By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 18 at 6:18 am ET In July Virgin Galactic announced that it had sold 32 percent of the company to Aabar Investments, an Abu Dhabi-based fund, for $280 million; Aabar would also provide an additional $100 million for the development of a smallsat launch system. Aabar would get exclusive regional rights to host Virgin Galactic flights. The press release included a throwaway line common to such deals: “The transaction is subject to obtaining regulatory clearances in the United States and elsewhere.”
That provision, though, appears to be tripping up the deal, at least temporarily. The Times of London reported early this week that the deal was being held up and even jeopardized by US regulators, specifically the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). The deal was undergoing scrutiny by CFIUS, the Times reported, raising concerns among bankers that it could be blocked or called off. Why CFIUS was giving so much attention to the deal wasn’t made clear, although it seemed likely it had something to do with the protection of launch-related technologies that could also have military applications.
Today’s New York Times provides more details, including the fact that the companies agreed to withdraw and resubmit their application to CFIUS to give the arm of the Treasury Department more time to review it. The administration’s concern, as expected, is “whether sensitive rocket and missile launching and fabrication technology might be shared with foreign governments as a result of the transaction”, according to the Times, as well as making sure the deal wouldn’t violate the Missile Technology Control Regime. A Virgin spokesperson told the paper that the companies remained confident that the deal would eventually be approved.
Virgin isn’t the only NewSpace company that will be getting some regulatory scrutiny because of foreign deals. Yesterday XCOR Aerospace announced a deal to supply a South Korean organization with suborbital flight services using the Lynx Mark 2 vehicle the company is developing. While no investment into XCOR is involved, the company will still have to secure export control approvals to transfer the Lynx to South Korea. “To our knowledge, this is the first time that a US commercial suborbital launch vehicle will undergo the export licensing and approval process,” XCOR CEO Jeff Greason said in the statement announcing the deal. “We believe there is no better pathfinder than with our partners at the South Korean Yecheon Astro Space Center.” It still likely won’t be easy, though.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 17 at 8:44 pm ET The White House might be waiting for weeks—up until the FY11 budget proposal release in early February—to formally announce it plans for NASA’s future, but details are starting to leak out. Science magazine reports on its ScienceInsider blog this evening that the administration favors scrapping Ares 1 and 5 and instead developing a “simpler” heavy-lift vehicle that could enter service in 2018.
What that heavy-lift vehicle would be isn’t clear. The three versions of the Flexible Path option included in the Augustine committee’s final report had different options for heavy-lift: an “Ares 5 Light”, an EELV-derived heavy-lift vehicle, and a shuttle-derived heavy-lifter. None of them, though, had the heavy-lift vehicle ready to enter service until the early 2020s.
“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” a White House source told Science. However, it’s bound to make some—particularly supporters of the current Constellation architecture—cry out.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 17 at 1:13 pm ET An Orlando Sentinel report about yesterday’s Bolden-Obama meeting includes some new details about separate meetings the NASA administrator had on Capitol Hill earlier yesterday. Bolden reportedly told members and staffers that the White House was “favoring” including a $1 billion increase in the agency’s budget in the FY2011 budget proposal to be released early next year. That increase would be roughly consistent with what the Augustine committee proposed in its “less constrained” budget in 2011, but whether that increase would be sustained beyond 2011 (as it is in the Augustine proposal) isn’t mentioned.
The Sentinel report also mentions that the agency has prepared four white papers for the administration: a general report about the agency, technology development, the “challenges” of human Mars exploration, and “the risks of developing commercial rockets and a new heavy launcher”. Bolden also mentioned at the Congressional meetings that he did not expect an “immediate decision” on NASA’s future plans from the White House.
Update 8 pm: a Space News article this afternoon has some more details, including the plans that NASA is proposing to the White House. According to the report, NASA prepared four options for the White House to consider prior to Bolden’s meeting with the president, all of which were variations on the Flexible Path option from the Augustine committee report. And there’s more:
Government and industry sources told Space News that the option favored by senior administration officials would add $1 billion to NASA’s annual budget beginning in 2011, with most of the money designated for human spaceflight programs. It would also scrap the Ares 1 rocket in favor of outsourcing space operations in low Earth orbit to the private sector. Among the other scenarios Bolden went to the meeting prepared to discuss with Obama, these sources said, were options that ranged from either cutting the agency’s budget slightly or holding it flat to giving the agency a $3 billion-a-year increase.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 17 at 12:53 pm ET The Senate Commerce Committee, as expected, reported out of committee a bill extending commercial launch indemnification, according to a committee press release. HR 3819 would extend the existing regime, which indemnifies commercial launch providers for third-party damages that exceed a “maximum probable loss” level that they have to insure against, for three years, to the end of 2012. The relatively non-controversial bill now goes to the full Senate, which will have to squeeze it in, perhaps by unanimous consent, while debating health care reform.
The published opening statement of committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) did devote a brief portion to HR 3819:
And last but certainly not least, HR 3819, the Commercial Space Launch Indemnification Extension. Since 1984, the federal government has provided commercial space launch providers with liability protection for catastrophic events. This has been extended four times, and the latest expires this month.
Normally I do not support indemnifying the private sector for liability, but I recognize that our commercial space industry needs this federal protection in order to compete with others around the globe.
Today’s legislation extends that liability protection for another three years into December 2012 and I expect we will reassess the market before that time to see if the commercial space industry is ready to assume full risk and responsibility.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 17 at 6:46 am ET Most of the arguments for NASA’s Constellation program, specifically Ares 1 and Orion, have fallen along familiar lines: safety, performance, jobs, national prestige, and the like. Planetary defense and climate control? Not so much. But that’s exactly what NBC’s Jay Barbree suggested in a brief report yesterday about the meeting between Obama and Bolden:
If the two executives decide to stay NASA’s current course, the agency will have rockets and spaceships capable of stopping a future asteroid threat to millions, flying to and beyond the moon and, partnered with Russia and China, place in low orbit solar flux reflectors for climate control.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 17 at 6:45 am ET Yesterday’s meeting between NASA administrator Charles Bolden and President Barack Obama didn’t result in any announcements, or, for that matter, any apparent decisions on the future direction of the space agency. “The two spoke about the Administrator’s work at NASA and they also discussed the Augustine Committee’s analysis,” White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro told Florida Today. “The President confirmed his commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a sustainable path to achieving our aspirations in space.”
At the end of yesterday’s White House press briefing (skip ahead to about the 44:10 mark in the 45-minute press conference), press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the Bolden-Obama meeting, but offered few details, perhaps because the press briefing took place shortly before the meeting was scheduled:
Reporter: The president met with the NASA administrator today to talk about the Constellation program. Are the two in agreement now on about what to do with that program going forward, has a decision…
Gibbs: I have not gotten a readout from the meeting but we’re trying to see what has come of their discussions. I don’t know that we’ll have a ton on this today. Obviously, the budget here is being put together for next year. I know the most previous budget that was passed represented an increase in spending for NASA and the president believes that NASA plays a vital role going forward.
Reporter: Has that decision been reached yet and the two were talking about it? I mean, like, prior to the meeting, has the decision about Constellation…
Gibbs: Let me get a readout from the meeting before I…
Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Sen. Bill Nelson contacted White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel about reprogramming $1 billion in “leftover” stimulus money to NASA. This is only a third of previous requests by members of Congress to redirect stimulus funds to NASA; why Nelson was asking for just $1 billion instead of $3 billion wasn’t mentioned. The Sentinel reported that “no promises were made”, and it’s not clear that the White House has the authority to do any sort of redirection, given that the funds were specifically appropriated to various agencies by Congress.
Another obstacle to any additional NASA funding is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who told reporters Wednesday that she was not a “big fan” of human spaceflight. “I have not been a big fan of manned expeditions to outer space, in terms of safety and cost,” she said. “But people could make the case; technology is always changing.” Any additional spending for NASA, she said, would have to be evaluated against other programs, and “a judgment will be made as to what it does in terms of job creation.” She added that human missions to the Moon “would be fine” but appeared to be more skeptical about “personned” missions to Mars.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 16 at 5:30 am ET The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to deal with a bill Thursday to extend the existing launch indemnification regime. HR 3819, a bill that would extend the commercial launch indemnification regime for three years, is on the schedule for an executive session of the full commerce committee on Thursday at 10 am, along with a number of other bills and nominations. The House passed the bill in October on a voice vote with little debate; it’s likely the same is in store in the Senate. Timing is critical, though, since the current indemnification provision expires at the end of this month.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 16 at 5:20 am ET The space community is making much of an item in President Obama’s schedule for Wednesday: a 3:05 pm meeting with NASA administrator Charles Bolden in the Oval Office to “discuss the Administrator’s work at NASA and… the Augustine Committee’s analysis.” Does that mean a decision on the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program is imminent?
Well, maybe. While Norm Augustine claimed on Friday that some of the “decision documents” were now with the president, it’s not certain how close the administration is to making a decision. At a Space Transportation Association breakfast two weeks ago, Marshall Space Flight Center director Robert Lightfoot said that the agency was “in the process of assessing” the findings in the Augustine committee report in order to provide recommendations to the White House. Lightfoot didn’t give a timetable then about when those recommendations would be ready; this meeting could be an opportunity for Bolden to brief the president on those recommendations (if, in fact, they’re now ready.)
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if a decision is imminent, an announcement of that decision may not be. In fact, you can argue that right now—near the height of the holiday season, with most of the political attention focused on the Senate’s debate on health care reform legislation—would be a particularly bad time to make any announcement. Why not wait until after the first of the year (as President Bush did with his Vision for Space Exploration speech at NASA Headquarters in mid-January of 2004), either as a standalone event or in the State of the Union speech, prior to the release of the FY2011 budget proposal?
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 15 at 6:48 am ET ‘Tis the season… for lobbying, that is, regardless if you’re a proponent of the current “Program of Record” or the alternative “Flexible Path” option from the Augustine committee report. Boeing Space Exploration is encouraging its employees to voice their support for the current program, establishing a web site where they can fill out a form (on personal time, it emphasizes) that will send a letter to key members of Congress.
“Contact your elected officials and let them know that NASA and its space exploration programs are on the right trajectory,” the sites states in bold, red text. “As the President and Congress weigh the options for our nation’s future space exploration policy, it’s important our elected officials know that you support the Constellation and Ares rocket programs.” (Isn’t Ares part of Constellation?)
Meanwhile, the Space Frontier Foundation is gearing up to lobby, in part, on behalf of the Flexible Path option. As you may recall, last month the Foundation said planned to revive March Storm, the annual lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill that had been canceled in 2009, only to be rebuked by ProSpace, the organization that has run March Storm for most of its history. Instead, the Foundation is calling its effort First Flight, scheduled for the week of February 7th. (The announcement does note that the training scheduled for Sunday the 7th will be done in time to watch the Super Bowl.)
The First Flight agenda includes a number of topics, including increased funding for NASA’s Centennial Challenges prize program and “full funding” for the agency’s new Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program. The agenda also backs the Flexible Path option as part of an effort to restore “NASA’s focus on research and exploration”; it also calls for the cancellation of Ares 1.
First Flight will be the beginning of a busy month of advocacy on the Hill for space organizations. The Space Exploration Alliance is planning its 2010 Legislative Blitz, similar to March Storm and First Flight, on February 21-23, while ProSpace plans to resume March Storm on February 28-March 2.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 14 at 11:00 pm ET The debate over the Augustine committee’s work went to a new level this afternoon when a senator alleged that the committee was “tainted” by lobbyists for the commercial space industry. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) issued a statement Monday accompanied by a letter to NASA inspector general Paul Martin. The key paragraph of Shelby’s letter:
I am writing with serious concerns regarding the Augustine Commission [sic] staff, their vocation, and their conduct while serving as Commission staff. It has come to my attention that several members are, in fact, federally registered lobbyists and that some of these individuals have taken direct advantage of their temporary roles on the Commission to further their personal business. Further, there are lobbyists that worked as Commission staff that are not even acknowledged in the report. This is both disturbing and unconscionable.
Shelby goes on to ask Martin to conduct “a thorough investigation” of those claims. However, nowhere in the statement does he name the staff members of the committee (not commission, senator) that he claims are registered lobbyists “who represent the commercial space industry in their full time profession”. It does not appear that he’s referring to any of the ten committee members, who don’t show up in lobbying databases like OpenSecrets.org. The final report includes a three-page appendix of committee staff, but most of these people are NASA employees or technical contractors; no one there immediately stands out. The Orlando Sentinel tried to get more information from Shelby’s office but has yet to get a response.
If Shelby is serious about these accusations, it would seem that a good next step would be to identify exactly who these individuals are, so, if nothing else, the accused know who they are and have an opportunity to respond. Otherwise, this begins to look more like a bit of FUD thrown into the ongoing debate about the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program.
|
|
