E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Sierra Nevada Corp.
An artist's conception shows Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Dream Chaser approaching the International Space Station. The Dream Chaser is one of the projects under consideration for NASA support.
Last updated 11 a.m. ET April 7:
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden says that commercial spaceships are an essential part of the space agency’s future, but that the next step in space commercialization depends on Congress.
Bolden touched upon the financial realities facing his agency today during an appearance at the International Space Station and Mars Conference in Washington. The two-day conference is aimed at looking at the long-term prospects for America's space effort, including missions to the Red Planet, but Bolden also touched upon shorter-term issues. For example, what will the space agency do about human spaceflight after this year's retirement of the space shuttle fleet?
For the really short term, NASA will have to rely on the Russians for transporting astronauts back and forth, but Bolden is hoping that commercial U.S. spaceship companies will step in to fill the gap. Not just hoping. He's counting on it.
"NASA cannot do both provisioning to low Earth orbit and exploration," Bolden said. The idea is that commercial companies will take care of the resupply of the space station, while NASA turns to the longer, more difficult job of developing the spaceflight systems for trips beyond Earth orbit. The way Bolden sees it, his agency can't afford to create a fleet of space taxis at the same time it's developing the more capable craft required for the next space frontier.
"There is no magic money," he said.
That's why NASA wants to rent rather than build those space station transports. Two companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, are already receiving millions of dollars to build and test spaceships for ferrying cargo into orbit. Now NASA is on the verge of awarding as much as $280 million more for spacecraft capable of launching astronauts, in the second phase of a program known as Commercial Crew Development, or CCDev2.
Last month, industry analysts at FBR Capital listed their favorites for CCDev2 money: Orbital Sciences, Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corp., with AlliantTechsystems (ATK), Blue Origin, Excalibur Almaz and United Launch Alliance also on the short list.
Some observers suggested that the awards would be announced as early as Wednesday, but Bolden kept mum. He suggested that the payout depended on whether Congress approved a spending plan that provided $312 million for the program, which would cover the awards as well as administrative costs.
"If it's less than $312 million, then we've got to go back and look at where we are with CCDev2," Bolden told reporters.
So the CCDev2 contractors may have to wait a bit longer for the final word, particularly if the fiscal stalemate in Congress results in a government shutdown. Bolden issued a preliminary advisory this week, telling agency employees to stand by for further word on which folks would be furloughed.
Although there's been no official word, a prolonged shutdown could complicate preparations for the shuttle Endeavour's upcoming trip to the space station. Space station operations, however, would be little affected, because keeping the multibillion-dollar orbital facility and its residents safe is seen as an essential function.
Update for 11:50 p.m. ET: Space News' Brian Berger reported in a Twitter update that CCDev2 contractors have been "told to be on standby Thurs. afternoon for word from NASA. But don't hold your breath."
Meanwhile, the shutdown showdown continues, but Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for space operations, told me tonight that a shutdown wouldn't have any immediate impact on the preparations for Endeavour's flight. "Think about it," he said. Gerstenmaier pointed out that the launch was postponed from April 19 to April 29, due to a Russian scheduling conflict. That means there are roughly 10 days of wiggle room in the pre-launch routine. Of course, it all depends on how long the shutdown lasts ... if it happens at all.
Update for 11 a.m. ET April 7: The CCDev2 announcement has been delayed indefinitely, apparently because of the continuing back-and-forth over the federal budget, according to John Elbon, vice president and program manager for commercial crew programs at the Boeing Co.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
Nasa has a lot on it's plate yet. The deluge in information coming in from probes over the next several years is no minor task to digest. The lower we can get a pound into orbit for the better, but commercial interest are, at some point going to deviate from nasa a good bit, for instance, it was not that long ago that russia sported a view on ISS space tourism that nasa was not keen on adopting. This is cool. I guess to top Musk the next company might want to look to building a cheaper, bigger better sat 5?...I'm all for it, someone run the numbers and see if helium and xeon are the tickets outa here.....
NASA is in quite a pickle. The continuing resolutions that the federal government has been living with due to the inability (or lack of desire) of Congress to pass a budget has forced NASA to continue to spend money on the Constellation program which has been killed by the President. As a result, NASA has been making nearly no progress for 6 months now on the revised mission (such as it is) laid out by the White House. Engineers assigned to the new program (the program formerly known as Constellation) have been working at a pace so slow they may as well be idle. MEANWHILE, their brothers and sisters working the Shuttle program are working themselves out of a job and a uniquely talented contractor work force is being marched out the door. Additionally, NASA can't even announce what commercial companies they would like to fund to supply the Space Station because of the budget impasse. Where is the leadership?
Because Congress and the White House continue to play partisan politics (canceling a major program, but not moving on to a meaningful new one (and on top of that failing to fund what little work IS being authorized), NASA is being moved from being the very personification of American ingenuity, innovation and know-how to being irrelevant. As a result, the US is being eclipsed technologically by other nations both friendly and not so friendly. How do you think THAT is sitting with the men and women who have dedicated their lives to moving humanity out into the Final Frontier? How inspiring do you think the nation's youth find that?
Dr. Tanstaafl - one of the best comments I've ever read on the subject; very well put. +1
I'll give a thumbs up too.
Mitchell
I believe we need an International Space Agency (ISA) to jointly conduct deep space exploration missions, although it would still be NASA's responsibility to jointly cooperate with and contribute to any deep space missions conducted by the ISA. I think that NASA's independent projects should primarily be focused on research and development right here within Earth orbit, for the most part out to the orbit of the Moon. We still have a great deal yet to do right here in Earth orbit before we venture out into deep space as a nation with any future independent manned missions. But I do agree with the decision to use commercial vehicles to provide future services into Earth orbit, as long as NASA plays a key role in certifying those commercial vehicles. I also think that the ISA should be taking over responsibility for projects like the ISS. I would hate to see NASA burdened by responsibility for the ISS, or even worse, the entire ISS project abandoned and eventually left to burn up in Earth orbit. What a tragic waste of money and effort that would be! At the very least the ISS needs to become a future service station for satellites in Earth orbit, but it could also serve as a platform for the construction of future international projects like a reusable manned deep space solar system exploratory ship. - RC
Once the Space Shuttles are retired it will only be a few years before the ISS moves closer to its firey death. The orbit is slowly decaying because it is in a low earth orbit being slowed down by the earths atmosphere. The earths atmosphere doesn't just stop, but decreases with distance from the earth. Without the large engines of the shuttle to push the ISS into higher orbits it will only be a matter of time that it will be unstable and have to be abandoned since Russia's little Soyez is too small to move the ISS into those higher orbits.
The time to have looked at a replacement for the shuttle was twenty years ago. Plans for the shuttle were on the table when Apollo missions were still going on. I'm not too hopeful that a commercial venture will be able to take the place of the shuttle and NASA. When the last shuttle mission is over we can say goodbye ISS cause we won't have the capability to save it.
I think you will find that there are several of the "delivery vehicles" currently being used, have the capability to push the ISS to a higher orbit
Though it sounds like a dire problem the space station has the ability to boost it’s orbit and stay aloft for many years to come.
NASA'S Holden has epiphany: "There is no magic money,"--Now if he can only convince the rest of the worshipers of BIG BROTHER (government)!
Excellent post Dr. TANSTAAFL.
NASA Human Space Flight (HSF) is finally in its death throes.
Those death throes having been delayed by the shuttle managing
to remain in service for as long as it has.
The Challenger disaster almost deepsixed HSF. And the Columbia
disaster IMO, is the reason we are retiring the shuttle. I would
credit the leadership with continuance of the shuttle after the
Columbia accident. But that may have been in large part due to
the international community wanting the ISS to be completed
and only the shuttle could finish that job.
Its an unfortunate situation considering the money that
will have been wasted once the U.S. becomes a second rate
player or non player in HSF, should the private sector
prove unable to provide economical access to space.
Despite this, the Obama Admin did increase the NASA budget,
but this may be similar to what happens when the USAF phases
out a project. The spending increases just before the door
closes.
And unfortunate that the public and leadership wouldn't
sustain NASA HSF long enough to allow the private sector
to demonstrate its potential and eventually take over
HSF while overlapping NASA HSF and private sector HSF
rather than gapping them as we are now.
A gap that we cannot even determine the endpoint of.
The leadership is too preoccupied with federal budget problems
which are way out of control since 911. The U.S. was just getting
a handle on budget deficits when four years of surplusses were
recorded (1998-2001) and then 911, and now the great
recession.
NASA HSF has been in the thankless position of being a budget
scapegoat regardless of the U.S. economic situation, as evidenced
by no major increase in NASA budgets back in the 1998-01 period
when replacing the shuttle was most able to be undertaken
from a financial point of view. And one of the budget
surplusses was nearly three times the NASA budget
then, IIRC.
Instead, the leadership screwed around and waited till 2004 to
finally give NASA a new mandate (The Constellation program) only
to see that wasted in cancellation by the Obama Admin last year.
The public at large is simply not willing to sustain HSF in
any meaningful way. A look at the numerous complaints about
NASA spending ought to show this. Complaints that the
critics don't even bother to do their homework on.
Ever notice the postings on just this site alone? Space
related stories draw postings in the dozens, some of which
are anti HSF or anti NASA. Non space related story posts
range from the hundreds to even thousands. This is at
least some indication of actual public interest in
HSF.
Most Federal programs have spent at record levels within
the past five years. NASAs last record budget was 45 years
ago. Since then, NASAs budget has been up and down, but
overall it trended downward. And I'm not talking the
typical budget reductions some federal programs
sustain...such as a ten percent cut.
I'm talking a greater than 50% cut from 1966 to 1976 alone,
with no comparable increase since. Its a wonder we were
able to develop the shuttle at all. As it is, it certainly
did not help that the shuttle was an economic failure.
If all this doesn't suggest HSF is in its death throes,
I don't know what does. Once we finish with ISS, the U.S.
will no longer be sending astronauts into space.
If this sounds extreme, its only because the one consistent
pattern in NASAs tortured post Apollo history is how difficult
it has been to sustain HSF. A compromise shuttle design, a
space station that only got approved after decades of
development when the Russians were brought in.
And forget Mars...which is just twenty years away regardless
of what decade we are in. The only good that can come out of
this is if the private sector can really provide a sustained
and economical human presence in low orbit. This may
eventually lead to a return to deep space human
exploration.