By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 18 at 7:09 am ET Controversial comments attributed to the CEO of a German satellite manufacturer have cost him his job. Late Monday the board of OHB-System announced it was removing Berry Smutny from the position of CEO, effective immediately. (The release says he is “suspended”, but the implication in the release and media reports, such as this Deutsche Welle article, is that the suspension is permanent.) Smutny’s dismissal is linked to comments he allegedly made to US diplomats in Germany revealed in a leaked cable obtained by WikiLeaks and published last week by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
And what did Smutny say that was so controversial? He was critical of Europe’s Galileo satellite navigation system in an October 2009 conversation with US officials, calling it a “a waste of EU tax payers money championed by French interests” and “a stupid idea that primarily serves French interests”. (He also claimed that an irony in German investment in Galileo, which could be used to improve the accuracy of missiles, is that some French missiles with nuclear warheads are aimed at Berlin.) What made the comments particularly controversial is that, a year ago, OHB-System, in cooperation with SSTL, won a contract to build the first 14 Galileo satellites. Smutny did say in the cable that he expected OHB to win a Galileo satellite order and, if so, the company would deliver on time and on budget, although he said there was a possibility the contract would be canceled if the overall costs grew to a level that “the EC can no longer stomach”.
When the cable was released last week, OHB-System issued a statement denying that Smutny made those comments and playing up the company’s “excellent relations” with French companies and institutions. However, in Monday’s statement, the OHB board “saw no alternative to this decision in order to effectively avert any further damage to the company on the part of customers, political representatives and the public at large.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 15 at 8:12 am ET In its report to Congress earlier this week, NASA concluded that its “Reference Vehicle Design” for a heavy-lift vehicle, using five-segment SRBs and five SSMEs on the external tank based core stage, would not fit into the cost and schedule requirements of the NASA authorization bill. The report, though, did not indicate by how much that proposed design misses the mark, something Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson criticized a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden on Thursday. Just how much would that HLV cost to build?
In a post on his blog at Air & Space magazine, Paul Spudis finds some answers in the form of a preliminary cost and schedule assessment performed by NASA last year. A 100-metric ton HLV like the one mentioned in the NASA report this week, with five-segment SRBs and five SSMEs, would cost $14.9 billion to develop; tacking on an upper stage to increase its lift to 130 metric tons would add $2 billion to the development cost. The 100MT version would be ready by the beginning of 2018, one year past the authorization bill’s deadline, while the 130MT version would not be available until three years after that.
Spudis uses his post to advocate for an alternative concept also studied last year: a shuttle-derived sidemount vehicle. That vehicle could lift 70-100 metric tons, according to the NASA study, but cost only $7.6 billion to develop and be ready by the authorization act’s deadline of the end of 2016. That cost estimate would appear to fit easily within the authorization act’s budget profile as well, which provides $6.9 billion through FY2013. Spudis adds that a sidemount vehicle could be upgraded to meet the ultimate goal of 130 tons through the use of five-segment SRBs, four SSMEs, and an extended tank.
“Curiously, the new NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was remarkably specific about the requirements of a new heavy lift vehicle the agency had been directed to build,” Spudis writes. However, the report language accompanying the bill was also very specific, in such a way that works against a sidemount concept. As noted here back in August, the report accompanying the Senate version of the authorization bill—the version passed by the House and signed into law in the fall—was very specific about the kind of HLV they were looking for: (emphasis added)
The Committee anticipates that in order to meet the specified vehicle capabilities and requirements, the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle. The Committee will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section.
The HEFT concepts included in the NASA report, as well as the Jupiter designs proposed by the DIRECT team, would satisfy that language. A sidemount concept, though, not being inline, would violate that language. Report language does not contain the force of law, but not being responsive to it would likely raise questions among those in Congress who got that section into the report (as noted by the “closely monitor” language in the same section). So what exactly did members who inserted that language in the bill have in mind, if at least the existing NASA HEFT HLV concepts technically satisfy the report language but fall short on cost and schedule?
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 13 at 10:21 pm ET The Senate Commerce Committee released today a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden by Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chair of the committee’s space subcommittee, and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), ranking member of the full committee. The letter goes in more detail to the statement issued by the committee Wednesday that advised NASA that building a heavy-lift rocket and crew spacecraft “is not optional” despite the NASA report’s conclusions that the effort could not be completed on the budget and by the deadline in the NASA authorization act.
“The report contains no specific justification on analyses to validate the claim that ‘none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions,'” Nelson and Hutchison write. They argue that by “building on current capabilities and previous investments, and making effective use of NASA’s existing workforce and contracts to focus on the immediate development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, NASA can reach initial operating capability much more quickly than by conducting another vehicle study.” They add that by doing so, “NASA can reach initial operating capability of a scalable heavy-lift launch vehicle with the funds authorized, especially if the agency refines its procurement, contract management, and oversight processes.” (emphasis added)
The letter also acknowledges the letter sent to Congress on Thursday by NASA’s Inspector General, asking for the repeal of a provision in the FY2010 appropriations bill that prevents NASA from canceling unnecessary elements of Constellation. They agree that action should be taken by Congress, saying they will “work with out Appropriations Committee colleagues to assist them in achieving this as quickly as possible.” In the meantime, though, they urge NASA to move ahead on Constellation-heritage programs related to the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
Separately, Congressman Ralph Hall (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, issued his own statement about the NASA report to Congress. “The report recently provided to Congress by NASA on its heavy lift development is only the beginning of a long conversation Congress will have with the Agency regarding the future of the human space flight program,” Hall said, blaming the administration for canceling Constellation and not adequately funding a replacement. “We must work to restore U.S. capability to get American astronauts to and from the International Space Station, once the Shuttle is retired later this year, and I’m not convinced that the commercial market is ready to fill that role.”
Hall also had comments similar to Nelson and Hutchison about the NASA IG letter. “NASA should be taking steps to prioritize spending on projects that are likely to have applicability in a future heavy lift vehicle, in an effort to maintain production lines and reduce inefficient use of taxpayer funds,” he said, something that the agency already appears to be doing, according to the IG letter. “However, I agree with the NASA OIG that this is an issue that the Appropriators will need to deal with in an expedient manner, in order to avoid wasteful spending.”
Hall closed his statement by stating that his committee would be “paying very close attention” to NASA’s human spaceflight programs, with a series of hearings on the subject planned for the coming months.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 13 at 9:35 pm ET In an unusual move, NASA’s Inspector General (IG) has sent letters to key members of Congress, requesting that they take “immediate action” to remove legislative language that the IG concludes is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars. In letters to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee and the chair and ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, NASA IG Paul Martin said that a provision in the FY2010 appropriations act that has carried over to the series of continuing resolutions funding NASA into FY2011 requires NASA to spend millions of dollars a month on Constellation programs that the agency would otherwise cancel, given the guidance in the NASA authorization act passed last fall.
“Without congressional intervention, by the end of February 2011 NASA anticipates spending up to $215 million on Constellation projects that, absent the restrictive appropriations language, it would have considered canceling or significantly scaling back,” Martin writes in the letters. That’s a fraction of the roughly $200 million a month NASA is spending on Constellation, because some of the Constellation projects—in particular work on five-segment solid rocket motors, the J-2X upper-stage engine, and virtually all of Orion—would likely be continued to support the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. However, the Ares 1 upper stage and related avionics work remain funded even though officials said “they likely would have considered canceling these contracts” absent the existing prohibition on such terminations. Also cited as projects being funded now that might otherwise not be: “ground operations”, such as work at the Kennedy Space Center; mission operations projects; and program integration work. Combined, those projects spent $71 million in the first two months of FY11, and are projected to spend a total of $215 million by the end of February. Should the provision remain in place through the entire fiscal year, the total would reach $577 million.
Martin stated in the letters that NASA has taken steps to concentrate Constellation funding on efforts “it believes may have future applicability”, but that will be more difficult to do as time goes on and the agency needs to make decisions on the design of the Space Launch System and related programs. “As one senior NASA official described it, ‘There’s a point coming up soon where we would just be spending money to spend money,'” the letter states.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 13 at 9:02 pm ET One of the leading voices on space issues in the Senate will be leaving. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison announced today that she has decided not to run for reelection in 2012. She said in the announcement that she would not leave before the end of her current term, but was making the announcement now, nearly two years before her term ends, to “give the people of Texas ample time to consider who my successor will be.” Hutchison’s retirement plans aren’t necessary surprising: in the run-up to last year’s GOP gubernatorial primary in Texas, where she ran against and lost to incumbent Rick Perry, she had talked about resigning from the Senate to focus full-time on her campaign, but decided to stay on. In the announcement she notes that she had “intended to leave this office long before now”, but was persuaded to remain.
Hutchison, as ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, has played a major role in space policy on the Senate side, often closely working with Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), as was the case last year with the NASA authorization legislation. Nelson, incidentally, is also up for reelection in 2012, and while he’s given every indication he plans to run again, he may face a much stronger challenge than in 2006. It’s thus possible two of major architects of that authorization legislation now guiding NASA may not be around two years from now.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 12 at 8:24 pm ET The full report NASA submitted to Congress this week on development of the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle spacecraft is now available online. The introduction of the report had this to say about the schedule and cost of developing the heavy-lifter included in the authorization act (emphasis added):
Guidance from the Administrator has established three principles for development of any future systems for exploration. These systems must be affordable, sustainable, and realistic. To date, trade studies performed by the Agency have yet to identify heavy-lift and capsule architectures that would both meet all SLS requirements and these goals. For example, a 2016 first flight of the SLS does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out year funding levels. Based on the guidance in the Authorization Act to take advantage of existing designs and hardware, the Agency has selected Reference Vehicle Designs for both of these vehicles as bases from which to work and which we believe most closely align to the requirements and goals of the Authorization Act. However, to be clear, neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor the schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act. Additionally, it remains to be determined what level of appropriations NASA will receive in FY 2011 or beyond — a factor that will impact schedule as well.
A few paragraphs later (again, emphasis added):
Currently, our SLS studies have shown that while cost is not a major discriminator among the design options studied, none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions, based upon existing cost models, historical data, and traditional acquisition approaches. Operational costs will have to be scrutinized and reductions from current projections will be needed in order to ensure affordable operations and so that funds are available for other necessary Exploration developments such as long-duration habitats and landers. A feature of the Shuttle/Ares-derived reference vehicle is that it enables leveraging of current systems, current knowledge base, existing hardware and potentially current contracts, thereby providing schedule and early-year cost advantages. However, a 2016 first flight does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out year funding levels, although NASA is continuing to explore more innovative procurement and development approaches to determine whether it can come closer to this goal.
If the agency was expecting some sympathy from Congress, they didn’t get it, at least from key leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee, who issued a brief but stern statement Wednesday in response to the report:
We appreciate NASA’s report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently — and, it must be a priority.
In other words, go back and try again.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 11 at 9:09 pm ET There’s good news and bad news for advocates of heavy-lift launch vehicles today. The good news is that NASA has come up with a proposed HLV concept that it has delivered to Congress, Space News reports. That proposal was required by a provision in section 309 of the NASA authorization act, which requires NASA to submit, no later than 90 days after the bill’s enactment:
…a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act.
The Space Launch System concept that NASA submitted, according to report, is a close cousin to the Ares 5 concept that was in the agency’s previous plans: a core stage based on space shuttle external tanks with five SSMEs, two five-segment SRBs, and an upper stage using a J-2X engine. The stated design is similar to what NASA’s Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) was studying last year, according to a presentation obtained by NASA Watch.
There’s bad news, though, as well: according to NASA’s own documents, the “Reference Vehicle Design” can neither be built within the authorized funding levels in the act, nor completed by the act’s deadline of the end of 2016. The act authorizes just over $6.9 billion from 2011 through 2013 for the Space Launch System “and associated program and other necessary support”.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 11 at 7:38 am ET In comments yesterday, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) suggested that NASA might have to forego the additional shuttle mission included in the NASA authorization bill because of problems with the external tank currently mated to the shuttle Discovery. “They do have an extra tank, because they always have that third shuttle flight that we have authorized in the NASA bill,” he said to reporters yesterday in a brief exchange about the status of the mission (video of which is available from Central Florida News 13.) “And if worst came to worst, and they felt like that this tank was not safe, they would stand down and, at that point, would only fly two more shuttle flights instead of the three that are authorized.”
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.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 11 at 6:57 am ET From AIAA president Mark J. Lewis:
On behalf of the members and staff of AIAA, I condemn today’s senseless tragedy, and express our collective thoughts and prayers for the recovery of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Our thoughts are also with Congresswoman Giffords’ husband, NASA astronaut Capt. Mark Kelly, United States Navy, and her parents, Spencer and Gloria Giffords. There have been few more dedicated to their office or better friends to space exploration and AIAA, than the Congresswoman, and we wish her Godspeed in her recovery. We also extend our sympathies to the families of the other seventeen victims of this senseless act.
From the Aerospace States Association:
“Rep. Gabrielle Giffords serves her constituents and her country with passion and with genuine enthusiasm,” said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey. “Our prayers are with her family and her staff as they get through this difficult situation.”
From the Space Foundation:
“Rep. Giffords is an extraordinary individual, an advocate for space and good friend of the Space Foundation,” said Space Foundation CEO Elliot Pulham. “Our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family, with the others who were injured and with the families of those who were killed in this senseless tragedy.”
From United Space Alliance:
Congresswoman Giffords is an optimistic, dynamic and upbeat Member of Congress. She is deeply respected for her many contributions to our nation on a wide variety of issues including the space program. We join her constituents, her colleagues in Congress and the entire NASA family in wishing Congresswoman Giffords a full and speedy recovery.
And a brief statement from the Planetary Society:
The board members and staff of the Planetary Society are saddened by this attack on Representative Giffords and other innocent bystanders, and offer their best wishes for her recovery and their sympathy to the other victims and their families.
Saturday’s tragedy has also resulted in one postponement: the Space Transportation Association has postponed a reception scheduled for late Tuesday on Capitol Hill. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), new chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, was scheduled to appear. That event will be rescheduled to a later, as yet unspecified date.
[Comments for this post are on, but a reminder that, as always, to be respectful and relevant.]
By Jeff Foust on 2011 January 8 at 7:31 pm ET From the Coalition for Space Exploration:
“Our thoughts and prayers are with Rep. Giffords and her family as they begin the road to recovery,†said Glenn Mahone, chairman of the Coalition. “We also extend our deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones in this tragic occurrence and to the other victims and their families as they deal with the aftermath of this senseless tragedy.â€
From the Commercial Spaceflight Federation:
The Commercial Spaceflight Federation wishes Representative Gabrielle Giffords a full recovery following today’s tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, and extends its thoughts and sympathies to Representative Giffords, her family, and the other victims of today’s events.
CSF President Bretton Alexander stated, “This is an unimaginable tragedy, and our hearts go out to the victims of this attack. Congresswoman Giffords is a passionate supporter of the space program and NASA, and we wish her the best for a speedy and full recovery.”
Representative Giffords has served as a leader on the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee since 2008, and is also a member of the full Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives.
From House Science, Space and Technology Committee ranking member Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX):
I am profoundly shocked and sorrowed. Congresswoman Giffords is a bright, energetic Member of Congress as well as a valued Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. My thoughts and prayers are with Gabriel [sic] Giffords, her husband, Captain Mark Kelly, her family and the families of everyone affected by this tragic act of violence. I pray for Gabrielle’s swift recovery and for the well-being of all bystanders involved. I join all in denouncing this senseless act of violence
From Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chairman of space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee:
I am deeply saddened to learn of today’s events in Tucson. My prayers go out to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and all the victims, as well as to our NASA family, which includes her husband, who is training to be the next commander of the space shuttle mission slated for April, and her brother-in-law, who is currently serving aboard the International Space Station.
|
|
