E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Sierra Nevada Corp.
A worker checks out Sierra Nevada Corp.'s structural test article for its Dream Chaser spaceship at a facility in Colorado. The Dream Chaser is in the running to become a successor to NASA's space shuttle fleet.
Budget uncertainties have led NASA to change its policy on funding the development of commercial spaceships, shifting to a process that provides more flexibility but also more risk for the space agency.
More than $365 million has already been devoted to NASA's commercial crew development program, or CCDev. Congress has approved another $406 million to be paid to would-be spaceship builders, with the aim of having U.S.-made, crew-capable successors to the space shuttle fleet flying to the International Space Station by 2017.
During the first two phases of the program, the effort has been managed through a set of Space Act Agreements, which award money to the companies in stages as they reach agreed-upon milestones. For the third phase, known as CCDev3, NASA had planned to switch to a different fixed-price contracting system that would give the space agency more control over the management of the companies' development efforts. NASA was scheduled to issue a request for proposals under that system on Monday.
But because of the uncertainties surrounding the federal budget for the next couple of years, NASA has decided to stick with the Space Act arrangement, said Bill Gerstenmaier, the agency's associate administrator for human exploration and operations. "It's really tough to lock into a fixed-price contract with the number of providers that can keep us moving forward," Gerstenmaier explained during a teleconference with journalists.
The shift means NASA will have to delay its announcement for proposals until the first quarter of next year, but Gerstenmaier said he still hoped agreements could be made in mid-2012 to cover a 21-month period lasting into early 2014. Two potential spaceship providers, and perhaps more, should be able to get close to a critical design review on that timetable with NASA funding, Gerstenmaier said.
In a statement, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the space agency is "committed to ensuring that U.S. companies are sending American astronauts into space."
"This new acquisition strategy will allow us to preserve competition as we maintain our momentum to provide a U.S.-based commercial crew launch capability at the earliest possible time," he said.
Crucial difference
The crucial distinction has to do with how much control NASA will have over the designs that are produced.
"We can't actually approve their designs, we can't say we're needing a service or getting a service," but the companies at least will be able to keep making progress, Gerstenmaier said. He used the rocket-science term for "change" to describe how the process could go: "There's going to be some potential delta that has to occur when we complete this phase."
The companies involved in CCDev had initially voiced reservations about the fixed-price contract plan, out of concern that NASA could exert too much control or even cancel the program altogether in midstream. One of the CCDev companies, California-based SpaceX, issued a statement in support of today's shift.
"Given budget realities, NASA and domestic space companies need to innovate more than ever," SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell was quoted as saying. "Space Act Agreements yield amazing results — we need only look at the Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket, both highly advanced, all-American vehicles designed using 21st-century technology. We applaud NASA's decision to use Space Act Agreements for the next round of commercial crew and look forward to the competition."
However, U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall, the Texas Republican who heads the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, questioned the move.
"The disadvantage of using Space Act Agreements is that NASA cannot impose its safety requirements as would be possible under a normal acquisition," Hall said in a statement. "Therefore, it is vitally important that NASA and its industry partners work cooperatively to ensure the highest level of crew safety, even in the absence of safety requirements."
In a report issued today, the Government Accountability Office, Congress' independent investigative arm, mentioned fixed-price, performance-based contracts as one of the "good acquisition practices" that NASA was planning for future CCDev work. The report was drawn up before NASA's announcement.
What lies ahead
CCDev funding is currently going to Blue Origin, the Boeing Co. and Sierra Nevada as well as SpaceX for spaceship development. For the next phase, commercial ventures will have to propose a full-service system, including the launch vehicle, to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Gerstenmaier said that once the 2012-2014 design phase is done, he expected that fixed-price contracts would be drawn up for the follow-up work, such as spacecraft certification.
NASA originally planned for commercial spacecraft to start ferrying astronauts in 2016, but because Congress authorized only half as much money for the current fiscal year as the White House was seeking, NASA now says flight operations won't begin until 2017 at the earliest.
In the meantime, NASA has to purchase seats from the Russians for rides on Soyuz capsules, at a price that's due to rise to more than $60 million in 2014. Gerstenmaier said NASA will now have to negotiate with the Russians for additional seats in the 2016-2017 time frame.
Today's GAO report raised further concerns about the development timetable. It said the "critical need to transport crew to the space station beginning in 2016 requires an aggressive program schedule that may not be attainable, given NASA's experiences with past government and commercial development efforts."
NASA is also supporting the development of commercial cargo spacecraft under a separate program known as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, or COTS. A key test flight in that program is scheduled to come in February, when SpaceX is due to launch a Dragon cargo capsule to a potential linkup with the space station. Orbital Sciences Corp., the other COTS company, is planning to begin test launches next year as well.
Update for 2:05 p.m. ET: Blue Origin issued a statement from its president, Rob Meyerson, about NASA's change of plans:
"We applaud NASA’s plans to continue using competitively awarded Space Act Agreements to accelerate the development of truly commercial crew capabilities. We believe commercial means significant private investment and competition to accelerate technologies and capabilities designed to enable a space economy, one that includes trips to the International Space Station. ...
"We suggest NASA limit its co-funding to 20 percent of any single private effort, and perhaps less. This keeps the effort predominantly a private endeavor, with the private sector having real 'skin in the game.' This level of co-funding limits the government’s role to accelerating a private marketplace, not distorting it."
More on the future of spaceflight:
- Next steps in a new space race
- SpaceX gets go-ahead for February space station trip
- Boeing runs hard in the new space race
- Future spaceflight goes virtual at Sierra Nevada
- Blue Origin spruces up its rocket report
- Orbital Sciences delivers robotic cargo craft
- Billionaire plans monster plane for orbital launches
- Cosmic Log archive on the new space race
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
And Congress wonders why we can't stand them?! These are American jobs! This is a pioneering field! This work will lead to whole new economies never before utilized by humanity! These are small businesses and entrepreneurs! These are things that are NOT going to be outsourced!
Man, Congress just rubs me the wrong way!
Give the rich another bail out you scum, I'm sure they're all quaking in their Luis Vuitton boots that they might have to pay more than 15% on their long term capital gains!
I agree 100%. Congress seems hell bent on driving this country into the ground via this partisanship. It's hard not to go into an hour long rant about the myriad things that are wrong with our government. I'll just say this: By not paying American companies the extra 300 to 400 million to develop commercial crew capabilties we will be paying Russia 50 to perhaps 70 million dollars per seat to ride up to the ISS. No development happens through the spending that goes to Russia. It makes MUCH more sense (at least to me) to spend that money here in order to begin operations sooner rather than spend that money in Russia and wait for American operations to catch up.
@ mob_barley
Agreedx6.02x10^23!!!!!
I agree with both of you.
As a US taxpayer, I would absolutely prefer my tax dollars go to funding US projects than to the Russian government for Soyuz seats. That is nothing personal against Russia, despite their recent run of bad luck they made pretty good space hardware and have a solid history of space accomplishments. But I would like to see our money stay in our country, to pay US workers and boost our economy.
You said it! The #1 goal of Congress and the Senate "minority" is to unseat Barack Obama, and their strategy is to do it by making the economy appear as ugly as possible.
Meanwhile Germany is trying to drive the European economy into a ditch with its narrow-minded breath-holding-until-blue-in-the-face demands for austerity.
Gov'ts around the world are determined to repeat the same mistakes made in 1936&37, which plunged economies into a sucker-punch recession within the gut-wrenching Great Depression. They should all be tried for crimes against humanity!
Completely agree with the other commentors and if I might add: if Ralph Hall is against it, it must be a good idea - he and Dick Shelby are morons ... bought and paid for morons, but morons nonetheless.
Thankfully, there are some innovative minds that are conspiring to move forward no matter what barriers these luddites erect.
You know Jeff, they were using the all inclusive form of Congress, that means they were talking about all of the House and Senate together. In fact, Mob specifically mentions partisanship which you displayed quite nicely as an example.
The Democrats are as much to blame as anyone.
Mitchell
When the Apollo program was in full swing NASA received about 3-4% of the annual federal budget. Today they get less than .5%! No wonder they have to delay things. Entitlements in this country take up a little more than 50% of the federal budget! FIFTY PERCENT! If we want NASA to once again be the prominent leader in space exploration then the morons in congress need to overhaul welfare, medicare, medicaid, section 8 housing, etc, etc...and eliminate all the fraud that makes up for an estimated 20-30%! Then NASA could be funded properly!
The problem is there are too many lawyers! If you want to fix whats wrong with our country take about 90% of the lawyers, line them up against a brick wall and then mow them down like the pigs that they are!
Note: most of the folks in congress are lawyers!!
@ Kevin in Texas
While you're lamenting the welfare state dilemma, you might also want to point out what the tax rates were during the 1960's and 1970's
Kevin in Texas and Seriously: I enjoy your posts and your perspectives; well said. I would state some other thoughts about space commerce: we are on the verge of evolving from major projects being about politics and patronage and more about profit and physics. One can make the legitimate argument that the Congressclowns are mandating by law such a disaster in US human space flight, that doors are opening for American entrepreneurs - some days I agree with that and other days not so much. However; we do know that unless we discover vast deposits of Unobtanium or Antigravityerium on Mars, we're not going to see sustained NASA budgets in the ranges that will get any of us to interesting places in this solar system. I was alive during the Apollo program and that was a set of circumstances we are not likely to see again. But, though their corrupt and incompetent behaviour, the Congressclowns are (accidently) incentivising thousands of brilliant people - that's not their plan, but nonetheless, they are succeeding much faster than anticipated. Their seemingly limitless ability to erect nonsensical barriers to space commerce by pursuing lobbyist money rather than the best technical or economic decision, is encouraging people to step forward with more cost effective solution. If more money was allocated to NASA, these corrupt politicians would only use it to fund the most inefficient processes that benefited their home districts - pretty much what they do now.
Someday, let's hope while we (and they) are alive to enjoy it, historians will categorize these Congressclowns in the same way that we now look at the Flat Earth Society. They will be the subjects of ridicule and textbooks will use them as bad examples we can all learn from ... nice legacy from our current leadership.
@ node4
How DARE YOU give any credit to this Congress!!! HEHEHE ^_^
I contend that it isn't Congress that we can blame for the successes we're seeing in the private sector regarding space flight; but in fact merely a fortunate convergence of ambitious billionaires and various bits of space technology that has both entered the public domain and become cheap enough for the right people with the proper resources to exploit! Additionally, the change in NASA doctrine to sponsor things like the X-Prize is also fantastic as it allows for all sorts of fascinating innovations from a variety of sources rather than just tapping a large contractor to see what else they can do (see: Scaled Composites and Spaceship 1)
Interesting. It's good to see the responsible voice that Blue Origin has added to their statement. The best thing for everyone is to have American companies investing heavily in this new "space economy". I just hope that the private sector can get things going in the desired time frame with that "20%". The lesser amount of time we spend hitching rides with the Russians the better. 50 to 60 million dollars a seat isn't the end of the world but that is money that could be going to the American economy.
The 20% separates the "men from the boys" in this race. Everyone has a great idea, but as the saying goes "money talks and bulldung walks."
Aries 1 should be flying now.
That would be nice, but it was never intended to be flying by this point in time. The earliest realistic estimate for Ares1 was the 2014 timeframe, but even that turned out to be unrealistic.
Yep. The Augustine Commission shed some light on the Constellation Program and showed that it was woefully underfunded from the beginning and was destined to miss its intended milestones.
It was Medicare Part D, Iiiiiiin Spaaaaaaaaaace!
Nor would Orion/Ares-I have been cost-effective for ISS crew rotation (and Orion/SLS would be even less so), much less commercial.
Indeed, you might've had to decomission/deorbit ISS to have the money for Constellation, without a serious increase in the NASA budget (and how likely was that?). Meaning that until Ares V or whatever was also available many years later, all you could have done with the system is Apollo-7 like missions....
Is that what you want, Phil? To be all dressed up, but no place to go?
mob_barley: I assume you work for NASA or their PR company, you always respond to these stories so supportive of NASA & the government (of whatever color).
Don't get me wrong I dearly want NASA to succeed, but with its current kowtowing administration and the current government we have NASA will be dithering for the foreseeable future.
It is now up to the private sector to do what NASA did in the 70's be brave and be prepared to take risks, the reward is not the couple of hundred Million NASA might be able to afford to take our people to the space station, but minerals on planets & moons, pharmaceutical manufacturing in zero g at absolute zero. etc.
Both the last and this current governments have decimated NASA, they have destroyed its will to explore, to boldly go if you will, it is now an organization run by petty politicians funded by a cheating, money grubbing government who cant see past the end of their noses.
Such a damn shame, a once proud organization turned into a quasi autonomous non-governmental organization (Qango) or government aided business, that is frightened of its own shadow, and is so underfunded it can no longer fulfill it's charter but has just enough to keep paying the leeches.
@ Phil-673730
Both Mob and I have been outspoken of giving NASA the same autonomy from the President and Congress as DARPA and the DoD have.
It's a terrible shame that each President that makes it into office feels that THEY need to make their 'lasting mark' through it.
Be it Clinton choosing Lockheed as the sole contract-winner in the Venture Star program, Bush killing Venture Star when it was 80% complete (a decision in 2001 which ultimately guaranteed no American craft would launch an American into space before/by the time the Shuttles were to retire), creating Medicare Part D: A Space Odyssey, and the Obama subsequently putting it out of its misery and instead aiming us in an equally asinine direction where we completely ignore the value of a Moon-base and go straight towards Apollo on Mars (and asteroids).
It's equally aggravating that Congress gets to put their greasy mitts on NASA's project and can outline ridiculous supply-chains that both cause delays and cost overruns, all in the name of delicious pork!
If we want to see the same level of organized innovation and successes that we see with DARPA, we need to allow NASA to be like DARPA and merely give it over-arching objectives and let the agency set its own course to accomplish them!
Phil-673370, Mob was simply responding to Phil M's spam with factual information. Phil M. repeatedly states this unsubstantiated opinion with no basis in fact. That doesn't make Mob a NASA PR person. The original "Vision for Space Exploration" roadmap called for the first manned Ares-I launches by 2014, and as myself and others have pointed out, this had slipped to 2017 or later.
I've seen Mob critical of NASA (moreso Congress) on several occassions, with regard to SLS, etc. The main problem in my eyes is money in politics... the handful of Senators who sit on the Science and Space subcommittee really call the shots, and they dictate current space policy in the US... SLS and associated contractors will get the lion's share of the NASA's human spaceflight budget, CCDev gets the leftover scraps.
If NASA got more than 0.6% of the federal budget, it would be less of an issue to begin with, and I'd like to think CCDev would be among the programs that benefit most (in my hypothetical dream world), because every year that manned commercial spaceflight is delayed is another year that we pay the Russians for rides to LEO.
Please don't call my opinion spam. Aries one would have been into it's test flight by now or the near term. The j2x was the controling element. The j2x wad sucessfully fires for mission duration. The tower is ready. The 5 seg first stage is tested. Ctx would fit nicely for space station role. We do not need to ride with the Russians. Do not tell me it is not cost effective. Doing nothing is bad for the Country. Aries 1 is simple. One shuttle derived SRB, not two. and one j2x upperstage.
Frank,
Low earth orbit is a place to go. I would rather start there then being grounded as we are now! I never bought into that whole argument and weak justification for canceling a thoughtful and well underway project (Constellations). The panel was designed to force a radical change in direction. We are not saving any dollars and we are going nowhere slowly. I hope that I am wrong.
Phil, I only called it spam because you had posted the same exact canned (as in spam), one-line comment two or three times recently on various articles without any further explanation or rebuttal. Thank you for clarifying your opinion this time... I take back that part of my comment.
My opinion is that we should not be content with seeing NASA's manned program do laps in LEO for another 30 years... Again, manned launches of Ares-I weren't going to happen before 2017, that is a well-documented fact. We would have come in before that with CCDev, but given the latest congressional CCDev budget for 2012, it looks like we may be back to 2017 anyway, so that's a wash in terms of timeline.
The advantage that we gained by cancelling Constellation (CxP), is that manned deep space travel is no longer a complete and utter fantasy. The Ares-V, which is what would have enabled manned deep space missions under CxP, was looking completely dead in the water. SLS is a more practical, attainable system given current stock of hardware, infrastructure, and budget contraints, and is still quite capable... it will still be the most powerful launcher ever built.
In conclussion, cancelling CxP in favor of SLS and CCDev has served to keep the hope for deep space (BEO) missions alive, without impacting the net LEO development timeline.
While I understand the need to give these companies flexibility in costs while developing space craft, I really don't approve of GOV dollars being spent in cost plus contracts. That's the sort of fiscal irresponsibility that's gotten us into the debt waters we're in now. I should know, I've just spent the last 7 years working on a "Cost Plus Contract" and even I, in my lowly position, can see how the company I worked for "milked" the government before it was finally shut down.
I sincerely hope safeguards are put into place and enforced to ensure that every dime spent is well worth the investment.
Um, "delta" isn't exactly a "rocket-science term." Delta is used frequently throughout math, physics, and chemistry to indicate change. I must wonder just how capable this journalist is of comprehending the material he's reporting on.
Instead of expanding their vocabulary some people find it easier to criticize others because they feel inferior and don't like to be reminded of it.
Americanism and the world leadership we have enjoyed is doomed unless we retreat from many of the military bases we have, They are estimated to by around a thousand of them. In addition, these wars for empire have to cease.
All the things we want for and from our country is at risk because of the Military Industrial Complex's lust for war, for treasure, and power. It does not mind killing off many Americans and many more alleged enemies to accomplish this. In the meantime, doesn't it strike a sour note that we have to depend on Russia to get people out to the space station because we fight wars that may be good for internationalists, but not for the USA?
Vice president Biden, when speaking of the "end" of the Iraqi war, said that we did what we had to for a peace in the region and did not take any oil away from the Iraqis. That was a lie. All the major oil companies that are connected to our alliances have made deals with Iraqi leaders, owned and coerced by us, for excluse access to their oil. That was what that war was about. All it did for us was give us much higher gas prices and a lot of dead and wounded soldiers. The space program and American prosperity be damned.
FYI - The "Military-Industrial Complex" takes 12% of out National Budget and is falling. The "Welfare-Industrial Complex (WIC) takes 16% of the budget and keeps rising. This does not include Social Security or Medicare.
RE: "Your wars for empire" - Obama just turned over Iraq to Iran. How is this building a U.S. empire? It's not. Then you say "alleged enemies", ever hear of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad Union, the Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, etc. All have three things in common: Turning the world into a Muslim World, destroying Israel, destroying the West (including America). I forogt countries such as Iran and North Korea.
Better check your OIL figures. The US never got one drop of OIL out of Iraq. Where as Barack Hussein Obama's OIL war has produced OIL fo rus. True, its less than 1%, but that sa beginning.
As for NASA. BHO turned us into a 2nd rate space faring nation. What this article proved is that our return to space will be delayed again. On purpose!
BTW - if you "damn" America so much, why don't you leave this country? Got it too good?
My oil figures are accurate. If you think we can get by on flag waving, you have a shock coming.
I repeat, most of the major oil companies got deals at gunpoint with our installed and supported Iraqi government. If you think we are getting out of controlling Iraq, you don't understand what's going on over there.
I don't know that you aren't a silly teen ager but I was born 80 years ago in the Great Depression and have seen this crap, the raping of our country, from way back.
This BS about, if I don't like this country, why don't I leave it, is immature and uncalled for. I'm not damning America, I'm damning fools like you.
Because if you dont agree with him you are obviosly an idiot.
Bigotry runs amok here!
Time4a, my understanding is that the US Military makes up between $1 - $1.4 Trillion, or 29% or more of the $3.46 Trillion budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_Breakdown_for_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_federal_budget#Major_expenditure_categories
It's also funny that you blame this latest delay on manned commercial space on Obama, when the President had requested over twice the amount for CCDev that Congress ultimately provided ($900+ vs. $406 million for 2012). But's that Obama's fault.
I'm all for being critical of Congress and/or the President, but try to apply some factual basis else you quickly lose all credibility.
All I know is that from where this picture is taken, the man is not wearing a fall safety harness, is standing on a structure not designed for personnel, is over rods sticking out of the ground (granted plastic caps are on), and has no safe access via a ladder or safety lift. Or is the band in front of him the safety harness and he is tied off to the elements that if it failed, would take him with it. HHHMM I am no safety officer but something just does not look right here.
You do not get anywhere without taking a few risks.
You might not want to go into construction, or coal mining, or sports, or......
I called this in a post months ago. I am not surprised, just note that it will happen again, pretty much like a roller coaster. Vapor ware is the phrase for the scenario when it comes to govt funding....a knee jerk reaction and further proof that nasa needs to be one whole loop set back from congress. Once a nasa plan is set in motion, it should be extremely difficult for any one elected official or party or committee to make real changes to it....but that aint gonna happen, the process has been going on longer than the space program....the ideal is to make the product, and if govt wants it, make em pay up front. In hugh govt projects, that is all but impossible, imagine if dozens of companies had made the shuttles and the govt got to shop and negotiate for the only one that would be allowed to fly. We have a new opportunity here, we can focus on private space flight and just forget the govt, if they like the product, they WILL come around with signed checks....no matter what these initial contracts are. Nasa is doing a good job at getting private competition going, I do think they could do better and get smaller entities involved, but hey, they don't really care what any of us say, we just pay the bills. I for one wonder why the tucker did not get bailed out for example but gm did twice....well, ok, no wonder, just the underlying theme here.
So, NASA wants to just buy these spacecraft "sight unseen", so to speak. Judge the prettiest one that comes off the drafting board. Ok..... get your popcorn and lawn-chairs, folk! We gots some REAL FIREWORKS a commin'!!!
I watch the debates when I can, and so far I haven't heard a question or comment about how any of the nominee hopefuls intend to fund NASA. Let's start emailing our questions in everytime they allow it. If one hundred of us sent in a question surely one of them would get asked. I have a website I could post of all the upcoming debates thru March if anyone wants it. It was sent to me but you might find it by Googling it. Of course the GOP nominee winner will have to debate the President eventually. To try getting a debate about NASA or space travel in general will be much harder, but I would like to hear them spar over it for a few minutes.
There were at least a couple mentions of the space program actually... in one of the first debates and then again in one of the most recent one's.
Newt had the only responses that even began to approach any real understanding on the subject. He's the only GOP contender that I'd put down as supportive of the space program based on what I've seen.
Excellent point, I thought it was interesting that when Newt Gingrich was attacked by Romney about his space exploration policy (when asked to think of a zany Gingrich position), it was Jon Stewart who pointed out that it was actually one of Newt's better technology idea. Every election, those who care about space do this - as the candidates get more pointed questions about this, they'll be forced to respond seriously. It's going to take time, but it's worth it.
This is great news! The longer NASA can keep its paws off the detailed design decisions in these commercial launchers, the better. I think NASA's standard contracting system is at least as much responsible for the time and cost overruns of traditional launchers, as are the launcher companies themselves.
It looks like all four of these new-space companies are making decent progress... some more than others, but all getting there. I'm pretty sure SpaceX, at least, could be safely launching people by 2014 if there were a clear business case for that (and assuming NASA didn't get in the way too much). 2017 seems ponderously slow to me... but better slow progress than no progress at all!