The deal struck between Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and NASA over how to conduct future phases of the commercial crew program won another thumbs up today.   Wolf’s counterpart on the House committee that authorizes NASA’s activities, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), praised the agreement.

Hall said in a press release that the compromise “answers many lingering concerns voiced by Members of this Committee … on uncertainties plaguing the program’s cost, and its ability to mandate crew safety design features.”

Hall chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, an authorization committee that provides policy guidance and recommends funding levels.   Wolf chairs the House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee that actually provides money (authorization committees make only recommendations for funding levels).  Wolf’s office released an exchange of letters yesterday where he and NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden laid out the key elements of their agreement.

Earlier today, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the top Republican on both the Senate authorization committee and Senate Appropriations CJS subcommittee also endorsed the deal.

No public statements by House or Senate Democrats reacting to the agreement appear to have been made yet.  Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been highly critical of the commercial crew program since it became a centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s human spaceflight policy in 2010.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), an influential Senator on NASA issues, expressed her support for the agreement reached between Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and NASA on how many companies should be funded in the next phase of NASA’s commercial crew program.

In a press release, Hutchison said she applauded the agreement announced yesterday.    Hutchison has a particularly influential role in NASA issues in the Senate because she serves in key positions both on NASA’s authorizing and appropriating committees.  She is the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that authorizes NASA’s activities, and the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee that funds NASA.

At the CJS subcommittee markup of NASA’s FY2013 funding bill (S. 2323), Hutchison spoke strongly about the need to limit the number of companies that get funded in the next phase to two instead of four.   The chair of the subcommittee, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), stressed that was Hutchison’s personal view and not the subcommittee’s position.  The report on the bill is silent on the number of companies, but urges NASA not to obligate itself to more companies than it can reasonably expect to fund in the current budget environment.

Referring to her position that there should be only two awardees, Hutchison said in the press release that the Wolf-NASA agreement “follows that prescription and is welcome news,”

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, and NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, have agreed to limit the number of winners of commercial crew contracts to 2.5 instead of four.  An exchange of letters revealing the agreement was released by Wolf’s office today.

The first letter, from Wolf to Bolden on May 31, laid out the chairman’s understanding of NASA’s intentions for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) based on recent discussions between his office and the agency.  Bolden’s reply yesterday affirmed that understanding.   

Among the agreed upon points is that NASA plans to select no more than 2.5 program partners (two full awards and one partial award) in the next phase of the CCP.  That phase is called Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) and follows the two initial CCDEV rounds of awards made in 2010 and 2011.  In this third phase, companies must bid to provide a complete — “integrated” — system to take crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS) instead of just a spacecraft or just a launch vehicle, for example.

The number of companies to be funded is one of the sticking points between Congress and the Obama Administration on the CCP.  Although it is called a “commercial” program, it involves significant taxpayer investment.  NASA plans to spend $4.8 billion between FY2011 and FY2017 on commercial crew development.  The companies also are expected to invest their own capital, however, which makes this different from previous NASA human spaceflight programs.

NASA wants to ensure there is sufficient competition to yield at least two companies that will be able to provide commercial crew services.  It does not want to narrow the field (“down-select”) too quickly in this phase of the program.  Congress, however, wants to limit the amount of funds it must provide to support those companies.  NASA funded four companies in the second CCDEV round, but in the FY2013 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill crafted by Wolf’s subcommittee and passed by the House on May 10 (H.R. 5326), the House told NASA to choose only one company, or at most one “leader” and one “follower.”   The Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the bill (S. 2323) only cautions NASA not to take on obligations to more companies that can be “practically supported” in the current budget environment.

Another point of contention is how NASA is contracting with these companies.  So far, NASA has used Space Act Agreements (SAAs) instead of traditional contracts based on Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).  NASA planned to use FAR-based contracts for CCiCAP, but reversed course last December because it concluded that funding uncertainties made FAR-based fixed price contracts unrealistic.   NASA has little insight into what the companies are doing under SAAs.  It simply pays the companies once they meet agreed-upon milestones.   Under FAR-based contracts, NASA can set requirements and have insight and oversight of how the companies meet those requirements.  Congress has repeatedly expressed concern that commercial companies may not pay as close attention to astronaut safety as would NASA and want the agency to be able to keep tabs on what the companies are doing, hence the need for FAR-based contracts.

In the exchange of letters, NASA agrees that it is working on a strategy to use FAR-based contracting in the future and “anticipates having this strategy substantively complete” before making the CCiCAP awards and “will use FAR-based contracts” for certifying commercial crew capabilities and procuring crew transportation services.

Bolden’s letter said that the program needed more funding than the $500 million the House provided for FY2013.   NASA’s request was $830 million.  The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $525 million (the Senate has not acted on the bill yet).  In a press release, Wolf said he agreed that funding should be “at or near” the Senate level.  He said he had reached this understanding with NASA “to prevent any disruption in the development of crew vehicles” to take astronauts to and from the ISS.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gave up on its attempts to restore daily image transmissions from Landsat 5’s Thematic Mapper (TM) thermal imaging instrument.  Launched by NASA in 1984, the satellite is decades past its design lifetime so an instrument failure is hardly unexpected.  Yet there also is good news.  Landsat 5’s other instrument, a Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS), was brought back to life, so the spacecraft will continue to return data, albeit of less quality.

The Landsat program has experienced a tumultous programmatic history since the first satellite, then called ERTS-1, was launched in 1972.  The program celebrates its 40th anniversary on July 23.   NASA successfully launched Landsat 1-5.  An attempt to privatize the system failed in the early 1980s for many reasons including a launch vehicle malfunction that sent Landsat 6 to a watery grave in the Pacific Ocean.  The program was brought back into the government.  Landsat 7 was built and launched by NASA, but USGS took over operations of that satellite as well as Landsat 5.  NASA is building Landsat 8 (also called the Landsat Data Continuity Mission), with launch expected in January 2013.   The future of the program after that is up in the air.

USGS has been trying to restore the Landsat 5 TM since November when it suffered an electronics malfunction and daily image transmissions were suspended.  USGS said today that it will “attempt only a few additional image acquisitions over specific sensor-calibration sites as the TM transmitter nears complete failure.”

In the meantime, USGS reactivated Landsat 5’s MSS in a test mode after more than a decade of inactivity.  USGS Director Marcia McNutt said “the resurrection of the MSS a decade after it was last powered up and 25 years beyond its nominal lifespan is welcome news indeed.”  The MSS has fewer spectral bands (it does not acquire thermal data) and lower pixel resolution, but is an insurance policy in case Landsat 7 fails before the new Landsat 8 is launched in January.  Landsat 7 is also well past its design lifetime.  Launched in 1999, it has a scan line error problem meaning that each image has a 22 percent loss of data.

Unlike the high resolution imagery obtained from commercial remote sensing satellites operated by GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, medium resolution Landsat data have little commercial value, but are highly valued by the scientific community and specialized users such as the agriculture industry.

USGS is sponsoring a contest to celebrate the Landsat program’s 40th anniversary.  The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, June 6.

As Elon Musk’s Dragon spacecraft successfully splashed down in the Pacific Ocean this morning, he was thinking “welcome home, baby” as the mission came to a picture perfect ending.

International Space Station (ISS) astronauts using the robotic Canadarm2 detached Dragon from the ISS Harmony module at 4:05 am Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).   They released Dragon from Canadarm2 at 5:49 am EDT, a few minutes later than planned.  The spacecraft then performed a series of engine firings that put it on course for landing in the Pacific Ocean about 490 nautical miles southwest of Los Angeles.  It landed at 27 degrees North latitude, 120 degrees West longitude two minutes ahead of schedule at 11:42 am ET. 

Photo credit:  SpaceX:  https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/208264591887712257/photo/1

During a post-landing news conference, Musk said the difference in landing times was due to the wind.   Dragon uses two drogue chutes and then three main chutes to slow its landing speed.  Musk emphasized his plans for future versions of Dragon to return to land instead of water, using propulsive landing systems.  He also stressed that this version of Dragon is capable of taking crews to and from the ISS, although launch abort systems and additional successful launches are needed before offering such services.   If someone had stowed away on Dragon, though, that person would have been OK, he said.  He hopes the success of this mission lends credence to the commercial crew program that has been struggling to win support in Congress. 

In response to a reporter’s question about what he was thinking as Dragon floated in the ocean, he said his thoughts were “welcome home, baby. …. I feel really great, like seeing your kid come home.”

Musk and NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Manager Alan Lindenmoyer were clearly delighted that the mission went so smoothly.  Lindenmoyer said that two objectives still need to be met — for NASA to see the cargo that was returned from the ISS and for that cargo to be delivered to the agency — but he anticipates that SpaceX will be given the go ahead to begin routine Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) to the ISS very soon.

Although many media reports are crediting the Obama Administration for the commercial cargo program, it actually began under the George W. Bush Administration and then-NASA Administrator Mike Griffin.  Griffin initiated the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program in 2006 as part of planning for the post-shuttle era.   COTS included a section (COTS-D) about the possibility of using commercial companies to launch people as well, but the concept ran into obstacles. 

In February 2010, however, President Obama embraced it wholeheartedly in NASA’s FY2011 budget request that revealed his decision that NASA would no longer launch people to low Earth orbit (LEO) after the final shuttle flight.  Instead, the country would rely on the commercial sector, with substantial financial support from the government, to develop commercial crew as well as commercial cargo systems.  That decision, coupled with his cancellation of President Bush’s Constellation program to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and someday send them to Mars, sparked a furor in Congress and started years of debate that is still ongoing.

The Dragon flight that ended today, however, certainly gives a boost to commercial cargo.   Questions may remain about the business aspects — how much the government will have to pay for these services — which raises the issue of when Orbital Sciences Corp. will be ready to compete with SpaceX.   Competition is envisioned as a way to keep prices down.  Orbital’s Antares rocket and Cygnus spacecraft have not been launched yet, but NASA is hopeful they will be later this year.

Even though these are called “commercial” missions, a significant amount of taxpayer money is involved.  NASA spent about $800 million helping SpaceX and Orbital develop their commercial cargo systems.   In 2008, it contracted for 12 cargo Commercial Resupply Services missions from SpaceX and eight from Orbital.  A memo prepared by staff of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee in May 2011 showed that NASA will spend $5.1 billion for ISS cargo services between FY2011 and FY2016.   Still, the government is expected to save money overall because the companies invested their own capital in system development, although the amount is not known publicly.

Lindenmoyer said today that NASA will need cargo services to the ISS through at least 2020 and he believes these systems will be useful for achieving other human space exploration goals.  “We must have strong partnerships” with the commercial industry, he said, “and I know there are opportunities that will fit well with this.”