Congress, NASA

Members of Congress support commercial crew deal

Several key members of Congress have expressed their support for a deal announced Tuesday between NASA and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) on the agency’s commercial crew program. That deal will allow NASA to make at least two awards in the next round of the competition and use Space Act Agreements, as the agency had sought to do, while agreeing to vet the financial viability of companies before giving them awards and securing a “first right of refusal” for any property developed under those awards.

“I am pleased that NASA has laid out a cost-effective plan to continue development of a commercial crew capability that maintains strong reliance on industry competition during the upcoming integrated design phase,” said Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, in a release by the committee. “This approach answers many lingering concerns voiced by Members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology about uncertainties plaguing the program’s cost, and its ability to mandate crew safety design features.” Hall added that the committee will hold a hearing later this summer on the progress NASA has made on its commercial crew efforts, although it’s not clear if this will take place before or after NASA makes the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) awards in July or August.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a strong supporter of the agency’s commercial crew program, said he was “pleased” with the agreement between NASA and Rep. Wolf. That agreement, he said, ensures “that the Commercial Crew Program will move forward quickly while preserving competition in the program.” When the full House debated the appropriations bill that funds NASA—which included report language by Wolf calling for a downselect to one major awardee and the use of conventional FAR-based contracts—Rohrabacher expressed his concerns about that report language in a colloquy with Wolf.

The agreement also has the support of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who said the deal matched ear earlier calls to downselect to two providers in the next round. (The deal does allow for a “partial” award to a third company as well.) “This is an important turning point that should keep development of commercial crew capability on schedule and on budget, and assure that NASA will also have the financial and human resources it needs to move forward with developing heavy launch capabilities for deep space exploration,” she said. (Hutchison, incidentally, is speaking at a Women in Aerospace breakfast this Tuesday, June 12, in Washington, which will give her the opportunity to expand on those comments.)

17 comments to Members of Congress support commercial crew deal

  • Still not quite sure why this matters, unless the Senate adopts the language and both sides agree to it in reconciliation. Then, it has to survive sequestration. And it’s still not enough money to accelerate the schedule so we can get off the Russian Soyuz any time soon.

    I wonder if they could use the 2.5 for just one vendor, e.g. give it all to SpaceX with an assurance the crewed version of Dragon is operational by 2015. Or give 1.5 to Vendor A and 1.0 to Vendor B.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Stephen – Legally they could. But that would be very bad, IMHO. We need more than one vehicle flying

    Giving it all to 1 company would be a bad idea, regardless of the company.

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 7th, 2012 at 8:01 am

    I wonder if they could use the 2.5 for just one vendor

    The “2.5” appears to be a maximum number of awards, whereas the previous desires of Congress were for less than that, so awarding all of it to just “1.0” or “1.5” vendors will likely be deemed as OK, especially if it were to go to Boeing (i.e. the “safe choice”).

    Absent sequestration, I expect NASA to make a “2.5” award though.

  • JohnHunt

    How is is it that a single senator can determine what is to happen simply by exchanging letters without a vote?

  • Robert G. Oler

    As was pointed out on the other thread by Charles…there is sequestering coming.

    it is going to be the fundamental issue of the campaign. none of this matters. RGO

  • Das Boese

    Great, but I suspect the suggestion of cancelling SLS and using the same competitive SAA approach for heavy lift development would be met with the usual excuses.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Das Boese wrote @ June 7th, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Great, but I suspect the suggestion of cancelling SLS and using the same competitive SAA approach for heavy lift development would be met with the usual excuses.>>

    Of course SLS is not about building a vehicle, it is about transfering national wealth to the “stakeholders”. RGO

  • This reads as “behind the public eye” Congress is wed to Boeing and is rushing NASA to start sending tax-dollars to them as soon as possible. So which others gets selected and which gets dumped?

  • vulture4

    I can’t imaging full support not going to SpaceX and Boeing, since they have the only credible designs. I would guess the .5 is for Sierra Nevada, possibly split with Blue Origin. But unless the total funding is raised to the Administration request ($850M) this is all a charade.

  • Coastal Ron

    sftommy wrote @ June 7th, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    This reads as “behind the public eye” Congress is wed to Boeing and is rushing NASA to start sending tax-dollars to them as soon as possible.

    Remember that both Boeing and Lockheed Martin submitted “safe” bids for COTS, and neither were selected.

    From my perspective, the CCiCap program is not big enough to get the “how many states are you spreading the wealth to” type scrutiny. Those tend to be the big military contracts.

    I think NASA will actually decide CCiCap based on the merit of the proposals, which is hard for losers to challenge (I’ve been on the winning side of DoD award challenges before). There are laws that govern this type of stuff, so while I may not agree with the outcome, I think it will be fair.

  • DCSCA

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 7th, 2012 at 8:01 am

    “And it’s still not enough money to accelerate the schedule so we can get off the Russian Soyuz any time soon.”

    There’s no reason to throw good government money after bad in the Age of Austerity for redundant crew access, as the ISS is doomed-to-splash in a decade or so and has failed to deliver anything close to justifying its expense.

  • amightywind

    Down select will occur as I said it would months ago, and the $100’s of millions that have been larded on Obama’s cronies will officially be for naught. After the Wisconsin recall vote it is pretty obvious than any NASA decisions are tentative until Romney takes office and the agency is reformed. Then (I hope) we gut ISS as GDub originally intended.

    Best of luck to the entrepreneurs at Orbital who are about to launch a Pegsus XL. It is a new era.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 7th, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    Best of luck to the entrepreneurs at Orbital who are about to launch a Pegsus XL. It is a new era.”

    so funny. RGO

  • @ablastofhotair
    “Down select will occur as I said it would months ago, and the $100′s of millions that have been larded on Obama’s cronies will officially be for naught.”
    You said a down select to only one would occur. That’s a far cry from what happened. You are so full of it.

  • Vladislaw

    A gust of wind from an alternative reality wrote:

    “and the $100′s of millions that have been larded on Obama’s cronies will officially be for naught.”

    LOL … when did Sierra Nevada, and Boeing become “cronies” of President Obama? I mean the exact date?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Rick – He also suggested that it would be FAR based – the Wolf/Bolden agreement preserves SAAs for development.

  • Googaw

    This reads as “behind the public eye” Congress is wed to Boeing and is rushing NASA to start sending tax-dollars to them as soon as possible. So which others gets selected and which gets dumped?

    What? I thought this program was “commercial”. You mean to tell me that the decision is going to be made by Congress and some government bureaucrats instead of the “market”?

    I’m shocked. I’m simply shocked.

Leave a 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>