E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
Sources tell NBC News that NASA will provide further support for the development of the Boeing Co.'s CST-100 capsule (left), Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Dream Chaser space plane (middle) and SpaceX's Dragon capsule (right).
Update for 12:55 p.m. ET Aug. 3: Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are due to receive up to $1.1 billion to continue work on spaceships that could be carrying astronauts to orbit in the 2015-2017 time frame. Check out today's updated story.
My earlier report from Aug. 2: Teams headed by the Boeing Co., SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corp. will be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA over the next 21 months for further development of spaceships capable of transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station, knowledgeable sources told NBC News today.
NASA is to make the official announcement of the winning commercial teams on Friday morning — but NBC News' Cape Canaveral correspondent, Jay Barbree, received word from two sources who were informed of the decision in advance, on condition of anonymity. The sources did not discuss how much money any of the companies would be receiving.
The coming phase of the spaceship development effort — known as Commercial Crew Integrated Capability, or CCiCap — is aimed at producing the design for an entire launch system, including the "space taxi" capsule and launch vehicle as well as ground and recovery operations. The three companies tapped for future funding already have received hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA during earlier development phases. Boeing has gotten $131 million for work on its proposed CST-100 capsule, Sierra Nevada has been allotted more than $125 million for its Dream Chaser space plane, and SpaceX has won $75 million to upgrade its Dragon space capsule to carry crew.
SpaceX, known more formally as Space Exploration Technologies, has also received almost $400 million from a separate NASA program to support the development of the Dragon and Falcon 9 rocket for cargo deliveries to the space station. The successful flight of a Dragon to the station and back in May opened up the way for SpaceX to start regular cargo deliveries under a $1.6 billion contract with NASA.
Representatives of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada had no comment on the news. NASA said it would not announce the agreements until Friday morning, as scheduled. Efforts to contact Boeing were unsuccessful so far tonight. The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, quoted industry sources as saying that Boeing and SpaceX were expected to share the bulk of NASA's CCiCap money, and that Sierra Nevada seemed likely to emerge with a smaller award.
NASA invited companies to submit proposals in the range of $300 million to $500 million for development of their spaceship designs through May 2014, with potential optional milestones as well. Under an agreement with congressional leaders, the space agency will provide the full negotiated amount for two companies, plus half of the requested funds for a third company. It's an arrangement I like to call "Two and a Half Spacemen," playing off the title of the popular CBS sitcom.
What about the also-rans?
Other companies sought unsuccessfully to win CCiCap funding — most prominently, a consortium that included ATK, Lockheed Martin and Astrium. The consortium's Liberty launch system would adapt the ATK-manufactured solid rocket booster that was used for the space shuttle and the now-canceled Ares 1 rocket. The second stage would be based on Astrium's Ariane rocket. The composite capsule would be provided by Lockheed Martin, which is the prime contractor for NASA's more capable Orion deep-space capsule.
Other contenders from previous rounds of development included Blue Origin, which was founded by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos; and Excalibur Almaz, which is adapting Russian technology for its launch system.
NASA officials have said they'd be willing to continue advising the also-rans on an unfunded basis. On the other side of the table, all of the companies involved in the CCiCap competition have said they intended to continue spaceship development efforts even if they didn't win NASA's financial support, but at a reduced pace.
What lies ahead?
Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have said their spaceships could be ready for NASA's use in the 2015-2016 time frame if they received adequate funding from the space agency. Last month, Ed Mango, NASA's manager for the Commercial Crew Program, told me that the middle of the decade seemed doable, but suggested that 2015 might be too soon.
"By the end of the base period, you need to have an integrated design that you have talked with the government about," Mango said. Actually launching a demonstration spaceflight with a crew might serve as an optional milestone, he added.
Boeing and Sierra Nevada are partnering with other companies to develop their launch system — and the most notable partner in both cases is United Launch Alliance, which could launch Boeing's CST-100 as well as Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser on its Atlas 5 rockets. SpaceX, in contrast, is pursuing its effort on a solo basis.
With last year's retirement of the space shuttle fleet, NASA must depend on the Russians to transport U.S. astronauts to and from the space station, at a cost of around $60 million a seat. All of the companies involved in the Commercial Crew Program say they can do the job for less money than the Russians. In comparison, the cost of flying the space shuttle was estimated at $1 billion or more per mission.
Like the shuttle, the new space taxis are being designed to carry up to seven astronauts.
The commercial space taxis are an essential piece of the strategy worked out by the White House and NASA to free up money for the development of the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle as well as a heavy-lifting Space Launch System. The Orion and SLS would be used for exploration beyond Earth orbit, featuring trips to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025 and journeys to Mars and its moons in the 2030s.
Update for 11:15 p.m. ET: I want to emphasize that Jay's sources did not tell him which companies are getting more or less money than other companies. They only named the three companies. The Wall Street Journal's report suggests that Boeing and SpaceX will be getting more money than Sierra Nevada, but we don't have any information about that angle of the story. NASA promises that all will be revealed in the morning, and of course we'll pass that along.
More about the spaceship competition:
- Follow the money in the commercial space race
- Handicapping the commercial space race
- Why SpaceX is setting the pace in the space race
- Cosmic Log archive on commercial space
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.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. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. 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:
If true, this is exactly what I expected. SpaceX is already flying, Boeing is seen as a safe choice due to its conservative design, long expertise in human spaceflight and solid financial status, and NASA likes winged vehicles, which is Dream Chaser. The fact that Boeing and Sierra Nevada are using the same rocket makes giving one of those companies half an award for their spacecraft easy to justify.
The ATK proposal is better than its critics give it credit for, but it came along pretty late in the game. I have no idea where Blue Origin is in its development. And Excalibur Almaz seems focused on the cislunar market.
It's about time we as a nation get under this NASA program at 100%.
These "sources" just broke a federal criminal law -- the Procurement Integrity Act. This type of behavior drives up the cost of federal procurements, which affects all of us. It would be nice if sources like this just shut their mouths and let the process run its course.
Right on target, Doug. Blue Origin is looking at the long haul ... Rob Meyerson has talked about "10, 20, 30 years" ... so they can be more deliberate about all this, particularly as long as Jeff Bezos is a billionaire.
I see the Blue Origin as the successor to the DC-X program.
They have the time and the budget to do the job right. All the benefits of a "government" unconstrained by the profit motive etc etc , but without congress to placate. They have an audience of 1 and he has the vision. Huzzah for adventure capitalists!
Jay Barbree should be shamed by his peers for his tabloid attention whoring tactics. Was there really any need to scoop jump this?
Wow, there's a lot of animus there. Jay happened to mention to me late today that his sources were confirming what I was telling him earlier about the "conventional wisdom": Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada. (As you know, Jay personally feels that Liberty is the best team out there.) When he characterized his sources, I was impressed. It turned out that Jay's sources did not tell him about this on condition that he honor an embargo, but they did tell him on condition of anonymity. So I said that we should probably report this. Why sit on it? It's not just rumor, or speculation.
The question is not "why sit on it"? The question is why report it if the sources are unwilling to put their name to it!
Anonymous sources are for stories that are going under the radar. It's a courtesy you extend to whistle blowers.
Journalism used to mean something.
Trent, it's often the case that some aspects of a story come out from knowledgeable folks who aren't authorized to talk about it in advance, and they'd get in trouble if they're quoted by name. They're not always whistleblowers. And I don't think it's been the case that anonymous sources can only be used "for stories that are going under the radar." Often they come into play for stories with the highest profiles - much higher profiles than this little issue.
I've been a professional journalist for 35 years (starting with the Cincinnati Post in 1977), so I'm familiar with what journalism "used to mean," and what it still means.
So you have no moral qualms about helping people break their promise not to talk? Really?
You seriously don't see the problem here?
When, in those 35 years, did you decide that getting the story was more important than holding people to their word?
I have no idea what promises people gave to other people, but if you're suggesting that I should report only the authorized story from official sources, and help NASA or anyone else enforce a code of silence, I don't think I can agree to that. I'm sorry this little episode is upsetting to you.
Umm.. you just said that your sources were not authorized to speak to the press.. not me.
I'll ask again: what was the need to scoop this story?
Wait, are you seriously asking a journalist why he would want to produce news articles before others? Isn't that one of the defining characteristics of a free press, competition? Jay Barbree and Alan Boyle, the thirst for knowledge is one of the great sins of our time, how dare you feed its gaping maw!
I think it's unrealistic and unfair to expect journalists not to do their jobs. Major programs have considerable word on the street prior to the official announcement and it's rarely a surprise to people in the industry. Since this particular award is interesting to many here, I appreciate getting this news when it's available. I think it was presented with the appropriate disclaimers and don't see an issue - especially since it's going to be public in a matter of hours.
I'm glad ATK didn't win. It just seemed wrong to me that Lockheed-Martin could potentially be building both of America's manned spacecraft of the next three decades or so (ATK can slap their logo on it, but Liberty is clearly Lockheed's baby.) I also see no realistic way the Liberty rocket could be more economical than Atlas 5 and Falcon 9 (both of which have many other customers over which to spread costs) despite ATK's promises (this being the same ATK that promised Ares I would be "safe, simple, and soon".) Liberty can't handle geosynchronous or polar orbits without expensive additional upper stages and a new launch site, which makes its commercial prospects close to zero. CST-100 and Dragon were clearly the "common sense" choices, with Dream Chaser perhaps transitioning into something more like an X-vehicle at a lower funding level.
I would just point out that Atlas, which CST-100 and DC will be using, is the LM half of ULA. Just sayin.
Congratulations. Seems like the best teams actually won here. My faith is restored - Was worried that ATK would use K street to win this. Good on the NASA selection team.
Here here, good form on NASA's part, I expect Senator Hatch to be "furious" about the "Betrayal" by Obama for not protecting "Jobs". Now all we need to to get the Orion onto the Detla-4 for good and scuttle that worthless SLS. Something tells me the EFT-1 mission on commercial along with the Falcon Heavy test flights spell the end for the Senate Launch System. Boeing would rather have 4 crewed launches a year on Delta-4 than 1 every 2 years starting in 15 years on SLS.
But Delta IV Heavy can't launch Orion on deep space missions, which is what Orion has been designed and tested for all these years... and I'm not sure if the equivalent in missions with multiple launchers on the order of 20-54mt (e.g. Atlas V, Delta IV-HLV, Falcon 9/Heavy) as being any more practical than a single, heavily evolveable 70-130mt SLS.
I'm not 100% sold on SLS, but SLS is expected to launch December 2018, not "15 years from now"... the program would be cancelled well before it ever got that far behind schedule, ala Augustine.
..and again, congrats to SpaceX, Boeing and SNC, fantastic news.
p.s. The apogee on EFT-1 will be around 3,600 miles (about 1/70 of the way to the moon). It's just enough to get a high speed reentry on Orion in order to fully test the heat shield. I don't think it's going to make a compelling case against SLS in anyway.
While true that the current Delta IV Heavy has limitations in deep space Orion missions (that there is not a committed or defined mission for at this moment), it has a growth path that is considerably less expensive and risky than the current SLS development. A more expedient approach would be the use of the Falcon Heavy with twice the lift of Dela IV Heavy to LEO and slated for launch from Vandenberg in 2013; Cape Canaveral planned in 2014. This is much cheaper (and credible) than SLS, can be launched from multiple locations (does not require a VAB to assemble), and is a completed design with a growth path underway. Contrast that with SLS - which I'll concede has some excellent PowerPoint; I'm not sure people fully realize the amount of work it's going to take to get that design to the pad. New solid rocket motors (configuration that has never flown - they are a new design), new architecture, new 2nd stage engine, new control systems, etc. - the program costs of each of the SLS subsystems alone exceed the total Falcon Heavy costs. Nobody believes the SLS estimates for cost or schedule based on past performance. I think it's a minimum of 6-10 years before SLS would even launch at a cost of $1 - 1.5B / launch - if I truly believed it would ever launch. With Congressional budget games, that will slide the schedule further right and make SLS less relevant every year until it's mercifully cancelled. I was initially optimistic about Constellation / SLS, but as we get more details, it's easy to see that the primary design goal is to reuse STS assets and architecture - not to reduce operational costs or address a sustainable market. As a taxpayer, I'd like to be wrong, but I fear I am not.
@Issac Mooers: totally agree; our 3 favorite Congressional rocket scientists: Hutchinson, Hatch, and Shelby will be out soon with more diatribes about why commercial programs cannot succeed while working behind the scenes to undermine this plan by diverting money to the SLS gravy train running through their districts. Those people couldn't care less about whether the US has a successful space program or not.
"But Delta IV Heavy can't launch Orion on deep space missions, which is what Orion has been designed and tested for all these years..."
Well, that's what orbital refueling, and/or docking with a separately launched transfer stage (Gemini-Agena, anyone?) on another in-production EELV or Falcon is for, isn't it?
And for less than the cost of a single SLS launch.
True Frank; and I agree yet another reason to reconsider the current SLS plan. However; for many mission planners and budget controllers, on-orbit assembly and fuel depots are non-starters so I was reluctant to bring them up. I personally would rather we expended more effort in that area because it's going to needed for a sustainable effort.
Right, the second half of my post mentioned the possibility of deep space missions utilizing multiple mid-to-heavy lift launchers in place of a single SLS class launcher.
Of course fuel depots and the capability for greater on-orbit activity (as well as nuclear and ion-electric propulsion, and a variety of life support solutions related to zero-gravity and radiation) are necessary advances that need to be made before humans can truly embark upon the final fronter, but these require extensive R&D, and much more of it than SLS/Orion at this point.
Obviously it would ideal to have it all, and I would suggest that none of us knows enough to authoritatively say which approach is more practical at this point, in terms of dollars and cents.
"However; for many mission planners and budget controllers, on-orbit assembly and fuel depots are non-starters so I was reluctant to bring them up."
It's unavoidable, though. If anyone is serious about going to Mars, it's impossible on a single SLS launch (nuclear pulse could maybe, but how likely is that?). Even with that, you will have to put at least two, and much more likely multiple things together in LEO first. Mir and ISS were constructed one piece at a time, we might as well get used to it...
Okay. This is pretty much the combination I would've hoped for, especially as Blue Origin can and likely will go it alone. (As could SpaceX if necessary, but it would take them longer, and why reject the one who has demonstrated the most to date?)
It's about time ....
It's also looking bright for the future of many types of space works now ....
The rover "CURIOSITY" will be landing on Mars on Aug . 6 ....
I'm rooting for a trouble free landing ....
I can't get over how technical they made the landing still ....
Thanks Alan ....
Alan, thanks for being right on top of this story... Great news! Excellent picks by NASA and exactly who I was rooting for all along!
So, Boeing and SpaceX are the two main selections, with Sierra Neveda being the additional 1/2 selection, which makes sense given that Boeing and SpaceX are delivering launcher and spacecraft, whereas SNC is only delivering a spacecraft (albeit a super-cool one...)
I am glad the Liberty launch system did not make it in despite the late PR surge by ATK/Astrium. The idealest in me lives!
Actually, I don't know which are the main selections and which is the half selection. The sources didn't tell Jay about the dollar figures or the relative levels of funding. It's the Wall Street Journal that is reporting the relative levels, and there's always the possibility they're wrong about that. Another little tweak to what you're saying: Boeing as well as Sierra Nevada would use the ULA Atlas 5, and ULA is a partner for both of those teams. So in that sense the two teams are similar.
Good point on the half selection, I must have gleaned that from the WSJ report.
Also noted regarding Boeing vs. SNC on the launcher issue... I guess I just associated Boeing more as a provider who would be responsible for man-rating Atlas V being that they are ULA (in joint-venture partnership with Lockeed Martin), whereas SNC would not be responsible for developing the manned Atlas V as an asset. But I guess you have to look at ULA as a separate entity?
Thanks for the reply!
Turns out the WSJ report was spot on:
Sierra Nevada $212.5
Boeing $460
SpaceX $440
Good job NASA. A very exciting day (and weekend with MSL coming up) for American spaceflight!
Our country may be broke, but the good ol' military-industrial complex keeps right on chugging away, doesn't it?
Since Executive Order 10501 was enacted by Eisenhower in 1953, anything they do discover, they don't have to tell us about. As a matter of fact, if you read the law, they don't have to tell us anything!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/10/02/executive-order-10501-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
Want to know more about how we were lied to concerning Apollo Moon missions? Even the History Channel is coming out about the stuff, The NASA Connection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m48iDKOES4
NASA spent a lot of money on the moon missions. The GAO can't even research the money trail, it's classified.
So what have they found and not told us about?
And an interesting video concerning the Moon missions by Jose Escamilla, called "Moon Rising, The greatest story never told"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilOsZyjRvDs
Really? Space aliens and conspiracy theory? Must be a really lonely world you live in, where everybody in the world is trying to hide "the truth" from you and handful of others. Heck - government can't hardly keep a small arms transfer to obscure paramilitary groups secret, but they can prevent thousands and thousands of people from revealing the "truth" about space aliens on the moon and mars? That would be a truly impressive feat. I find it much harder to believe that such a massive conspiracy has been so successful for so many decades than it would be to believe what has been so thoroughly documented by so many people over the years.
Careful - if what you say is true you should be running and hiding now. MIB coming to get ya. :P
"Heck - government can't hardly keep a small arms transfer to obscure paramilitary groups secret, but..."
Yep. We couldn't keep the Glomar Explorer sub revovery under wraps for long, yet faking Moon landings would be far bigger. Yet with all the resources of the KGB, the Soviets never so much as hinted that we were pulling a fast one. And in the Cold War days, to prove so, would have been the greatest propaganda coup of all time...
This is so COOL and INNOVATIVE, and it is creative for the future of this COUNTRY. Jobs for WORKERS and TECHNICAL WORKERS, Lets HOPE the FATHERS of these COMPANIES do not EVER lose sight of DREAMS and not become GREED MONGERS that ruin those DREAMS and ASPIRATIONS of the folks at the bottom that MAKE THESE COMPANIES, AND THAT THEIR LIVES are enriched before the TOP MANAGERS are enriched.
When I read that only a couple BILLION DOLLARS at the most for this and CONGRESS is SPENDING TRILLIONS ON WARS AND THE PENTAGON. Gosh! this is HANDS DOWN what is and should be done.
THE WAR CHEST NEEDS DRASTIC CUTS. NASA and these COMPANIES are the true FISCAL DEPT CUTTERS!!
CONGRESS get out of your COMA?
Hey, this is great to see we are supporting American companies instead of Chinese or Korean or who know what else.
This is what NASA should have been doing ever since we landed on the Moon. We have lost so much time and money screwing around with the Space Shuttle and the ISS that we have fallen to possibly third place in Space technology. By now we should have been sending components to Mars to build a landing station there and to prepare a green house. we learned nothing from the shuttle flights except about how much they cost everytime they lift off. A smaller Ship with passenger only should have been designed and it wuld have cost nothing compared to the shuttle. NASA has lost it's vision and creativity. The missin this coming Sunday has failure written all over it. Even if it works what does it prove. It proves that by flyiing part of the landing craft a mile away just before landing and wasting Millions doing it.
What practical purpose is there in going to Mars? To say we did? The fact of the matter is that Mars will never be a real suitable destination. It's a dead planet with a dead core which means it could never ever be terraformed as planets with dead cores lack a magnetosphere strong enough to stop solar winds from destroying any atmosphere that could be made. The only possible ways to do anything with Mars would be under domes or if we found a way to get the core hot and spinning again, and that's just too big of a task for human beings.
Exploration is the fabric of the human pioneering spirit. Otherwise, the world would still be flat.
for now.......
after that, the solar rejuvenator...
Good to see the USA moving forward with NASA in mind. Just hope the craft(s) are built 100% in America, and not in some massive far-eastern communist country.
ITAR. What you describe could never be done, even if we wanted to...
(To be fair, Atlas V engines are Russian-built, but they are shipped here (specifically, Decatur, AL) for assembly, and I believe a domestic second-source is being sought for those, too...)
Hello anybody up there?
There is one person not getting any credit and that is George W. Bush. His administration continued to fund this project, he may not have come off to others as a good President but he knew what this meant. The USA is still number one in taking risks and we deliver; we can be the pioneers of a finally legitimate space economy. Wanna pull out of the recession... "To infinity and Beyond" I say! I want see a MOON BASE to mars in my lifetime!
These "sources" just broke a federal law -- the Procurement Integrity Act. Leaks like this drive up the cost of federal procurements, including potential bid protests from unsuccessful offerors, which affects all of us. It would be nice if these sources would just shut their mouths and let the process run its course.