NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden misspoke at yesterday’s House hearing — or the situation changed afterwards — when he said that the funds to pay for a downscaled version of the Orion spacecraft (“Orion-lite”) to serve as a space station lifeboat would come from funding allocated for commercial crew. NASA now says that it will not come from commercial crew, but other human spaceflight activities. The clarification first appeared in today’s New York Times and was confirmed to SpacePolicyOnline.com by NASA.

Early in the House Science and Technology Committee hearing (minute 24:50 of the webcast), Bolden responded to a question from committee chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) about where the money will come from to build Orion-lite and pay for the $40 million President Obama promised to help the Florida space workforce. He assured Rep. Gordon that the funds would not come from science or aeronautics, adding that it would be taken from “commercial crew and … technology development.” He repeated it thereafter.

In today’s New York Times, however, an unnamed NASA spokeswoman is cited as saying that “none of the financing for the Orion lifeboat would come from the $6 billion allocated to the commercial crew program, and that the offsetting funds would come from elsewhere in the human spaceflight program.” A NASA spokesman confirmed to SpacePolicyOnline.com that the New York Times account is accurate.

NASA apparently told the committee prior to the hearing that the pricetag for Orion-lite is $5-7 billion over 5 years, but Bolden said at the hearing that NASA had refined the estimate down to $4.5 billion. How credible either estimate is remains to be seen. The only other human spaceflight funds to tap are in the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) and the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The two main programs in SOMD are the space shuttle, which is coming to an end, and the International Space Station (ISS). ESMD’s other programs are technology demonstration, heavy lift and propulsion R&D, human research (funds for experiments aboard the ISS), and robotic precursors.

Bolden told the committee that a revised NASA FY2011 budget request will be submitted to Congress “in the near future.”

Editor’s Note: The original version of this story said that Mr. Bolden misspoke, but since it is possible that what he said was accurate at the time but changed afterwards, the opening sentence has been modified accordingly. Stay tuned.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) wrote a letter to President Obama yesterday arguing again in favor of launching the “launch on need” mission even if it isn’t needed to rescue the final space shuttle crew. Sen. Nelson and others have been pressing the case in favor of the launch for some time.

Under the current schedule, only two more shuttle launches remain: STS-133 in September and STS-134 in November, though the launch dates remain a bit iffy. NASA plans to have a shuttle on standby in case anything goes wrong with the final shuttle mission and the crew needs to be rescued. Called the “launch on need” (LON) mission, or STS-135, the idea is that if everything goes well, that shuttle would not be launched.

The question then is why not launch it anyway? The biggest issue, of course, is money. It reportedly costs $200 million a month to keep the shuttle program going. NASA already has to absorb the costs of President Obama’s decisions to build a crew rescue version of the Orion spacecraft ($5-7 billion over 5 years) and spend $40 million to help displaced space workers in Florida. NASA Administrator Bolden made it clear at yesterday’s House hearing that the agency’s budget would not be increased to accommodate those activities, so the money must come from other NASA programs.

More months of shuttle funding could further deplete those other NASA programs unless Congress appropriates additional sums. Sen. Nelson’s letter said that he plans to include language in an authorization bill to add this flight, but NASA would only get funding if it is included in an appropriations bill. (Not sure of the difference between an authorization and an appropriation? See our What’s a Markup? fact sheet.)

Another issue is what would happen if something went awry with STS-135. There would be no rescue mission for it. The answer is to launch that mission with a mininum crew complement of four. If the shuttle could not safely return to Earth, those four astronauts could remain on the International Space Station (ISS) until sufficient Russian Soyuz spacecraft could be launched to bring them home. It is not a risk-free strategy since there would be a period of time when there were too many crew members to evacuate in an emergency. Two Soyuz are typically docked at the ISS as lifeboats, each of which can carry three people and there might be 10 people aboard. Decisions would have to be made as to whether that is an acceptable risk.

Sen. Nelson’s letter identifies the reasons he finds the idea so important, revolving around the additional logistical support it would provide for the ISS and retaining jobs a bit longer. Other shuttle supporters hope that the shuttle will continue flying even past this potential final mission. Cost pressures on the federal budget make that unlikely, however.

UPDATE: A go no-go decision on landing at the first opportunity this morning (Wednesday) will be made at 7:21 am EDT for a deorbit burn at 7:41 am and landing at 8:48 am. The weather is currently forecast 30% no-go because of a slight chance of rain showers within 30 miles.

ORIGINAL STORY: The space shuttle Atlantis and its 6-member STS-132 crew are due to land tomorrow morning at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), FL. There are two landing opportunities: 8:48 am and 10:22 am EDT. If weather interferes, there are two opportunities at KSC on Thursday, and additional chances at KSC and Edwards Air Force Base, CA on Friday.

This is the last scheduled flight of the Atlantis orbiter, although it may be suited up for flight one more time as the so-called “launch on need” mission should anything go awry with the final shuttle launch. Only two more shuttle missions remain on the schedule: STS-133 and STS-134, nominally scheduled for September and November of this year.

Also, three of the six International Space Station (ISS) crew members will return to Earth on Tuesday, June 1, on Soyuz TMA-17, leaving three aboard. Three new ISS crew will be launched on Soyuz TMA-19 on June 15 to join them, returning the crew complement to six. To keep track of ISS comings and goings, check NASA’s spaceflight website.

UPDATE: NASA has clarified that Mr. Bolden misspoke at the hearing when he said that funding for the downscaled version of the Orion spacecraft would come from commercial crew. See our story about NASA’s clarification.

ORIGINAL STORY

The House Science and Technology Committee’s hearing on human space flight this morning underscored Members’ concerns that almost four months after release of NASA’s FY2011 budget request, they still have few answers about the details of the new plan. President Obama’s April 15 speech at Kennedy Space Center appears to have muddied the waters rather than cleared them by adding two new “unfunded mandates:” the decision to build a downscaled “crew rescue” version of the Orion spacecraft and the $40 million initiative to help workers along the Florida space coast. Chairman Gordon revealed that NASA’s preliminary estimate for “Orion-lite” is $5-7 billion over 5 years, not including operational costs.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden told the committee that NASA would submit a revised FY2011 budget “in the near future” to show where the money will come from to pay for Orion-lite and the workforce package. He insisted that the total will not go “above the curve”: the budget request will remain at $19 billion. That means funding meant for other NASA activities will have to be reduced. He assured the committee that funding for science and aeronautics research will not be touched, and the reductions would be in technology development and commercial crew. His statements made clear that the process of “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” so heavily criticized during his predecessor’s tenure, has begun before the new plan is even approved.

Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) pointed out that if it will cost NASA $5-7 billion for Orion-lite, a vehicle that can only bring people back from space, NASA’s estimate of $6 billion to subsidize multiple companies to be able to offer commercial crew vehicles to take people both to and from space seems unrealistic. Orion-lite should be easier to design, build and certify as safe because it will be launched empty; it does not have to meet ascent human safety standards. It only must meet the visiting vehicle requirements for docking with the ISS and returning people to Earth.

Bolden appeared solo on the first “panel” of the hearing for about two hours. He was followed by a panel with Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Tom Young. Strong Member interest in the hearing made it run into extra innings. The webcast is not yet on the committee’s website, but hopefully will be posted shortly.

During the hearing, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), chairwoman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, asked Bolden if it was true that Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley was being replaced at that very moment. Bolden confirmed that it was his understanding that Hanley was being told that morning that he would be reassigned to be Deputy Director of Johnson Space Center for strategic studies. The timing seemed odd since it has been known for quite some time that Bolden would be testifying this morning. What message, if any, NASA was sending by removing Hanley at the same time the hearing was underway is a mystery.

UPDATE: The shuttle landed safely.

ORIGINAL STORY: The shuttle has been given a “go” for landing at 8:48 am EDT this morning at Kennedy Space Center. The landing will be covered live on NASA TV and Spaceflightnow.com. See our previous article for more information on this scheduled last flight of Atlantis and International Space Station news.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) revealed this morning that NASA is replacing the program manager of the Constellation program, Jeff Hanley. She expressed her concern about this decision during a question and answer exchange with NASA Administrator Bolden at this morning’s House Science and Technology Committee hearing on NASA’s human space flight program.

Bolden said the decision was not his, that such a decision is the province of Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Associate Administrator Doug Cooke and Johnson Space Center (JSC) Director Mike Coats, but said he had been in discussions with them and it was his understanding that they were meeting with Hanley this morning. Bolden indicated that Hanley will become Deputy Director of JSC for strategic planning. Giffords said the action further undermines NASA”s effort to convince Congress that it is not taking actions to cancel Constellation as required by law. Who will replace Hanley was not mentioned.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal decision yesterday that NASA has not violated the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiton on using funds to create or initiate a new program to replace Constellation. GAO did caution the agency to be “mindful” of the provision and ensure its planning activities “do not evolve” into activities that would violate the law.

NASA is sponsoring the Exploration Enterprise Workshop in Galveston, TX tomorrow and Wednesday. The event will be streamed via UStream and today NASA posted the briefing slides for Day 1 on its website. The second day is for breakout sessions. A NASA press release offers a number of caveats about the presentations, such as noting that they do not represent final plans or launch dates and missions are likely to change, but they provide a starting point for “engagement with outside organizations.”

UPDATE: This article is updated to add a link to the presentations for Day 1 of the NASA/AIAA Exploration Enterprise Workshop on May 25-26, posted by NASA today.

ORIGINAL STORY: The following events may be of interest this week. For more information, check our calendar on the right menu or click the links below. Congress is trying to wrap up some legislation as the Memorial Day recess beckons. The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to hold subcommittee and full committee markups of the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Bill, but the meetings are closed so are not listed below.

Tuesday, May 25

• Marshall Institute’s Health of the Space Industrial Base, National Press Club, Washington, DC, 8:15-10:30 am

Tuesday-Wednesday, May 25-26

• NASA/AIAA Exploration Enterprise Workshop, Galveston, TX. The event will be streamed via UStream and NASA has posted the slides for the presentations on Day 1 at this website.

Wednesday, May 26

• House Science and Technology Committee hearing on Human Space Flight (Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Charlie Bolden and Tom Young testify), 2318 Rayburn, 10:00 am

Thursday-Monday, May 27-31

• National Space Society International Space Development Conference (ISDC), Chicago, IL

Key players in implementing President Obama’s plan to turn human spaceflight over to the commercial sector met Thursday to discuss human rating requirements for commercial crew space vehicles during a roundtable hosted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The first phase of a much needed debate to push forward the process that would allow NASA astronauts and – in the future – ordinary people to board commercial space vehicles centered on a variety of complex issues. In the end, there appeared to be consensus on at least one thing: safety is the first priority.

Bryan O’Connor, former astronaut and Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance at NASA, said that while the government would strive not to over-regulate, existing law like the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, which requires a presidential commission to investigate accidents, reminds government of its “responsibility of not backing up too much.” He explained that NASA’s role in promoting safety will begin with the upcoming release of a Request for Information (RFI) on NASA’s draft human rating requirements. Mr. O’Connor said they reflected NASA’s first take at the safety requirements the agency itself would look to address if it were in the commercial companies’ shoes. Feedback from potential contractors will initiate a discussion on steps to integrate and adapt these requirements into the commercial systems now under development. He likened the process to what NASA went through to determine that astronauts could safely fly on Russia’s Soyuz launch vehicle — not strict compliance, but equivalence.

The “safety first” philosophy also reflects the necessity that safety requirements be integrated early in the design process because retrofitting them into an existing system is almost impossible. According to Ken Bowersox, another former astronaut and Vice President of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance Development at SpaceX, his company jumpstarted the human rating requirement process by looking at NASA’s internal requirements, as well as previous and existing crew transportation vehicles – such as the Apollo and the Soyuz – for the early design of the Falcon 9 and its Dragon spacecraft. The company hopes that this strategy will help it adapt and respond to NASA’s safety requirements more easily.

Adaptation is key, since history has demonstrated that strict compliance is not necessarily the best or safest option. Mr. O’Connor reiterated what he sees as the wisdom of following NASA’s “Soyuz thinking” of not trying to force a redesign on the differences between Soyuz and NASA’s own way of doing things. The questions become: Is this system acceptable? Is this issue a showstopper? Or is it an acceptable risk?

Another theme of the discussion was that risk and safety are not at opposite ends of the spectrum. “Safety is not an absolute,” cautioned Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration. “All transportation involves risks,” he added, explaining that even a vehicle built completely by NASA should not be assumed to be safe and, least of all, risk-free. The need is to “understand and accept those risks before you fly,” a process that will require dialogue within the community to come up with a consensus on standards, practices, and principles.

The debate will continue as stakeholders look for common ground in what Ken Reightler, Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin Space Operations and another former astronaut, described as the “philosophy” or “mind-set” of safety. Mr. O’Connor explained that one often unspoken and perhaps misunderstood assumption of people involved in spaceflight is that the mission and the safety of the people carrying it out are not in competition, but go hand in hand. He said he fears that when the public hears debates like this one with an emphasis on safety, “people think we’re saying that [safety] is our mission,” but the only way to be completely safe is for people to not fly into space, and no one is suggesting that. He joked that the way he likes to think about it is that “safety is the remora fish in the shark of exploration,” a reference to the symbiotic relationship between remora fish that attach themselves to and eat parasites off of sharks, benefitting both.