,995.00
Construction $450.40 $424.00 $422.00 $390.00
Inspector General $37.50 $36.30 $37.30 $37.30
TOTAL $18,724.30 $16,810.23 $17,938.70 $17,800.00

A few brief highlights from the report language, passed along from a reader:

  • The final bill puts a cost cap of $8 billion on the development of the James Webb Space Telescope, stating that any increase above that will “be treated according to procedures established for projects in 30 percent breach of their lifecycle cost estimates.” It directs GAO to “continually assess the program”, reporting to House and Senate appropriators on adherence to that cap and the program’s technical status.
  • The $575 million provided for Space Technology should be “prioritized toward the continuation of ongoing programs and activities”, with no less than $25 million for satellite servicing in particular (which will be managed by the HEO mission directorate, which gets a separate $50 million for this).
  • The bill, citing a need to “to better articulate a set of specific, scientifically meritorious exploration goals”, directs NASA to develop “a set of science-based exploration goals” for its human space exploration program, including identification of a “target destination or destinations” and the role of international collaboration. The report on this topic is due 180 days after enactment.
  • Commercial crew, as previously noted here, gets $406 million in the bill, $100 million of which is set aside until certain acquisition milestones for the human exploration program are achieved. The report notes that NASA’s plans for the program have assumed much higher funding levels than what Congress is provided, and thus “NASA is directed to work expeditiously to alter its management and acquisition strategy for the program as necessary to make the best use of available resources”. This approach, the report adds, could include “an accelerated down-select process that would concentrate and maximize the impact of each appropriated dollar.”

70 comments to More on NASA funding in the FY12 conference report

  • It would be great if NASA used the $406M to do another round of CCDEV like SAA contracts, instead of trying to prematurely downselect. That would be pretty silly at this point.

  • Nice to know someone in Congress is paying attention to CCDev’s fat portfolio.

  • Congratulations, Congress, you just gave Roscosmos two more years of U.S. taxpayer dollars instead of growing the American economy.

  • josh

    the us political system is broken.

  • Egad

    > The bill, citing a need to “to better articulate a set of specific, scientifically meritorious exploration goals”, directs NASA to develop “a set of science-based exploration goals” for its human space exploration program, including identification of a “target destination or destinations”

    Isn’t that what the National Academies have been mandated to do already? And what about Mr. Shannon’s missions study?

  • SpaceMan

    the us political system is broken

    It has been broken for a very long time, the last 30 years in particular. Might be repaired starting in 14 months or so.

  • Coastal Ron

    SpaceMan wrote @ November 15th, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Might be repaired starting in 14 months or so.

    How is that possible? Is the next crop of congress-people supposed to be selfless instead of self-serving? If anything our politicians are getting more and more polarized, and that means less and less will be agreed upon and done.

    Congress is in the politics version of a deep recession, with no relief in sight.

  • Coastal Ron

    Congress should be careful what they wish for.

    The proposed accelerated procurement schedule for Commercial Crew, combined with the lower program funding, means that SpaceX will be in a much stronger position to win if the program down-selects to just one provider. If that is their goal, then it they are doing a good job of locking in SpaceX.

    However I think this is one of those “unintended consequences” situations, and they don’t understand what they are doing. I don’t think they even understand that they will be forcing a future Congress to send even more money to Russia so they can extend their crew transportation monopoly.

    Just goes to show you how little Congress pays attention to space-related issues….

  • 1) Why does NASA need a portfolio of four funded and three unfunded “partners” in CCDev moving forward?

    2) Couldn’t you get faster results by simply down-selecting and fully funding two proposals today?

  • Martijn Meijering

    And what about Mr. Shannon’s missions study?

    Shannon is one of the principal bad guys, he’ll recommend just the sort of thing your Congresscritters will want to hear.

  • Thanks for this review. I’m the Democratic congressional candidate for FL-24, and I’m very concerned with what’s happening regarding space-related issues.

    Please forward your space-related concerns to me as I appreciate hearing all of your perspectives on the future of the Space Coast:

    nicholasruizforcongress@intertheory.org

  • Doug Mohney wrote:

    1) Why does NASA need a portfolio of four funded and three unfunded “partners” in CCDev moving forward?

    Competition, innovation and diversification.

    Competition — not all of them will get contracts. Only one for sure. It’s Capitalism 101 that improvement comes from competition. Handing one vendor a sole source contract is a sure recipe for mediocrity and overpricing.

    Innovation — The basic idea behind CCDev, and COTS before it, is to encourage new technologies that are more efficient as well as less expensive. For example, we can choose between three capsules of the tradition design or Sierra Nevada’s space plane. Personally, I’d rather have one capsule and the space plane, giving us a choice.

    Diversification — As Challenger, Columbia and the recent Russian Progress losses taught us, when you have only one option, if that option fails then you’re out of business.

    2) Couldn’t you get faster results by simply down-selecting and fully funding two proposals today?

    No, because then you remove competition and diversification, which means you lose innovation and wind up with mediocrity as well as sole source pricing.

  • common sense

    @ Nicholas Ruiz III wrote @ November 15th, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    All right here goes.

    I hope I will not regret this since it usually is not, well y’know, my cup of tea but hey. But what the heck? Read this http://www.teapartyinspace.org/ And btw MPCV is as much jobs program as SLS. Andrew Gasser? Why do you not make a similar statement for MPCV? Anyway.

    You can try and dig up remarks by Newt Gingrich supporting the original FY-11 budget proposed by the current WH and NASA leadership.

    You may want to read some of Rand Simberg’s posts and check out his http://www.transterrestrial.com/ about space.

    Read some posts at http://www.nasawatch.com and here for as much a balanced view as possible.

    You may want to read up nasaspaceflight.com as well and their thread on DIRECT and other things.

    Surprisingly (to me) most voices of reason on space politics/policy come from self proclaimed conservatives who somehow supported the WH policy, sometimes even despite their distaste for the current WH. That, to me, says a lot. Yes, this policy issued by the WH came from a Democratic President. It was aimed at supporting small business and competition spirit in a truest capitalist sense which probably upset a lot of so called space fans who only see space as a pseudo military endeavor for NASA.

    Now make sure you understand that we are talking about NASA here. Not the DoD. Even though there is a largely ignored DoD space component in the overall space policy.

    Good luck though.

  • Coastal Ron

    Doug Mohney wrote @ November 15th, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Stephen provided a good answer, so I’ll just expand a little.

    1) Why does NASA need a portfolio of four funded and three unfunded “partners” in CCDev moving forward?

    What was missing with Constellation was competition – Michael Griffin picked the architecture from what he had proposed in a previous study, and because of that we ended up with an Ares I rocket that changed configuration so much it has it’s own family picture. NASA paid the full brunt of that product evolution, and that lack of maturity is why Constellation went so far over budget and was cancelled. Ugh.

    Competition allows NASA to let product evolution happen at a very low cost, and partially funded by the companies themselves. That keeps costs low, and forces everyone involved focus on the best system solution, not the one that meets certain political considerations.

    2) Couldn’t you get faster results by simply down-selecting and fully funding two proposals today?

    Short-circuiting the competition process means a higher likelihood of ending up with an immature product, and that will be reflected in higher costs – just the opposite of what Congress really wants.

    And what would the selection criteria be? How soon they can be available? The most likely to provide better landing accuracy? The most flexible system? The lowest cost no matter all other considerations?

    So far SpaceX/Dragon is the most likely choice for one of two possible spots, so then the question would be who else? Another capsule (CST-100), but with less capability? A horizontal lander (Dream Chaser) that opens up new landing capabilities? A capsule (Blue Origin biconic) with better cross-range maneuverability? How do you pick “the winner” before the vehicles have become more mature?

  • Bennett

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ November 15th, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    If forced to pick only two, then I agree. But given the potential alliance of Boeing/Bigelow and SpaceX’s commitment to BEO, I’d rather see two capsules and Sierra Nevada’s space plane.

  • If forced to pick two Commercial Crew, I’d expect them to be SpaceX and Boeing, with Sierra being the third if they can find a NASA niche. Boeing is already setting up shop for the long haul.

  • John Malkin

    CCDev really needed to be pushed in September or October. It’s depressing that our congress can’t find $400 million with an M for a world class space program. It’s just sad.

    I wonder how much Ares I would have needed for FY12 to keep going and it was a single rocket. Would have Ares V development started into full swing in FY12? I think not.

  • SpaceMan

    How is that possible?

    Reality works in strange ways some times.

    Watch.

  • Bennett wrote:

    If forced to pick only two, then I agree. But given the potential alliance of Boeing/Bigelow and SpaceX’s commitment to BEO, I’d rather see two capsules and Sierra Nevada’s space plane.

    It’s lost in my notes somewhere, but I believe under the current funding NASA can only pick one, and then can pick others if the funding is there.

    I don’t think Blue Origin is a legit player. They’re being funded for the biconic design but they don’t have the business organization to run a space taxi service.

    So that brings it down to the other three.

    SpaceX has the early lead because Dragon has flown, and was originally designed to be human-rated.

    Boeing is a well-known company with a respectable track record, and they know how to play the lobbying game in D.C. They throw around a lot more lobbying money than SpaceX. They also just leased OPF-3 which puts them adjacent to the Vehicle Assembly Building, a smart political move.

    Sierra Nevada … I’d love to see Dream Chaser fly, but the other two have better odds for the above reasons.

    The COTS contract might actually work against SpaceX, because from a pork perspective the NASA bureaucracy might conclude that SpaceX already has a “taste,” therefore send some pork to Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

    If SpaceX has an accident with Falcon 9 and Dragon in the next year, that’ll work against them too. Boeing and Sierra Nevada actually benefit by not flying, because they won’t have any accidents to hold against them.

    And there’s always the possibility that Congress will write more pork legislation forcing NASA to direct the CCDev flights to one particular agency, just as they did with SLS and ATK in Utah. There’s no doubt that Boeing is the heavyweight among this group when it comes to porking.

    So the question is, who’s #1?

    Right now, I’d give the slight edge to Boeing. Also keep in mind that Boeing is a partner with Bigelow Aerospace on the private space station, which in the long run might look better in terms of who will have the more viable operation.

  • Coastal Ron wrote:

    Competition allows NASA to let product evolution happen at a very low cost, and partially funded by the companies themselves. That keeps costs low, and forces everyone involved focus on the best system solution, not the one that meets certain political considerations.

    And let’s remind Mr. Mohney of September 25 report that an independent study found SpaceX built the Falcon 9 for one-third what it would have cost NASA.

    Click here for the report.

    That was possible because SpaceX aims to not only take away business from the ULA monopoly, but also from foreign competition too. Competition breeds innovation and a lower price.

  • vulture4

    Sierra Nevada might reasonably be funded as a long-term R&D program, but there is no way they can be ready to actually carry crew to the ISS in the next few years. Keep on mind that the vehicle is based on a Soviet subscale entry vehicle. The first thing SN are going to have to do is to add wings if they ever expect it to touch down on a runway. It would make sense to fund Boeing’s X-37 derivative (proposed for the Orbital Space Plane program) or the OSC Prometheus in direct competition with the Dream Chaser; otherwise the obvious question of whether a space plane should have wings will simply be ignored.

    As for restoring some kind of crew launch capability, keeping both SpaceX and Boeing in the competition will do three good things; 1) competition for business. 2) a backup if one design fails, and 3) a real, all-American space race. Now that would be exciting.

  • Bennett

    Stephen C. Smith wrote “I’d give the slight edge to Boeing. Also keep in mind that Boeing is a partner with Bigelow Aerospace on the private space station, which in the long run might look better in terms of who will have the more viable operation.”

    Agree on all your points. Also, it may be the very best thing in the long run if SpaceX doesn’t get offered a CCP contract. Many have noted the potential poison pill effect that taking a NASA HSF contract could have on SpaceX.

    I always enjoy your analysis.

  • vulture4

    Agree with Stephen. SpaceX is competing for international commercial launches while Boeing (through ULA) is not. Exports help the economy and reduce the trade deficit.

    I do not see a poison pill. Although SpaceX will comply with NASA requirements enough to keep the business, it will push back and probably get NASA to drop some of the more eggregious demands, while the traditional contractors tend to comply and use it as an excuse to raise the price.

  • Frank Glover

    @ vulture4:

    “Keep on mind that the vehicle is based on a Soviet subscale entry vehicle.”

    Yes, and? The US is hardly without lifting body experience, either.

    “The first thing SN are going to have to do is to add wings if they ever expect it to touch down on a runway.”

    How do you know this? They will do air-dropped approach and landing tests (next year, IIRC). They’ll know soon enough how it performs on landing.

  • Most of you guys belong to the Michael Griffin Budget School; i.e. “There’s always an unlimited font of money to fund our dreams if we wish really hard.”

    There isn’t.

    It’s the same sort of crying that is going on over at Planetary because Webb has sucked all the dollar oxygen out of the budget, and yet they want to fund new program starts.

    Go look over at the Defense Department — once considered sacred and untouchable — then go look at what NASA and the rest of the space community is (not) doing to help itself.

    CCDev should down select to two competitors because NASA isn’t getting the cash to fund three engineering efforts in parallel; i.e. two capsules and a spaceplane. And you can’t tell me with a straight face that Excalibur-Almaz is really creating a lot of U.S. jobs, can you?

    Further, if you want to “remind” me of the NASA SpaceX saving report, you guys need to pull your heads out of the sand and recognize the rules for the next round of CCDev have changed SUBSTANTIALLY. SpaceX won’t get a 3-4x bang for the buck if they decide to play by NASA FAR rules — and they keep signaling they might not.

    Musk has estimated it will take up to a billion to evolve the Dragon capsule through to manned flight under NASA bureaucracy rules — I know, I’ve got the quote from SpaceX PR here.

    Now, if he’s already taken $800 million to develop two rockets and a capsule, and it’s going to cost $1 billion + FAR overhead + NASA bureaucracy overhead, SpaceX may just decide to evolve Dragon on its own using in-house and/or IPO money.

    Since “all” that has to be done for a LEO manned Dragon is longer life support and the “Super-Draco” thruster, you figure SpaceX could do it on a private dime for around $200-350 million or so.

    That most likely assumes a pristine launch record with the Falcon 9 COTS/CRS launches plus satellite launches. A lot of you SpaceX fan boys need to wise up and recognize that the flight rate/manifest for Falcon 9 this year does not match the rates predicted at the beginning of 2011.

    If Musk wanted to get really uppity, he could likely pay another $200 million to get the Russian Space Agency or ESA to man-rate the capsule … and just what would NASA do then? (Yes, I know some of you think it would be far-fetched that the Russians would every consider such a notion, but the Russians might consider the deal so they can crib ideas off of Dragon’s design features and pocket the cash.)

    Blue Origin is probably planning to bail since it snubbed the House human spaceflight hearing a couple of weeks ago.

    Boeing has leased itself the lobbying capability of the Florida Congressional Delegation and Space Florida. Draw your own conclusions there.

    Sierra Nevada’s Dreamchaser is a nice idea and they’ve got a nice shell game with the NASA centers in paying for research R&D, but they’re more of a dark horse every day.

  • EngineerInHouston

    Vulture4, you have no clue what you are talking about with respect to Dream Chaser. It is being prepared for atmospheric test flight next summer, being dropped from WK2. It is a lifting body.

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ November 15th, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    I do not see a poison pill. Although SpaceX will comply with NASA requirements enough to keep the business, it will push back and probably get NASA to drop some of the more eggregious demands

    I agree. NASA doesn’t have their regulations set in stone, and I think there will be a certain degree of “certification by similarity”, kind of like we did with Soyuz.

    Musk has also been quite vocal about getting crew transportation going, so I think he will be aggressive in bidding for a NASA crew contract. Remember he sued to stop the formation of ULA when SpaceX hadn’t even flown a rocket yet, so I don’t see him backing down now that they have a rocket and capsule that were designed for eventually transporting crew.

  • Matt Wiser

    OK: my two cents:

    1) You’re likely to see an established firm (Boeing) and a startup (probably Orbital Science). Two companies competing, each with their own vehicle and their own books of business. Redundancy is provided with two contracts, with a third firm (Space X) waiting in the wings in case someone really, really fouls up. Space X is a poison pill for NASA, no question. To satisfy Space X, they get the cargo mission instead of crew. But Boeing has the lobbying power, and they’ll use it to the utmost.

    2) The work of Congress only illustrates a previous point: The Administration proposes, and the Congress disposes. They are not a rubber stamp.

  • Coastal Ron

    I wonder if the political calculus is that since Congress gave NASA less than half the money they wanted to pursue four choices, that this will force NASA to down-select to two companies?

    The political calculus being that Boeing will be one of the two, otherwise they (Boeing) wouldn’t have “allowed” their Congressional representatives to go along with such a drastic budget reduction.

    Anyone else think this is a possibility?

  • GClark

    vulture4 wrote @ November 15th, 2011 at 6:46 pm:

    Excuse me? Wings? Really? How did they manage to land the HL-10, M2-F3, and X-24A & B on the runway at Edwards without wings 40 years ago then?

    (Ref: Hallion, Hypersonic Flight Vol 2)

  • NASA Fan

    Not sure folks on this blog are aware of this fact or not, so keep it in mind as you debate commercial crew: NASA is not going to let Elon re use a Dragon capsule to ferry astro’s to the ISS. No re-certification allowed.Brand new capsule each time. Not sure how that is going to impact his business model.

  • Florida Today on the budget compromise.

    Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, called the deal “good news” for the space program. “This budget makes a major investment in the next generation of human spaceflight,” he said.

    That’s only because he got all the pork he wanted for the Senate Launch System.

    “At first glance, we are concerned about the funding level for commercial crew, which is significantly below the president’s request and could extend the length of our dependence on Russia to get to space,” NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said Tuesday.

    NASA has agreed to pay Russia for seats on its Soyuz rockets to get to the space station. The price per round trip is about $62 million, according to the agency.

    Dale Ketcham, director of the Spaceport Research & Technology Institute at the University of Central Florida, called it a “very disappointing decision to direct more money to Moscow.”

  • Matt Wiser wrote:

    You’re likely to see an established firm (Boeing) and a startup (probably Orbital Science).

    I normally don’t respond to your posts, but this one is too easy. Orbital Sciences is commercial cargo, not commercial crew.

    Might want to at least get your basic facts right.

  • NASA Fan wrote:

    NASA is not going to let Elon re use a Dragon capsule to ferry astro’s to the ISS.

    Source? Link?

    Or is this just your wishful thinking?

    Considering SpaceX’s reusable heat shield technology (PICA-X) came from NASA (PICA), there’s no reason NASA would reject it.

  • The butchering of the FY 12 NASA budget proves what some of us have been saying here for months.

    When it comes to budget, NASA is low-hanging fruit.

    Congress only cares about pork for its own districts. Beyond that, they don’t care about space.

    As the years move forward, in my opinion they’ll protect SLS and everything else will be gutted. JWST will survive so long as Barbara Mikulski chairs the Senate space subcommittee, but once she loses that position the JWST will go in the dumper too — especially if the Republicans gain control of the Senate. The GOP-majority House tried to kill it this year, so if they get the Senate in 2013 then it’s adios to JWST.

    The future of U.S. human space flight lies with the private sector. We have to get off government funding before it’s too late.

  • Coastal Ron wrote:

    Musk has also been quite vocal about getting crew transportation going, so I think he will be aggressive in bidding for a NASA crew contract. Remember he sued to stop the formation of ULA when SpaceX hadn’t even flown a rocket yet, so I don’t see him backing down now that they have a rocket and capsule that were designed for eventually transporting crew.

    Let’s not overlook that SpaceX lost that lawsuit … but only because the court ruled he couldn’t be injured because he didn’t have a competitive vehicle yet.

    This is a quirk in the law I’ve seen before. Years ago, when I lived in California, we were fighting a proposed international airport that would be built next to our city on a site that was a closing military base. I suggested we sue DOD to block the land transfer, but was told that because they hadn’t built the airport yet we hadn’t been injured and therefore we couldn’t sue!

    SpaceX is five years down the line now. They have a viable Falcon 9. They have an impressive customer manifest. DOD has tried to extend the ULA monopoly, but after a recent GAO audit criticizing that action the DOD agreed to establish ground rules for other companies to apply. In retrospect, I wonder if DOD did that because they feared SpaceX might sue again and this time they could prove they’d been injured.

  • DCSCA

    This is meaningless. See wht the nubers are after the super committee’s time runs out.

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 6:29 am
    “The future of U.S. human space flight lies with the private sector.”

    Then it has no future as private sector human spaceflight has flown nobody since April, 1961 with ample opportunity to assume the leadership role. The risk outweighs the reward- that’s why government do it.

    “We have to get off government funding before it’s too late.”

    Nonsense. The flourishing HSF programs in the world today are funded by government. See Russia and the stirring PRC for details.

  • @Matt Non-the-Wiser
    “1) You’re likely to see an established firm (Boeing) and a startup (probably Orbital Science).”
    This is laughable. Orbital isn’t even vying for Commercial Crew. It’s interesting just waiting to see what new ludicrous fictions you come up with.

    “Space X is a poison pill for NASA, no question.”
    Another lie to add to the one in a previous thread wherein you said the Augustine Report “recommended” an Ares V type HLV.

  • DCSCA

    “SpaceX has the early lead…” <– this is just stupid. They have flown nobody.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 7:10 am

    They have flown nobody.” <– this is just stupid.

    Neither has NASA with the MPCV, Boeing with their CST-100, SNC with their Dream Chaser, and Blue Origin with their biconic capsule.

    You keep trying to push the notion that if something has never been done then it can never be done. Luckily no one listens to you, and they go ahead and do things that have never been done.

    Stop being a maroon.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 12:03 am

    OK: my two cents:

    1) You’re likely to see an established firm (Boeing) and a startup (probably Orbital Science).>>

    LOL its not even worth two cents. As others have pointed out OSC is not even working on a crewed version.

    it is truly amazing how you and Whittington and a few others let your ideology and stereotypes get in the way of facts…that sound you hear is every one laughing…RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    NASA Fan wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 5:24 am

    Not sure folks on this blog are aware of this fact or not, so keep it in mind as you debate commercial crew:

    Not sure you knew this but ALL of the CCDev participants are building reusable vehicles, and NASA is aware of that.

    NASA is not going to let Elon re use a Dragon capsule to ferry astro’s to the ISS. No re-certification allowed.

    NASA has not stated that it won’t use reusable vehicles – you are aware that NASA used to operate a fleet of reusable spacecraft?

    Now if you were to say that it will take NASA a while to work out the reusability regulations, I could see that. But never say never, especially when the industry is already building their vehicles to do just that – it wouldn’t be the first time private industry has pushed the government to do new things.

    Brand new capsule each time. Not sure how that is going to impact his business model.

    Not sure if you knew this, but the CRS contract calls out for new spacecraft for each delivery. SpaceX is charging NASA $133M for each delivery, and SpaceX retains ownership of the spacecraft. Musk has stated recently that he could charge $20M/seat to the ISS with a full load of passengers, so that would be $140M/flight – not a big difference.

    I could see a dual pricing system where SpaceX charges one price for one-time use spacecraft, and another for using reusable ones. Certainly the non-NASA flights will use reusable ones. Either way they will still have a big price advantage over Boeing’s CST-100, and Boeing will have the same reusability issues as SpaceX but with less of an order base to spread their costs.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 12:03 am

    You’re likely to see an established firm (Boeing) and a startup (probably Orbital Science). Two companies competing, each with their own vehicle and their own books of business. Redundancy is provided with two contracts, with a third firm (Space X) waiting in the wings in case someone really, really fouls up.

    It’s already been pointed out you don’t know your COTS from your CCDev, so I’ll skip that part.

    Really what you’re implying is that a contract will be awarded based on political influence instead of the merits of the bids. You do know that is illegal, right? That the loser can appeal the award and have the award invalidated? This has happened so many times with large DoD contracts that I thought everyone would have been aware of this out by now.

    In these hyper-partisan times, it can be hard to remember that we are a nation of laws, and large portions of the government work in non-partisan ways to enforce those laws. So it is with procurement law, which is why your fantasy won’t happen the way you want it to.

    Let’s also remember that Boeing was out-bid for the COTS contract by one smaller aerospace veteran and one startup, and so it’s not a lock that they’ll win with their CST-100. It’s also not a lock for SpaceX. And that’s the way most of us want it – pure competition for the best product and services, and the least amount of political intrusion into what should be a market-based decision – let the best vehicles win, not the best politically-connected ones.

  • If Musk wanted to get really uppity, he could likely pay another $200 million to get the Russian Space Agency or ESA to man-rate the capsule

    How would that work? What does it even mean? What would they do for him that he can’t do himself?

    All this statement shows is the utter meaningless of the phrase “man rating.”

    I could see a dual pricing system where SpaceX charges one price for one-time use spacecraft, and another for using reusable ones. Certainly the non-NASA flights will use reusable ones.

    All of the Dragons will be reusable, and reused. They just won’t be reused for NASA missions.

  • Interesting quote from Frank Wolfe Tuesday:

    “I wanted to make sure we were getting a handle on the Webb,” Wolf said Tuesday. “I never wanted to kill it.”

    Never know what to believe with this guy, especially as he led the charge to kill it. Is Frank Wolfe a friend of NASA and space program or not?

  • OK one more from Gerstenmaier on the annual cost of using Russian rockets

    “…$480 million per year beyond 2016, Gerstenmaier added. That’s because the agency buys rides on Russian Soyuz vehicles, which cost $63 million per seat. ”

    That’s about what Congress shorted Commercial Crew in 2012.

  • tps

    DCSCA wrote:

    Nonsense. The flourishing HSF programs in the world today are funded by government. See Russia and the stirring PRC for details.

    Flourishing? Where? PRC launches a man flight every two years or so. Would Russia if there wasn’t an ISS to go to?

  • Byeman

    “Let’s also remember that Boeing was out-bid for the COTS contract by one smaller aerospace veteran and one startup, ”

    That was due to Boeing using EELV’s. Existing launch vehicles (more so ULA) was excluded from COTS because of competition to Ares I

  • D. Messier

    NASA will be spending more money on developing future technologies, which are not immediately needed, than commercial crew, which they needed yesterday. Maybe they should have asked for $1 billion for CCDev and less for Space Technology. The CCDev budget might have settled at a higher level.

  • Coastal Ron

    Byeman wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    That was due to Boeing using EELV’s. Existing launch vehicles (more so ULA) was excluded from COTS because of competition to Ares I

    It also didn’t help that Boeing and Lockheed Martin were both bidding not only with their own EELV’s, but also using existing ESA or JAXA cargo vehicles. Neither bid allowed for significant reductions in cost for cargo delivery.

    My point with Boeings CST-100 is that in some ways it’s too simple, and that could be a losing strategy if NASA decides to pick one “safe” choice and one “long-term better” choice. The latter being Dream Chaser, since that advances a possible future upgrade path. The former (i.e. “safe”) is where Boeing would be competing with SpaceX, and SpaceX has advantages in capabilities and price.

    For instance, CST-100 does not have solar panels so it can only stay in orbit as long as it’s batteries allow, which means it is not as tolerant of minor docking delays as Dragon is.

    Guess we’ll have to wait and see what NASA decides to do with their smaller budget.

  • Michael J. Listner (@ponder68)

    So commercial crew funding was cut to feed two NASA white elephants: JWST and SLS. The question is when JWST goes over-budget again (it will) and the cost for SLS ballons, will CCDeV funding continue to be sacrificed to these two projects?

  • Coastal Ron

    Michael J. Listner (@ponder68) wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    The question is when JWST goes over-budget again (it will) and the cost for SLS ballons, will CCDeV funding continue to be sacrificed to these two projects?

    It’s a pattern that’s happened before. Griffin did it for Constellation, so it just depends on what Congress and the Administration see as important (or not important).

  • vulture4

    Commercial space and particularly commercial crew is the only program creating jobs on the Space Coast. It was proposed by the Obama Administration and slashed by the GOP. It’s interesting to see Sandy Adams down here trying to take credit for it when she cut President Obama’s $850M proposal by more than half. That $400M will only buy 8 seats on the Soyuz.

    It takes congress and the Administration working together to make space work. Unfortunately to the GOP winning the election is more important than space. Adams attacks Obama, often with absurd fabrications, every chance she gets even though he is proposing a policy that would help both the country and her district. The Space Coast needs a representative who puts country before party.

  • Frank Glover

    @ NASA Fan:

    “NASA is not going to let Elon re use a Dragon capsule to ferry astro’s to the ISS. No re-certification allowed.Brand new capsule each time. Not sure how that is going to impact his business model.”

    1. They could still be re-flown for NASA as unmanned ‘DragonLabs.”

    2. Let me re-phrase your first sentence: “NASA is not going to let Elon re use a Dragon capsule to ferry *their* astro’s to the ISS.”

    Other customers to other platforms may not have a problem with putting people on something that’s been in orbit at least once already. It’s perfectly reasonable to think SpaceX will eventually put a single capsule through multiple launches/time on orbit/atmospheric entries so that they can know with certainty and have data to point to, with respect to its durability.

    And after decades of Shuttle ops, it’s rather strange of NASA to imply that there’s some magic mojo to orbital vehicle re-useability…

    @Stephen C. Smith:

    He’s essentially right about this, I’ve seen various references to it, but these are the only relevant links I can find, offhand:

    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/07/space-access-11-spacexs-gwynne-shotwell/

    http://ian.kluft.com/articles/space-access-2011/110407-01-afternoon.html

    If anyone would know, it would be Gwynne Shotwell. If NASA policy on this has changed since Space Access 2011, I’ve not heard…

  • pathfinder_01

    For Dragon Cargo, no reuse at this time. There has been no decesion on Dragon Crew reuse.

  • Coastal Ron

    Frank Glover wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    If anyone would know, it would be Gwynne Shotwell. If NASA policy on this has changed since Space Access 2011, I’ve not heard…

    If you read the article, Gwynne Shotwell was referencing their CRS contract requirements, not announced NASA Commercial Crew requirements.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if “an abundance of caution” causes NASA to take a slow road on reusability, but there is no reason for them to reject it out of hand. This will be pushed by the industry, as all four of the CCDev participants are planning to reuse their crew capsules, and it will happen. After 30 years of laboriously inspecting and replacing fragile Shuttle tiles, NASA should be comfortable with the more robust commercial vehicle heat-shields.

    Regarding CRS, expect to see SpaceX bid used Dragons when they bid for the contract extension. They may add a price for new-only Dragons too, but the new vs used price differential will be hard to ignore.

  • Matt Wiser

    Ron, political connections go a long way; you know that and so do I. Even Musk has admitted he has only 1% of the lobbying power that Boeing or ULA have. And expect those companies to use their K Street assets to the fullest in this regard.

  • @Matt
    “Ron, political connections go a long way; you know that and so do I. Even Musk has admitted he has only 1% of the lobbying power that Boeing or ULA have. And expect those companies to use their K Street assets to the fullest in this regard.”
    And excessive influence and power of these lobbyists is good for the country, the American taxpayer and America’s space effort how? You are showing your true colors.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    Ron, political connections go a long way; you know that and so do I.

    Why are you so proud of this fact? Why do you accept and promote an unfair way of running our government?

    Even Musk has admitted he has only 1% of the lobbying power that Boeing or ULA have.

    More a fact than an admission. And there is a difference between paying someone to lobby for you versus having powerful people doing your bidding without needs to be paid directly. That is the power incumbents have, and it’s also the power that companies with long ties to political districts have too. These are all facts, not admissions.

    And expect those companies to use their K Street assets to the fullest in this regard.

    Again, you seem to revel in politicians making all the decisions about our space program, whereas many of us on this blog would rather America’s strengths – competition, hard work, good ideas – be the deciding factors.

    Of course politics is a part of everything that happens in every level of government. That is why we won’t really go far in space until our efforts in space are governed more by non-political decisions, which includes competition and market expansion of product & services.

    The question for you Matt, is whether you want the U.S. to go far in space? If so, then support those things that have the best chance for succeeding, not for pleasing the politicians. And no, they are not mutually exclusive.

  • ROBERT OLER

      Matt Wiser wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
    Ron, political connections go a long way; you know that and so do I. Even Musk has admitted he has only 1% of the lobbying power that Boeing or ULA have. And expect those companies to use their K Street assets to the fullest in this regard.”

    Finally something of value.

    Lobbying is a fine art…but in a year Musk will have a near duplicate of his crewed vehicle that will have flown a few times and Boeing won’t. That will make a large difference as the pressure to get something US flying with. Crew will mount. RGO

    Sent from my IPAD

  • Dennis

    guys, doesnt our government always go with the lower bidder, but ends up paying more. Look at the shuttle.

  • Matt Wiser

    Ron, I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat: NASA explores, Commercial supports and then exploits. In the ideal world, I’d go Moon first (including Earth-Moon Lagrange Points), then NEO, then Earth-Sun L Points, then Mars (flyby,orbit/Martian Moons, then the big prize: the Martian surface. IN THAT ORDER. Now, with FlexPath now the strategy, I’ll settle for Lunar orbit and L-Points, then the NEO mission that so many here are fond of. Followed by lunar return, Earth-Sun L Points, then Mars. The Moon is NOT the ultimate destination: MARS is. But the Moon should be the ideal FIRST destination. Got that? Good.

    Oler’s once again showing his disdain for any HSF. How original.

    Again, you cannot separate politics from policy. To assume the contrary is pretty naive. How many times must it be said? There’s a big difference between what YOU want NASA to do and what CONGRESS will allow NASA to do. NASA is beholden to Congress-they write the checks, after all. And NASA has to do what Congress says-or no money. If you don’t satisfy the politicians, they’ll vote against you and then where would you be, hmm?

    This site’s about space politics: it should be clear that the Congresscritters in both Houses who are from “space states” are very influential in determining Space Policy and procurement. Same thing on the Defense side.

  • @Matt
    “In the ideal world, I’d go Moon first (including Earth-Moon Lagrange Points), then NEO, then Earth-Sun L Points, then Mars (flyby,orbit/Martian Moons, then the big prize: the Martian surface.
    If there was a snowball’s chance in hell that SLS could do that and do it in a sustainable manner, most of us could live with that. Unfortunately, it’s going to create some jobs in the short run, but as far as actually accomplishing the kind of missions you claim you want it will be billions flushed down the toilet.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 17th, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Ron, I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat: NASA explores, Commercial supports and then exploits.

    Matt, you can say whatever you want, but you’re not in the decision loop. Also, your frame of reference for “how things should be done” is Apollo, and that was an aberration in the history of exploration.

    One thing is for sure, if we have to rely on NASA for our entire expansion into the solar system, it’s going to be a long, long time. NASA just doesn’t get enough budget to do serious beyond-LEO space exploration.

    The Moon is NOT the ultimate destination: MARS is. But the Moon should be the ideal FIRST destination. Got that?

    No, I don’t. Again, you don’t decide these things, so why should anyone agree with you? What you should be trying to do is persuade people, not dictate. Got that?

  • Matt Wiser

    Rick: Did you see the hit the Commercial Side took? Right now, Congress trusts NASA more than it does the commercial sector. Why? Melberg and I touched upon it a couple of months ago, but it basically boils down to trust and having a record. NASA, since 5 May 1961, has earned the trust of Congress and the Public in getting people to and from space safely. Granted, we have had two events involving loss of crew and vehicle, but those were from failures in NASA management and a failure to anticipate the terminal events on the design side. But even following both tragic events, there were no calls from Congress to terminate HSF, and Congressional support was there when it was needed. With all due respect to the private sector, they have yet to demonstrate with a crewed flight that they can do the jobs that NASA is paying them to do. And I’m not just talking about flying someone for two or three orbits as a demonstration before coming home; I’m talking about actually taking people to and from the ISS at least twice. That shows you have a capability that can be offered to NASA and other prospective customers. Do that, and the support will be there. Until then, Congress will allocate the money (it’s their job, not NASA’s or anyone else’s) as they see fit. NASA has the record to speak of re: launching and returning people to Earth: the private sector doesn’t. Simple as that.

    Ron: Clearly, we won’t change each other’s POV. But you still seem to think that Congress should just be a rubber stamp, and approve the projects without any kind of debate or oversight. It’s not just NASA that has this: DOD especiallly has problems with Congressional mandates to buy things that DOD doesn’t want. As long as NASA is beholden to Congress, NASA (along with every other government agency) has to do what Congress says when it comes to spending. They can’t spend money on a program, no matter how noble the intent, nor the benefits of the program, unless it’s authorized by Congress. They have to follow the law just like everyone else.

    Notice that I said “in the ideal world”: that’s where NASA gets twice as much money as it currently does. But since we’re on FlexPath for budgetary reasons and no other…I don’t like it, but have to accept it. We’re likely to see some Lunar Orbit and L-Point missions before the NEO, and I can live with that. As long as there’s a committment to lunar return so that we can practice and prepare for both the Martian Moons and Mars itself. Even Norm Augustine in his report mentions lunar missions prior to heading to Mars.

    Btw, did you see the hearing today? Senators were telling Charlie Bolden that it was Congress, not the Administration, that provided the direction and leadership moving forward. Those are the people you have to get on your side if you want their support for proposed programs, or increased funding for current ones. That’s how the system works.

  • @Matt
    “Did you see the hit the Commercial Side took? Right now, Congress trusts NASA more than it does the commercial sector. Why?”

    Has nothing to do with trust and you know it. Has everything to do with jobs and special interests at the expense of exploration that would indeed be a source of national pride. The fact that you in previous posts imply that does not bother you, says volumes about what your position really is. Especially considering the mischaracterisations by you in previous posts, like: Augustine Report recommended Ares V size launchers, Orbital as a crewed spaceflight participant, etc. People here don’t trust what you say, Matt. Why?

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 18th, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Right now, Congress trusts NASA more than it does the commercial sector.

    What an inane statement, and more of your “dartboard” reasoning (make a bunch of guesses and hope one is right) when you don’t have any facts.

    If Congress “trusts NASA”, then they would listen to NASA when NASA says that commercial companies are up to providing crew transportation. Even Congress has made it a law that commercial companies will be the primary method of getting our crew to the ISS – the MPCV is (by law) only a backup. How do you explain that? It’s not a trust issue, it’s money going to the “right” places.

    Granted, we have had two events involving loss of crew and vehicle, but those were from failures in NASA management and a failure to anticipate the terminal events on the design side.

    Again you’re making stuff up, and if you pick apart what you think happened nothing has changed to correct ” failures in NASA management and a failure to anticipate the terminal events on the design side”. The same things can happen with the SLS and MPCV. Sad but true, and mainly because Congress is forcing NASA to be something that it is not – a transportation organization.

    But you still seem to think that Congress should just be a rubber stamp, and approve the projects without any kind of debate or oversight.

    You got that wrong. That just goes to show you how much you don’t listen.

    As long as NASA is beholden to Congress, NASA (along with every other government agency) has to do what Congress says when it comes to spending.

    What’s this “beholden” crap? It’s clear you don’t fully understand how our government works. You know, the whole “separation of powers” thing?

    Nor do you understand that NASA’s budget is not being overseen by “Congress”, but by a relatively few in Congress. Those few, and a few on the Appropriations committees, are the small amount of people that decide what money NASA will get, and for what.

    And let’s not forget the politics of what Congress does. They are not making decisions based solely on “the greater good”, but also in part based on “MY greater good”. No science, no fully informed reviews, no consensus. Political boundary greed.

    However because NASA is such a small and relatively insignificant part of the U.S. Government, Presidents usually doesn’t spend much political capital on what Congress wants to spend on NASA. Hence why we haven’t gone back to the Moon in 40 years, and likely won’t in another 40.

  • Major Princeton Wright

    I think we must increase the investment in our space program. We own its success and its failures; it is ours. As stated in an earlier post from another, we have a world class space program. We just need to continuously evolve it so we remain the leader in space exploration. Further decreases in funding leaves us paying Russia more and more money to get to orbit. This money should be spent, by way of a “full court press”, at home with US companies building our future. It just makes sense.
    At the same time, our acquisition strategies need work. People are more focused on personalities and interests than spaceflight objectives. Personally, I agree with healthy competition. It makes us better as a nation. Competition bolsters the innovative juices of the people. By nature Americans are competitive, and it is through competition that we grow. We are as diverse as we are competitive. This is why we are the greatest nation on earth; hands down. That’s my take on things.

    Major Princeton Wright
    ILE student, Staff Group 33C
    Command and General Staff School

  • DCSCA

    Major Princeton Wright wrote @ November 18th, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Major, it’s ‘Back to the Future’ time for America’s space program. Go back to the origins of NASA, assembled from the old NACA and the threads of the early space and high altitude research in the late 40s and early 50s conducted by the USAF, the USN and US Army. This kind of space program- with expensive projects of scale; long term projects, can only bet sustained, with steady, adequate funding through the Age of Austerity. But as its structured now, with its Cold War raison d’etre over- just as the Cold War ended nearly 25 years ago– the NASA of today is a sitting duck for budget cuts. Tucking the ‘civilian NASA’ under the protective wing of the DoD with the shield of national security at least give it a chance of surviving. Because commercial HSF is gonig no place fast. They’ve demonstrated a reluctance to try to orbit and returned anybody wheras back in the early 60s, per Chris Kraft, military test pilots with the Right Stuff assumed the risk of flying into space on rocket-prepelled systems with a 60% success rate. Today, commerical HSF is inhibited by the fear of failure and their firms are clearly risk averse and will remain so until the financial gain outweighs the risk of failure. Profiteers make for poor rocketeers. THe best next step is likely Branson’s Virgin Galactic sub-orbital jaunts, akin to the X-15 of 50 years ago.

    Space exploration projects of scale in this era are beyond the capacity of the private sector to finance, particularly quarterly driven enterprises, where the primary goal is to make a profit.

    @ROBERT OLER wrote @ November 17th, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    …but in a year Musk will have a near duplicate of his crewed vehicle that will have flown a few times…” LOLOLOL inother ords, he’ll orbit nobody again. Flying an uncrewed ‘crewed vehicle’ is a hallmark of the Musketeers. – Pass the cheese and pass the time. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>