NASA’s Commercial Crew Development, or CCDev, program has so far relied on Space Act Agreements (SAAs), giving both the agency and participating companies greater flexibility to make progress on those systems. However, NASA officials indicated Wednesday that in future CCDev rounds they may shift to a somewhat more traditional contract, a move that has alarmed industry.

At a commercial crew forum held by NASA at the Kennedy Space Center yesterday, CCDev program officials talked about their plans for the next phase of the program, which would come next year. The “Integrated Design” phase would last two years and bring participating companies up through the critical design review on their systems, the last step before starting actual construction. This two-year phase would be followed by a Development, Test, Evaluation, and Certification (DTEC) phase, which would also include the initial flights to the International Space Station.

NASA’s original intent, according to Brent Jett, a former astronaut serving as deputy program manager for NASA’s commercial crew program, was to use an SAA again for the Integrated Design phase. “As the team dug a little bit further into the Space Act Agreement, we did find several key limitations,” he said. The biggest one, he said, is that NASA cannot mandate requirements under an SAA, including for crew safety, but only provide them as a reference for industry. “Even if industry chose to design to those requirements, NASA is not allowed to tie any of the milestones in an SAA to compliance with those requirements,” he said. “That means NASA cannot accept the verification of those requirements and certify the system the way we need to for commercial crew under a Space Act Agreement.” (COTS used something of a loophole in those rules that allow the agency to levy safety requirements when a NASA facility—the ISS—was involved; it would not apply for other phases of flight, including launch and reentry.)

NASA’s proposed new approach for the next CCDev round, according to commercial crew program manager Ed Mango, “combines the best elements of an SAA with the features of a contract that wil allow NASA to approve the tailoring of requirements and the certification of a vehicle.” This “non-traditional contract” would continue to use milestone-based payments and also exempt companies from the cost accounting standards of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). “We believe that we are much closer to an SAA in our approach than we are to a traditional contract,” he said.

Representatives of industry present at the forum strongly objected to this proposed approach, though, largely out of concerns that, even with the cost accounting exception, adhering to the FAR would be very expensive. “Instead of taking an American flag to the station, we should have taken the FAR to the station and left it up there,” said Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace, referring to an American flag flown on the first shuttle mission that was left behind by the last shuttle crew, to be retrieved by the first commercial crew vehicle to visit the station. “You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.”

Others challenged the NASA conclusion that an SAA could not be used for commercial crew. Bobby Block of SpaceX noted that his company had an option on its COTS award—not exercised by NASA—to develop a crew capability as part of an SAA. Brett Alexander, former president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, said NASA should provide more documentation to support its conclusion that an SAA would not work for CCDev, given that past analyses, by both NASA’s Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office, have concluded that SAAs are suitable for this. “[NASA's Office of the] General Counsel has not divulged what its legal reasoning is,” he said, “and I think they need to do that—not a couple charts, not things that you brief, but a legal brief that says, ‘here’s why,’ so that we can have that discussion.”

Mango and Jett said they were open to suggestions and feedback from industry on their proposed strategy for the next CCDev round. At the same time, NASA released yesterday a “Sources Sought Synopsis”, required under the FAR as the first step in the next phase of the CCDev program if they proceed under their proposed contract strategy. “I don’t want people to think that we’re locked in to this idea of a contract,” he said, but “we need to work in parallel so that we can continue to move forward.”

NASA shuttle managers will provide an update on the status the next shuttle mission this afternoon, although there’s been no indication that they are considering such a tank swap, instead electing to reinforce aluminum brackets in the tank, where several cracks had been discovered.

North of the border, Matt Gurney of Canada’s National Post is worried the US is risking the expertise NASA has built up over the years with its current plans and funding levels. “Under President Obama, NASA has become an afterthought. There is no plan in place to return to the moon or Mars, no manned missions planned to the asteroid belt,” he claims (although the president did set a goal of a human mission to a near Earth asteroid by 2025 in his April 15 speech at the Kennedy Space Center). He also oddly warns that “NASA might need a continuing resolution to stay afloat”: NASA, like the rest of the federal government, has in fact had to use CRs to “stay float” since the fiscal year started almost two and a half months ago. Unlike Hickam, Gurney doesn’t offer a three-step (or any-step, for that matter) solution to the perceived problem, beyond worrying that the current policy is “crippling America’s ability to explore – and if necessary, wage war in – space.”

Florida Today is hoping that the hearing emphasizes the need to fully fund NASA in FY2011. $300 million, the approximate difference in the agency’s overall budget between 2010 and 2011, “is less than a pittance in the mammoth federal budget” the editorial claims, but for the agency “it’s a must-have down payment on its future.” However, as the Orlando Sentinel reports, “almost no one thinks NASA will get the full $19 billion” in the original budget proposal (and authorization act); the only question is how big the cuts are, and how they’re distributed.

While action on the bill may be postponed, organizations and companies continue to take stances both in favor and against the legislation. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) released a letter supporting the House NASA authorization bill, calling it a “viable way forward for NASA and America’s human space flight program”, while at the same time the union’s web site posted a note citing a recent report that it claims “slams space privatization”. However, two other unions, the American Federation of Government Employees and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, opposed the bill in a joint letter, in part because of plans to bring it to the floor with minimal debate. “This kind of process pushes the arrogant perspective that parliamentary tactics can be used to supplant thoughtful legislative deliberation.”

Meanwhile, despite considerable differences between the House and Senate versions of the NASA authorization legislation, Lockheed Martin indicates that it supports both bills. There’s a good reason for that, of course: both include funding for a crewed vehicle much like, if not identical to, Orion. “We commend the cooperation between Congress and the Administration in achieving this important step to assure continued U.S. leadership in space,” Lockheed’s John Karas said in a statement. Just how much cooperation there is between the two branches of government, or even between the House and Senate, is an open question.

Your Help Urgently Needed to Save the Future of Human Spaceflight

If you care about the future of American space exploration, your urgent help is necessary. The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel to space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress. SpaceX does not have the enormous lobbying power of the big government contractors to stop them, however with your help the day can still be saved.

NASA’s Authorization bill (H.R. 5781) will be debated on the floor of the US House of Representatives tomorrow. Despite the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, H.R. 5781 authorizes over five times as many taxpayer dollars to fly NASA astronauts on the Russian Soyuz than it invests in developing an American commercial alternative, moreover at a time when jobs are sorely needed in the United States. Quite simply, this bill represents the sort of senseless pork politics that has driven our national debt to the point where our economy can barely service it.

The bill is expected to be brought to the House floor this Friday under a special “suspension of the rules,” which is a procedure that limits debate and amendments.

Telephone your Congressional representative right away via the House Switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 5781, and instead support the bill unanimously agreed to in the Senate last week.

Your five minutes will make a critical difference, ensuring an exciting and inspiring future in space travel! SpaceX rarely asks you to take action, so you know it really matters when we do.

Also, commercial suborbital spaceflight advocates have been sending similar requests for people to call their representatives and ask them to vote no against the bill.

Note that the message indicates that the legislation will be taken up by the House on Friday. The bill does not show up in today’s anticipated schedule of legislation, such as this one from the minority whip’s office, which also includes a forecast of legislation expected to be considered Friday. However, such schedules are subject to change.

Update: Space News has some more details on current efforts, including word that House Science and Technology Committee chairman Bart Gordon “is expected to meet with aggrieved lawmakers July 29 to address concerns with key elements of the measure”, including commercial crew development and technology programs.

In a memo to heads of executive departments and agencies, OMB director Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel wrote that “we must do more” to cut spending and “restore fiscal responsibility” to the country. In the memo, they ask that heads “identify the programs and subprograms that have the lowest impact on your agency’s mission and constitute at least five percent of your agency’s discretionary budget” and submit that information along with their FY2012 budget submissions to the White House in September, but as a separate exercise.

The memo makes clear that they’re not looking for agencies to simply make across-the-board cuts to achieve that five percent goal, but instead target specific low-priority programs. “To reach the five percent target, your agency should identify: (1) entire programs or subprograms; or (2) substantial cuts amounting to at least 50 percent of total spending within a program or subprogram,” the memo states. Selecting those programs, the memo notes, should be “based on their impact on your agency’s mission and relevant Presidential initiatives” and that “your agency should consider whether the program has an unclear or duplicative purpose, uncertain Federal role, completed mission, or lack of demonstrated effectiveness.”

The five-percent target is from what each agency received for FY2010 (excluding any supplemental funding); for NASA, which got approximately $18.7 billion in FY10, that means finding programs valued at $935 million or more. There’s no guarantee than any or all of those cuts would be included in the final FY12 budget proposal, but the request is raising eyebrows: as the Washington Post reported this morning, budget analysts said they couldn’t recall anything similar happening before, with agencies effectively being asked to volunteer their own programs for elimination.

In a separate budget guidance document for FY12 budget planning, the OMB directs agencies that “your overall request should not exceed a level of five percent below the discretionary total provided for your agency for FY 2012 in the FY 2011 Budget”. NASA projected a budget of $19.45 billion in FY12; the five-percent target means a cut of $972.5 million separate from the budget exercise described above. However, the memo adds that this is not necessary if “your agency has been given explicit direction to the contrary by OMB”; it’s not clear if NASA has received any such direction.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, released a brief statement about the launch that might best be catagorized as “damned with faint praise”:

This first successful test flight of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs. While this test flight was important, the program to demonstrate commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, which I support, was intended to enhance not replace NASA’s own proven abilities to deliver critical cargo and humans to low Earth orbit. Make no mistake, even this modest success is more than a year behind schedule, and the project deadlines of other private space companies continue to slip as well. This test does not change the fact that commercial space programs are not ready to close the gap in human spaceflight if the space shuttle is retired this year with no proven replacement capability and the Constellation program is simultaneously cancelled as the President proposes.

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), whose district includes KSC, released this statement (not yet on her web site):

The successful test launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is a significant step in the development of the commercial space industry. There is no doubt that commercial spaceflight will play an important role in the future of our efforts in space, and I believe private companies can bring new job opportunities for the Space Coast’s highly-skilled workforce. But we must both support the emerging commercial space industry and ensure a robust, NASA-led human spaceflight program in order to maintain our international leadership in space and keep our economy strong. I will continue fighting at every opportunity to minimize the human spaceflight gap, protect jobs, and ensure a bright future for the Space Coast.

Update 6pm: Elon Musk had this response to Sen. Hutchison’s statement in a post-launch teleconference with reporters. “I don’t understand why she’s trying to hurt a Texas company. We do all of our engine development and testing in Texas. We’re one of the fastest growing employers in Texas. Why is she trying to hurt a Texas company? That’s wrong, and the people of Texas ought to be aware of that.”

Musk also noted that the successful launch “bodes very well for the Obama plan. It really helps vindicate the approach that he’s taking.” He later qualified that a little bit, saying that the success “vindicates the president’s plan to some degree” but that “it doesn’t show with unequivocal accuracy that it’s correct.”

Update 7:30 pm: POLITICO has some feedback from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), long a vocal critic of the commercial spaceflight focus of the new NASA plan. He doesn’t appear to be exactly convinced of SpaceX’s capabilities after one launch:

Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, whose state of Alabama is also a NASA stronghold, further decried the launch as a display merely replicating what “NASA accomplished in 1964.”

“Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation’s human space flight program,” Shelby said. “As a nation, we cannot place our future space flight on one fledgling company’s definition of success.”

The article also notes that the launch was praised by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who said it showed that the company will be “full operation delivering cargo to the International Space Station a year from now.” Musk mentioned in the post-launch press conference that he received a call after the launch from Nelson, who was “very excited”, Musk said.

He then talked with reporters about that and other issues. “I keep recommending it, and I will keep asking the White House to go ahead and do that,” he said of an additional shuttle mission, which would use components planned for the “launch on need” support for the last currently scheduled mission. That launch, carrying the AMS instrument to the ISS, is now planned for late November, but Nelson said he believed that launch would slip into early 2011. That additional mission, if approved, would likely fly in mid-2011, according to NASA officials.

Turning to Congressional issues, Nelson said that his subcommittee planned to markup a NASA authorization bill by the middle of June. He said he didn’t know yet whether he would hold another hearing on the subject before the markup. Even if the authorization bill doesn’t make it through the whole Senate, he claimed, it would still provide direction to appropriators.

One key issue is likely going to be the emphasis in the administration’s plan to rely on commercial providers for crew transportation to the ISS. “You heard the skepticism among the members the other day about the commercial boys being able to man-rate their system without NASA basically having to do it for them,” he said, referring to Wednesday’s hearing by the Senate Commerce Committee. “I think, if I had to guess, I would say that you boys are going to have to show us that you can walk before you run,” he added, meaning that commercial providers first had to demonstrate the ability to transport cargo to the ISS before they could be considered for carrying astronauts.

In an earlier interview with a local television station, Nelson suggested that commercial crew funding in the budget proposal might be better used for continued testing of heavy-lift vehicles based on the Ares design. Nelson has advocated continued testing of Ares (or at least Ares-derived) vehicles as one way to mitigate job losses at the Kennedy Space Center with the shuttle’s pending retirement, as well as accelerate a 2015 deadline for a decision on a heavy-lift concept. “I think the question is out there whether or not we’re going to man-rate commercial rockets and instead use that $6 billion trying to do a shuttle-derived man-rated system such as Ares,” he told Central Florida News 13.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chair of the subcommittee and the only Democratic senator present at the hearing, said she was not yet sold on the new exploration plan. “I need to know more,” she said. “Congress needs to know more. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to the taxpayers, and we owe it to the astronauts to be very clear about what we’re going to do and how are we are going to it. I need to know more details.”

The ranking member of the subcommittee, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), expressed no uncertainties, and ratcheted up his rhetoric, particularly regarding the emphasis on commercial crew transportation in the new plan, in his opening statement. “Mr. Administrator, your plan does nothing more than continue the abdication of America’s leadership in space,” Shelby said. Later: “This request represents nothing more than a commercially-led, faith-based space program.”

Appearing to borrow some of the language from recent Senate debates on financial reform (Shelby is the ranking member of the Banking Committee), he called the extra $312 million for COTS included in the FY11 budget request “an additional bailout” for “failed commercial providers”. The plan to rely on commercial providers for crew transportation will also founder, he predicted. “The truth is, when troubles mount and a commercial rocket market again fails to materialize, the taxpayers will be called on to bailout these companies and their investors, a recurring theme within this Administration.”

Shelby also criticized NASA for “attempting to undermine the letter and the spirit of the law”, claiming the agency was already making plans to shut down Constellation contracts despite a prohibition from doing so in the appropriations bill for FY10. “Your destructive actions toward the Constellation program will only ensure that members cannot trust you,” he said. “You, Mr. Administrator, are creating an atmosphere where you and your leadership team have become a major impediment to moving forward.”

Bolden also got an earful from Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), who participated in the hearing although he’s not a member of the CJS subcommittee. Bennett took particular exception to a comment Bolden made in response to a question from Sen. Mikulski regarding safety that the “demonstrated reliability” of Ares 1, like Falcon 9 and Taurus 2, is zero, as none of those vehicles have flown yet. “You made a statement just now that I find incredible, when you say that the demonstrated reliability of Ares is zero,” Bennett said. He then held up a copy of the Time magazine issue last year that proclaimed the Ares 1 their invention of the year, reading a passage from the article that claimed that last year’s test flight “dazzled even the skeptics.” “That doesn’t sound like there’s no demonstration of reliability,” Bennett continued. “None of the other things that you talked about can match the tested perfection of Ares.”

Bolden responded that “perhaps we were not very good in explaining to people that Ares 1-X is not Ares,” then went on to explain the differences between the Ares 1-X that flew last October and the full Ares 1 that has yet to fly. Bennett appeared ready to step in and challenge, or otherwise respond to, Bolden’s comments when Sen. Mikulski interrupted. “In the interest of time we’re not going to have a debate.”

There wasn’t a debate, but by the end of the hearing neither Sen. Mikulski’s uncertainties were resolved nor the strong opposition by Shelby and Bennett were assuaged, although the discussion will continue. “Madame Chairwoman, I hope you would reserve the right to hold another hearing on this matter,” Shelby said at the end of the hearing. “I absolutely agree that we will hold another hearing,” Mikulski responded.