By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 15 at 2:25 am ET Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) spoke on the Senate floor for more than 15 minutes Wednesday afternoon to discuss the current effect of the Ukraine crisis on US-Russia space relations, including comments by Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin on Tuesday regarding restrictions on the use of RD-180 engines and the life of the International Space Station after 2020. “I wanted to give the Senate and all of those in the press that have been asking me the best of what I could conclude at this point,” he said.
Much of his speech (available on C-SPAN; skip ahead to the five-hour mark) dealt with the history of US-Soviet/Russian cooperation in space, including the decision to make use of the RD-180 engine. He also mentioned the ongoing Defense Department study on RD-180 alternatives and fallback positions if the supply of engines is restricted, including stretching out the supply of the stockpile of RD-180 engines and shifting payloads to other launch vehicles.
“We’re going to have some major decisions to make here,” he said, include determining how to ensure assured access to space for both military and civil payloads. Some of those decisions could come as soon as next week, he said, when the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up its version of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. The House version of the NDAA, passed last week before Rogozin’s latest threats to the RD-180 supply, included a provision calling for development of a new liquid-propellant rocket engine that could replace the RD-180 by the end of the decade.
Nelson didn’t provide any strong opinions on how he felt those questions should be answered, although he may have dropped a hint by suggesting that, if the RD-180 supply is interrupted, some national security payloads could be shifted to the Falcon 9, which he called a “very successful” rocket. “These are the questions we’re going to have to answer,” he said, “and they’re going to have to be answered in the near future.”
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 14 at 9:45 am ET Lost in yesterday’s news from Russia was a major milestone for the commercial space industry: after more than a decade of effort, the State Department issued its interim final rule for the revised Category XV of the US Munitions List, which covers satellites and related components. Like the proposed Category XV list released nearly a year ago, the final revision to Category XV removes many commercial satellites and components for them off of the USML, and thus no longer under the jurisdiction of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR); they are now on the less-restrictive Commerce Control List (CCL).
While the proposed rule generated hundreds of pages of comments from companies, organizations, and the general public, the final rule didn’t change some hot-button issues. The one aspect of the proposed rule that attracted the most comments was a provision that retained human-rated spacecraft of any kind, both suborbital and orbital, on the USML. However, the administration elected to keep the provision in place in the final rule.
“For example, launching spacecraft to sub-orbit or orbit requires MTCR Category I items, upon which are placed the greatest restraint with regard to export,” the State Department noted, referring to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). “Spacecraft specially designed for human space flight that have integrated propulsion present another security concern, for such capabilities may be used for the purposes of weapons targeting from space. So, although these technologies and capabilities are used in commercial endeavors, they continue to merit control on the USML.”
The final rule did make some allowances on other issues, though. Industry sought to change the aperture limit on remote sensing satellites, above which such systems remain on the USML, from 0.35 meters to a larger value “more appropriate for current world capabilities and market conditions.” While the State Department didn’t change that aperture size threshold, it said it’s “committed to reviewing during the six months after the publication of this rule whether further amendments to the USML controls on civil and commercial remote sensing satellites are warranted, and seeks additional public comment on this matter.”
The final rule left in place language that keeps hosted payloads developed with Department of Defense funding on the USML, regardless of the nature of the payload itself. Industry had sought to change that, arguing that the source of funding has little relevance to the nature of any controlled technologies. The State Department did delay the date this provision goes into effect by six months (beyond the six-month inplementation period for the final rule in general), and notes that payload developers can ask the State Department to exempt payloads on a case-by-case basis if those payloads do not contain other technologies on the USML.
Although industry didn’t get everything they wanted in the final rule, they were, in general, pleased with what the administration published. “SIA congratulates the U.S. government on this truly comprehensive overhaul to the U.S. satellite export control system,†said Patricia Cooper, President of the Satellite Industry Association (SIA), an industry organization that has long advocated for export control reform. In the SIA statement, she also thanks the government officials “who undertook this thoughtful and wide-sweeping update.”
The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) expressed its support for the final rule, while also calling for the reauthorization of the US Export-Import Bank, which has played a key role in recent years in helping finance commercial satellite and launch deals. “This revision, together with the re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank by Congress later this year, would dramatically level the global market playing field and greatly enhance the prospects for U.S. companies selling space related goods and services overseas,” said AIA president and CEO Marion Blakey.
The Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF), meanwhile, supported the final rule in general, but expressed disappointment that human-rated spacecraft remained on the USML. “Moving these vehicles to the CCL would give industry an opportunity to pursue global markets, enabling contributions to the U.S. economy and the growth of our space industrial base,” said CSF president Michael Lopez-Alegria. “We thank the Administration for their work on this critical issue and look forward to continued revisions to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in spaceflight.â€
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 13 at 12:50 pm ET The saga of the use of the RD-180 engine in the United States took a new turn on Tuesday when Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin indicated that RD-180 engines exported to the US for use on the Atlas V could not be used for launches of military payloads. “Russia is ready to continue deliveries of RD-180 engines to the US only under the guarantee that they won’t be used in the interests of the Pentagon,” he said on Twitter, amplifying comments he made at a press conference.
It is not clear how such a ban on military launches alone could be enforced, since Russia does not control the engines once they are exported by NPO Energomash to United Launch Alliance in the US. Russia could, of course, ban exports of RD-180 engines entirely, but still could do nothing about the engines already in the US; ULA officials have previously said they maintain a supply to support at least two years’ worth of launches.
Rogozin’s comments on military use of the RD-180 was one of several space-related moves he made in apparent response to American sanctions on Russia, including him personally. He said that GPS ground stations in Russian territory would have to shut down on June 1 unless the US agreed to allow Russia to establish similar stations for GLONASS in the US. (The fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision banning ground stations for non-GPS satellite navigation systems unless the Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence certified to Congress such facilities were not also used for intelligence gathering or improving weapons systems, our of concerns proposed GLONASS stations would do just that.) He also indicated that Russia would not support continued participation in the International Space Station after 2020. Prior to the increase in US-Russia tensions because of the Ukraine crisis, Russian officials appeared to support operating the ISS until at least 2024.
Update 7:55 pm: the Russian government has posted a transcript of the press conference Tuesday featuring Rogozin and Roscosmos chief Oleg Ostapenko. A rough translation of the transcript backs up the statements in the media and by Rogozin himself on Twitter. In particular, Rogozin says the ban also extends to the NK-33 engine, although it’s not clear would be using that engine (Orbital Sciences uses an “Americanized” version of that engine, designated AJ26 by Aerojet Rocketdyne, but those engines are already in the US, and Orbital has talked about re-engining the Antares first stage rather than try to acquire more NK-33/AJ26 engines.) Rogozin also says the restriction on the use of RD-180 engines for US military missions would mean that Russian workers would not carry out necessary maintenance on engines already delivered the US.
If Rogozin’s comments reflect new Russian policy (which the publication of the press conference transcript on a Russian government website woudl suggest), that new policy has not made its way to officials in the US. In a statement emailed by NASA to selected members of the media, the agency said its operations of the ISS were unaffected. “We have not received any official notification from the Government of Russia on any changes in our space cooperation at this point,” the statement read.
ULA also said it was not aware of any changes in use of RD-180 engines on its vehicles. “ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions,” it said in another emailed statement. It went on, though, to base a domestic company for these problems. “However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station.”
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 13 at 6:42 am ET In this week’s issue of The Space Review, I provide an overview of the current debate about the RD-180 engine, including a blow-by-blow of the injunction briefly in place that blocked payments to the engine’s manufacturer, NPO Energomash, as well as the provision in the House defense authorization bill that would start work on a domestic replacement; all items previously covered here.
One additional part of the article was discussion about the Defense Department’s study of RD-180 alternatives. Mike Griffin, the former NASA administrator who is now the chairman and CEO of Schafer Corporation, served as deputy chair of the RD-180 Study Group and provided some information about the committee’s work at last week’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting. Since the report isn’t public yet (it will be released soon, he said), he couldn’t go into details about its contents, but did provide some of his own views on the subject.
According to Griffin, the committee did not limit itself to solely studying domestic production of the RD-180, or even a replacement large liquid oxygen/kerosene engine, but also considered options for engines using other hydrocarbon fuels. “God has not published an 11th Commandment on a stone tablet that the hydrocarbon be kerosene, and there are extant now at least two other manufacturers of engines” who expressed interest in participating in any future competition to build such an engine, he said. He didn’t identify those companies, but SpaceX has previously discussed plans to develop an engine called Raptor that would generate several times the thrust of its current Merlin engines, but use methane instead of kerosene.
Griffin said he didn’t doubt that US companies could produce an RD-180 engine. “There’s been enough investment in the US side to replicate the coating and metallurgy technology that goes into the RD-180,” he said. “I think the national-level question is not could we, but should we,” citing the relatively old design of the engine and the fact that the license to produce the engine in the US expires in 2022. “It might be renewed, but maybe it won’t.â€
Any decision about producing the RD-180 in the US, or building a large hydrocarbon engine, needs to be part of a broader strategic discussion about national security space launch, Griffin argued. “For national security purposes, we require two independent families of launch vehicles,†he said, referring to long-running national policy. Reality, though, has fallen short of that, he noted, such as the lack of an alternative to the Delta IV Heavy for the largest payloads. “Do we really want to have two families and pay the cost of that?â€
“It will ultimately come down to what people—policymakers—decide what they want to have for a national security launch infrastructure.â€
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 9 at 3:23 pm ET On Thursday, the full House Appropriations Committee marked up the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill that the CJS subcommittee approved last week. The full committee didn’t adopt any amendments that affected the NASA provisions in the bill, although Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) introduced, then withdrew, an amendment to add $85.5 million to NASA’s Space Technology program, bringing it up to the level in the administration’s request. (NASA’s Glenn Research Center is in Kaptur’s district, and she argued that the center would be disproportionally affected by the funding cut in the program.) Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the CJS subcommittee, said he would work with Kaptur to see if there is a way to increase funding for the account before the bill goes to the House floor, possibly late this month.
Shortly after the committee completed its work on the bill Thursday afternoon, Robert La Branche, senior legislative assistant to Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), a member of the committee’s CJS subcommittee, spoke at the meeting of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). While speaking only for himself, he provided some insights into some elements of the appropriations bill, including a provision in the report accompanying the bill calling on NASA to downselect to a single company in the next round of the commercial crew program.
“While this may not be ideally the best situation, to pare down to one provider,” he said, “with only one access for crew to the International Space Station, from Russia, it is incredibly important that we get Americans launched from American soil on American vehicles as soon as possible. Paring down the number of competitors will help things along greatly because the funding won’t be split.”
Some COMSTAC members, in a question-and-answer session that followed, emphasized the benefits of competition. “I will confidently predict that if this policy recommendation of a downselect becomes the policy of the United States, you will find that you have saved neither money nor time,” said Jeff Greason, CEO of XCOR Aerospace. La Branche said that this issue was an “ongoing discussion” that will later involve negotiations with the Senate when it crafts its appropriations bill in the coming weeks.
La Branche also brought up another NASA issue with the appropriations bill: the committee’s skepticism about the agency’s exploration plans. “What we don’t have is a compelling destination,” he said, expressing doubts about the utility and level of interest in NASA’s asteroid mission plans beyond its ability to mature some technologies, like solar electric propulsion. “I believe that where we can move forward with an overall strategy, and where our commercial partners can help us, is in the realm of a cislunar mission, or a lunar surface mission, on the way to Mars.”
“Nobody is excited about the Asteroid Retrieval Mission,” he said later at the COMSTAC meeting. “This does not inspire, in my mind.”
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 9 at 7:36 am ET Earlier this week the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee marked up its fiscal year 2015 spending bill. The bill includes funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including $16 million for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). That’s less than the $16.6 million requested for FY2015 by the administration and the $16.3 million it received for FY2014.
At first glance, that cut appears minor. However, at this week’s meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), an industry group that advises FAA/AST, both FAA and industry officials warned that the proposed cut, or even flat funding levels, could have significant negative impacts on the commercial space industry given current and projected growth in launch activities.
“The number for the FAA is pretty disturbing from the House,” said Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace, chairman of COMSTAC, at a public meeting of COMSTAC working groups on Wednesday in Washington. “It doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but with increasing costs and increased activity, a lower figure for the FAA could be quite devastating.”
Gold went on to argue that the potential impact of the cuts isn’t recognized even by people within the industry. “I believe we could face a triage situation,” he suggested, where licenses for commercial cargo missions to the ISS are prioritized over those for suborbital commercial vehicles or proposed new spaceports. “We could end up waiting in line as a commercial industry.”
George Nield, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation, did not directly address the proposed House cut for his office during a speech at the full COMSTAC meeting on Thursday, but did warn flat budgets would make it difficult for his office to keep up with the growth in commercial launch activity. He noted that while there were only three launches in fiscal year 2012 that took place under commercial launch licenses or experimental permits, there were 18 such launches in fiscal year 2013, and likely even more in 2014 and beyond.
“If we assume that our budget will continue to remain flat, as it has for the last few years, keeping up with the needs of industry is going to be challenging, to say the least,” Nield said. So far, he said that AST has kept up with the growing workload, and has made efforts to streamline its work. “But frankly, I don’t consider the current situation to be sustainable.”
As Gold suggested Wednesday, Nield said that “some kind of prioritization” may be needed to determine which licensing and other activities get first access to the office’s resources. “It’s not a good situation for any of us, obviously,” Nield said.
Michael Romanowski, director of the Space Integration Office at FAA/AST, said later at the COMSTAC meeting that the office was looking at ways to improve the licensing process in order to reduce the workload, given the office’s flat budget and workforce. “With the workload we’re facing, licensing is going to become a significant barrier,” he said. AST is required by law to make a determination on a launch license within 180 days of that license being considered substantially complete, but he cautioned that may soon not be possible under the current system.
(Disclosure: the author has previously worked with FAA/AST, but is not currently.)
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 8 at 4:29 pm ET The US Court of Federal Claims issued an order today formally lifting the injunction on payments to and from NPO Energomash for RD-180 engines used by United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket. In the two-page order, Judge Susan Braden said her decision was based on the letters she received from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Treasury stating that they had not found that payments to Energomash contravened the sanctions on Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. The court also received a letter from Bradley Smith, chief counsel for Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department, with similar language to the previous ones, noting that no “affirmative determination” that Rogozin controls NPO Energomash had been made by his office or elsewhere in the government.
Based on the opinions in those letters, Judge Braden dissolved the April 30 injunction. However, she added that “if the Government receives any indication, however, that purchases from or payment of money to NPO Energomash by ULS, ULA, or the United States Air Force will directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661, the Government will inform the court immediately.”
While the order became available Thursday afternoon, news that the court had ended the injunction reached attendees of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting in Washington around midday, ironically, during a presentation on an ongoing Defense Department study of RD-180 alternatives by former NASA administrator Mike Griffin. During the question-and-answer session of the presentation, Dan Collins, ULA chief operating officer and a member of COMSTAC, announced he hed received an email with the news the injunction was lifted; attendees greeted that announcement with a round of applause. “I’m personally pleased to hear that,” Griffin said.
“Me, too,” Collins responded.
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 8 at 5:52 am ET The US Court of Federal Claims has scheduled a hearing for 10 am Eastern this morning regarding the motion filed by the US government on Tuesday to lift the preliminary injunction blocking payments to Energomash, the Russian company that manufactures the RD-180 engines used on the Atlas V. In filings with the court Tuesday, government lawyers provided letters from officials in the Departments of State and Treasury that argued that sanctions that applied to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin didn’t block payments to Energomash, since the US government hadn’t made an “affirmative determination” that Rogozin controlled, and profited from, Energomash.
In a filing with the court late Wednesday, SpaceX’s lawyers disputed the government’s argument that the injunction should be lifted. “What Defendant has provided instead with its motion are three nonresponsive letters stating that these agencies have simply not yet made any determination one way or the other regarding whether payments to NPO Energomash violate Executive Order 13,661,” its response states, arguing that the injunction should remain in place until the government agencies do make a determination, one way or the other, about whether the sanctions against Rogozin apply to payments to Energomash.
United Launch Alliance (ULA), in a statement posted on its website, backed the government’s motion to lift the injunction, while also firing a shot at SpaceX. “Unfortunately, SpaceX has made many public but unfounded speculations to create negative perceptions of a competitor solely for purposes of its own self-interest,” ULA stated. “This frivolous lawsuit caused unnecessary distraction of our executive branch leaders during a sensitive national security crisis.”
Meanwhile, the Air Force has spoken publicly about SpaceX’s original lawsuit for the first time since Elon Musk announced plans to file the case nearly two weeks ago. Speaking to Aviation Week, Lt. Gen. Charles R. Davis, military deputy in the Air Force’s acquisition office, defended the decision to seek a block buy EELV contract with ULA, arguing it saved money and that, when the contract was signed, there were no other qualified competitors. Musk had previously argued that the Air Force should have delayed the contract, but Davis said that wasn’t an option. “If we had delayed that [we would] award a lot less and pay a lot more,” he told the magazine.
Davis did say that SpaceX is on track to win certification for EELV-class launches, which he said expects to be completed by next March although “we’d love to have them done by the end of December of this year.” He said the Air Force and NRO are trying to schedule a launch contract to be awarded next year so that SpaceX would be eligible to compete for it.
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 7 at 7:17 pm ET In advance of Thursday morning’s markup of the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill by the full House Appropriations Committee, the committee released the report accompanying the bill, which offers more details on the spending levels for NASA and other agencies in the bill. First, an updated version of the table comparing the President’s budget request (PBR) for fiscal year 2015 with the spending levels in the bill:
| Account |
FY15 PBR |
House CJS Draft |
PBR-House Diff |
| SCIENCE |
$4,972.0 |
$5,193.0 |
$221.0 |
| - Earth Science |
$1,770.3 |
$1,750.0 |
-$20.3 |
| - Planetary Science |
$1,280.3 |
$1,450.0 |
$169.7 |
| - Astrophysics |
$607.3 |
$680.0 |
$72.7 |
| - JWST |
$645.4 |
$645.0 |
-$0.4 |
| - Heliophysics |
$668.9 |
$668.0 |
-$0.9 |
| SPACE TECHNOLOGY |
$705.5 |
$620.0 |
-$85.5 |
| AERONAUTICS |
$551.1 |
$666.0 |
$114.9 |
| EXPLORATION SYSTEMS |
$3,976.0 |
$4,167.0 |
$191.0 |
| - SLS/Orion |
$2,784.4 |
$3,055.0 |
$270.6 |
| - Commercial Spaceflight |
$848.3 |
$785.0 |
-$63.3 |
| - Exploration R&D |
$343.4 |
$327.0 |
-$16.4 |
| SPACE OPERATIONS |
$3,905.4 |
$3,885.0 |
-$20.4 |
| - ISS |
$3,050.8 |
$3,040.0 |
-$10.8 |
| - Space and Flight Support |
$854.6 |
$845.0 |
-$9.6 |
| EDUCATION |
$88.9 |
$106.0 |
$17.1 |
| CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT |
$2,778.6 |
$2,779.0 |
$0.4 |
| CONSTRUCTION |
$446.1 |
$446.0 |
-$0.1 |
| INSPECTOR GENERAL |
$37.0 |
$34.0 |
-$3.0 |
| TOTAL |
$17,460.6 |
$17,896.0 |
$435.4 |
What attracted the most attention was the funding for planetary science: $1.45 billion, an increase of nearly $170 million over the administration’s request. “NASA’s request for Planetary Science once again represents a substantial decrease below appropriated levels and would have a negative impact on both planned and existing missions,” the report states. The report calls on NASA, which is ramping up plans to issue an announcement of opportunity (AO) for its Discovery program of low-cost planetary science missions later this year, to plan to release another Discovery AO during fiscal year 2016.
The committee is also skeptical of NASA’s interest in a lower-cost (no more than $1 billion) Europa mission, for which NASA issued a request for information (RFI) last week. “[T]he Committee has not seen any credible evidence that such a cost cap is feasible and directs NASA not to use further project resources in pursuit of such an unlikely outcome,” the report states.
That proposed increase was warmly welcomed by The Planetary Society, which has been lobbying in Washington this week for more planetary science funding. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a member of the CJS appropriations subcommittee, also praised the increase in a statement. “With this funding increase, we will be able to keep Mars 2020 on track and begin an exciting new mission to Europa, two of the science community’s highest priorities,” he said. “We should also be able to continue the operation of craft that have exceeded their estimated lives but continue to produce valuable science,” a reference to the pending senior review of ongoing planetary science missions, including Cassini and Curiosity.
In astrophysics, the bill provides $70 million to the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), an airborne observatory that the administration sharply cut in its FY15 proposal, threatening to put the aircraft into mothballs. The $70 million provided is less than the $84.4 million SOFIA received for FY14, but the committee said in the report that the funding it offers should be enough to support its fixed costs and “a base level of scientific observations” while allowing NASA to continue seeking new partners to fill in the rest.
Elsewhere in the NASA section of the report, the committee criticized NASA for “requesting arbitrarily reduced funding levels” for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket, resulting in “an inefficient flat-line budget profile.” The committee rectifies this by funding SLS at the same level as the final FY14 appropriations bill: also a flat line, but at a higher level.
The committee continued its skepticism of NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) plans, arguing that it “still has outstanding questions and concerns about the ARM’s costs and feasibility, as well as its strategic relevance and potential to generate external support from the public and international collaborators.” The bill directs NASA to spend money appropriated for ARM only “on those portions of the ARM mission that are also applicable to other current NASA programs, clearly extensible to other potential future exploration missions, such as to the Moon, Phobos/Deimos or Mars, or have broad applicability to other future non-exploration activities, such as in-space robotic servicing.” In a provision similar to one in the NASA authorization bill recently passed by the House Science Committee, the report calls for a study of the “Mars Flyby 2021″ concept for the EM-2 mission, currently the first crewed SLS/Orion flight.
The bill would provide commercial crew with $785 million, less than 10% below the administration’s request of $848 million. That generosity, though, comes with conditions, notably, a call for NASA to select only a single company in the next round of the competition, Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap), for which NASA is now evaluating proposals with a selection due in August. “The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse,” the report states, also pressing NASA to “incentivize further private investment in the program” and provide the committee with the prices the companies would charge NASA for ferrying astronauts to and from the station once the contract selection blackout ends.
By Jeff Foust on 2014 May 7 at 8:27 am ET Later this morning the House Armed Services Committee will mark up its draft fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes funding for the Defense Department and contains various policy provisions.
One of the biggest space-related provisions, located in the Strategic Forces section, is to authorize work on a new liquid-propellant rocket engine that would, in effect (although not explicitly stated), be a replacement for the Russian-manufactured RD-180 that has been at the center of so much controversy in recent months. The engine would permit, in the bill’s language, the “effective, efficient, and expedient transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program.” The engine, to be completed by 2019, would be developed under a “full and open competition” and be available for purchase by all US space launch companies.
The subcommittee authorized $220 million for the program in its draft, although in the chairman’s mark released Monday that amount appears to be decreased by $23 million, a reduction “for liquid engine combustion technologies and advanced liquid engine technologies,” according to the tables in that portion of the bill.
The original Strategic Forces draft features a section on the EELV program that included a “sense of Congress” provision endorsing both the current block buy contract and efforts to support competition in the program. The chsirman’s mark, though, deleted that provision, while retaining the rest of the section, which requires notification of Congress of any change in the program.
Elsewhere, the bill would require the US Air Force to launch the last of the remaining DMSP weather satellites, DMSP-20, currently in storage. The bill would reduce authorized funding for a follow-on military weather satellite program from $39.9 million to $5 million, while authorizing an additional $135 million for the EELV program to cover the procurement of a launch of DMSP-20.
The bill also provides new life for the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office, which the administration sought no funding for in its fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. The NDAA would authorize $30 million for the office to cover its operations as well as the launch of the ORS-5 satellite it is developing.
|
|
