Senate Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee appropriators had a surprise for everyone when they marked up the FY2013 appropriations bill today.  They want to transfer NOAA’s satellite activities other than operations to NASA, increasing NASA’s budget accordingly.   NASA would get $19.4 billion for FY2013 compared to the $17.7 billion request.  NOAA would get $3.4 billion for FY2013, compared to the $5.1 billion requested.

CJS subcommittee chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) complained that they had told NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, “time and time and time again” that they need to “get their act together.”   The subcommittee is weary of cost overruns on NOAA satellite programs.  She particularly mentioned that the projected life-cycle cost for the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) went up $1 billion in the last year, from $11.9 billion to $12.9 billion.

Mary Kicza, head of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) said at a FY2013 budget briefing in February that the $1 billion increase was due to lengthening by four years (from 2024 to 2028) the operational time frame for the system. 

Mikulski invoked what she called the Marine rule — be best at what you do best.  She and other subcommittee members clearly believe that NASA is better at building and launching satellites than NOAA.   In fact, NASA is already NOAA’s procurement agent for satellites.  NOAA sets the requirements and reimburses NASA for procuring and launching them.  NOAA then operates the satellites once they are in orbit.

If the subcommittee’s recommendation becomes law, NOAA would still operate the satellites, but NASA would in charge of everything else and the money would be in NASA’s budget.  Mikulski estimated that the government would save $100 million per year by having NASA manage the programs directly instead of through the current reimburseable arrangement.

As for NASA’s other programs, a summary provided by the committee and statements by Mikulski and ranking member Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) asserted that NASA is fully funded to pursue the balanced program laid out in the 2010 NASA authorization act.   Funds are provided for science, the Orion and Space Launch System programs for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit, and for a commercial crew capability to exist by 2017 to take crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS).   The following paragraph and bullet points are from the committee’s summary:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The large increase results from a reorganization of operational weather satellite procurement from NOAA into NASA. Without the funds for weather satellite procurement, this level represents a $41.5 million cut from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

• The bill preserves a NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments.
• Funding for the development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle is $1.2 billion, the same as fiscal year 2012. Heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) development is funded at $1.5 billion, $21 million less than fiscal year 2012. The bill also provides $244 million for construction needed to build, test, and operate Orion and SLS. Commercial crew development is provided $525 million, an increase of $119 million above fiscal year 2012.
• The bill provides $5 bilion for Science which is $69 billion less than fiscal year 2012.  Within Science, the bill restores $100 million of a proposed cut to robotic Mars science programs, resulting in a total of $461 million for Mars robotic science.

At the beginning of the markup, Miksulski asked her colleagues to refrain from introducing amendments because they will be considered during full committee markup, which she said would be on Thursday.  The time and location are not yet posted on the committee’s website. 

One place where Mikulski and Hutchison publicly disagreed was whether the funding for commercial crew supports only two competitors or more.   Hutchison said “our priority for NASA is to select two competitors” so the commercial crew program can be “robust” but also saves taypayers from funding more companies than necessary.  Mikulski rejoined that that was Hutchison’s view, not the subcommittee’s.   Mikulski said she did not know how many companies would be funded, maybe four (the number NASA is currently funding), but that she and Hutchison were in agreement that NASA needs a balanced program including Orion/SLS, commercial crew, and science.

Hutchison is retiring from the Senate this year and several Senators lauded her work over many years and noted this was her last subcommittee markup.  She will, however, remain a powerful presence in the Senate on NASA programs for the rest of this year.

UPDATE:  Bob Jacobs at NASA tweets that the press conference will be held about 3:30 pm ET.

NASA’s Flight Readiness Review (FRR) for the upcoming SpaceX mission to the International Space Station is now underway.  You can follow the action via NASA’s Twitter account using the hashtag #FRR.

NASA plans a press conference this afternoon after the FRR is completed.   The time is TBD, depending on when the FRR concludes.   Follow NASA on Twitter to keep track of what time it will take place.  It will be aired on NASA TV.

Dampening expectations for a complete success was a major theme of today’s NASA press conference following the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) for the SpaceX demonstration flight to the International Space Station (ISS).  The launch date for the mission remains targeted for April 30.

NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Bill Gerstenmaier cautioned, however, that some tests remain to be be completed before a final decision is made and the mission is very challenging.

SpaceX will be conducting those tests, primarily related to software, and reporting back to NASA by April 23.  NASA does not expect to perform another FRR at that time, but will consider the results before formally committing to the launch date.   If it does not go on April 30, May 3 would be the next opportunity.

SpaceX succeeded in convincing NASA to combine the last two of its ISS demonstration flights, so this mission, dubbed C2+, is especially difficult.  The company launched its first demonstration flight, C1, of the Falcon 9 rocket coupled with the Dragon spacecraft in December 2010.  It was supposed to launch two more test flights, C2 and C3, but this flight combines the objectives of both, hence the C2+ designation.  It will be only the third flight of Falcon 9 and the second flight of Dragon.   SpaceX founder Elon Musk sounded optimistic about the performance of those two components of his space transportation system, but stressed that other aspects of the mission are firsts — such as rendezvous and berthing with the ISS, and the solar arrays for Dragon.    “We’ve got a pretty good shot,” he said, “but there’s a lot that can go wrong on a mission like this.”

Musk noted that SpaceX hopes to launch two more missions to the ISS this year and if berthing is not successful this time it will try again.   Gerstenmaier made clear that these commercial cargo missions are “critical” for ISS operations.  Dragon, in particular, is the only cargo spacecraft capable of returning materials to Earth.   Russia’s Progress, Europe’s ATV and Japan’s HTV spacecraft are not designed to survive reentry and burn up in the atmosphere.   Dragon is designed for a survivable water landing, which was demonstrated during the December 2010 mission.

These cargo flights do not carry anyone aboard, but SpaceX hopes to evolve Dragon into a vehicle capable of carrying crew.   When pressed today, Musk ventured that a flight with a crew might be possible in about three years if this demonstration flight succeeds. 

Following the termination of the space shuttle program last year, NASA has no way to launch cargo or crew to the ISS.  It is completely dependent on Russia to take people to and from the ISS, and Russia, Europe and Japan for cargo transport.

This mission will take 521 kilograms of cargo to the ISS, primarily crew provisions including food, as well as one Nanorack with student experiments, and some replacement parts.   It will return 660 kilograms of material to Earth, landing in the ocean off the California coast after 18 days berthed with the ISS.   Decisions are not final on what will be returned.

Musk said he did not know how much SpaceX has spent on this commercial cargo vehicle specifically, but said the company has spent a total of about $1 billion over the course of its history.   NASA provided $381 million of that, while Musk and other investors provided the rest.  NASA said it owes SpaceX another $15 million when it achieves the remaining three milestones under the Space Act Agreement through which NASA is facilitating SpaceX’s development of the transportation system.   Alan Lindenmoyer, NASA’s manager of commercial crew and cargo at Johnson Space Center, replied to a question by saying that studies have concluded that it would have cost NASA four to ten times more to develop this capability under conventional contracting methods.

Between now and April 23, the company will continue tests to make certain that its hardware and software interact correctly under various circumstances.   Musk stressed that Dragon is autonomous — no one is aboard with a joystick to make decisions.   It is all done by software.  “Dragon is making a lot of decisions all the time,” he said.   In the past month, he continued, the biggest problem is “false aborts” when Dragon gets “worried” about something and aborts the mission when it is not necessary.

As SpaceX prepares for the April 30 test flight of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the “commercial cargo” phase of its business plan, yesterday it announced creation of a five-person safety panel to provide advice on what it hopes will be the next phase — “commercial crew.”

If all goes according to plan on the April 30 flight, Dragon will berth with the International Space Station (ISS) to demonstrate its ability to deliver cargo to the ISS.   Dragon will not carry any crew on this flight, which is part of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.   NASA initiated the COTS program to facilitate the emergence of a commercial capability for companies to build and launch space transportation systems to provide ISS-related services to NASA on a commercial basis.

With the termination of the space shuttle program last year, NASA itself has no capability to take cargo or crew to the ISS.   It relies on Russia to transport astronauts, and on Russia, Europe and Japan to take cargo.

NASA is building a new rocket and spacecraft to take people beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), where ISS is located, but the plan is to rely on the commercial sector to provide both cargo and crew services to ISS for the future.   SpaceX hopes to be one of the companies selected by NASA to provide “commercial crew” services to ISS in the future using Falcon 9 and Dragon, as well as launching other paying customers (“space tourists”) to LEO.

The safety panel it named yesterday “will provide objective assessments of the safety of the Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket to help SpaceX maintain the highest level of safety,” according to the SpaceX press release.  

The five SpaceX safety panel members named yesterday are:

• Leroy Chiao, former NASA astronaut
• Scott Hubbard, former director of NASA’s Ames Research Center and member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board that investigated the 2003 space shuttle Columbia tragedy; currently Stanford University professor of aeronautics and astronautics
• Richard Jennings, former chief of medicine at NASA’s Johnson Space Center and currently a professor at the Aerospace Medicine Center at the University of Texas Medical Branch
• Mark Kelly, former NASA astronaut
• Ed Lu, former NASA astronaut

SpaceX said they will have their first meeting in the fall of 2012 and work “well after SpaceX begins flying people into space.”

NASA’s commercial crew program is controversial for many reasons, one of which is concern that commercial companies will be less concerned about safety than the government.

Safety was the watchword at Tuesday’s hearing on the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation by a House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee. Public safety, crew safety, and passenger safety.  The government’s indemnification of commercial launch service providers and the dual role of the FAA as both regulator and facilitator of the commercial launch industry were other key issues.

Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-MS), chair of the subcommittee on space and aviation, and other members quizzed George Nield, director of the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), and Will Trafton, chairman of AST’s advisory committee, COMSTAC, about how AST will ensure the safety of NASA astronauts on commercial rockets as well as ordinary people who fly to space on a commercial basis.

Subcommittee members complimented Nield on the perfect safety record of his office over the past three decades.   AST has licensed over 200 commercial launches with no loss of life or serious injury or property damage to the public.  It is requesting $16.7 million for FY2013, $429,000 over its FY2012 level according to Nield.  The increase would fund additional personnel to deal with an expected rise in license and permit applications.  Nield and Trafton both said they anticipated a significant increase with the emergence of the suborbital space tourism business as well as commercial space launches NASA is facilitating through the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.  SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. are both expected to begin launches of their commercial cargo services to the International Space Station through the COTS program this year.

In addition to the usual questions about why AST believes it needs a funding increase, the safety of launching people into space, or near-space as the suborbital companies plan, was a key issue at the hearing.  Subcommittee chairman Palazzo asked Nield how his office will handle orbital versus suborbital flights and its interaction with NASA on launching NASA astronauts on commercial vehicles.

Nield said “Our approach for overseeing the launches that we have coming up consists of looking at both the impact on public safety and the impact on crew members and space flight participants.”   Pursuant to the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments, “space flight participants” basically are members of the public — tourists —  who choose to go into space with one of the commercial providers of such services.  In the 2004 law, Congress prohibited the FAA from imposing strong regulations for space tourists — it can require only informed consent — for 8 years while the industry develops, after which the FAA can impose stricter regulations if needed.  With the advent of commercial suborbital or orbital spaceflights taking longer than expected, Congress extended that prohibition for another 3 years, until October 1, 2015, in the recently passed FAA reauthorization act (P.L. 112-381).   Nield said that his office is working closely with NASA and industry to “understand what would make sense” so it can be ready if the need for stricter regulations arises. NASA can impose its own safety requirements on companies that want to launch NASA astronauts, he said, emphasizing that his office is primarily focused on public safety.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), reminded the witnesses that he wrote the language in the 2004 law so that there could be a learning period for the FAA to determine just what rules are necessary.  He stressed the need for the FAA to collect data during the additional 3 years to ensure that a “workable and safe” system is established.  “If it’s not safe, it’s not workable.  We know that,” he said.  

Rohrabacher went on to ask about the respective roles of the FAA and NASA in regulating commercial launch systems, and how Nield’s part of the FAA operates compared with the rest of the FAA. which regulates aviation.   Nield replied that his office works closely with NASA, and NASA “recognizes that they are not set up as a regulatory organization.”  As for the internal FAA roles, he said that both the aviation and space portions of the FAA are focused on safety, but the aviation portion has 100 years of experience, while his is a new industry.  HIs office, which both regulates and facilitates the commercial launch industry, also wants to encourage innovation.  “So that’s the balance that we want to try to achieve; safety’s number one, but let’s allow some innovation.”

The dual roles of Nield’s office — to both regulate and facilitate — are set out in the 1984 law that created the office, but often is questioned.  That was true at this hearing as well and Nield explained as he and his predecessors have said in the past that the two are not in conflict.  He said again that safety is paramount, but his office engages in many activities that assist the industry such as collecting and disseminating data, helping industry understand the regulations and submit applications for licenses and permits, and working with Congress and other federal agencies to identify obstacles.  In response to a related question from Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), Trafton said that the dual role was appropriate today, but once the industry becomes more mature, “we should probably take a hard look at whether or not AST should be promoting commercial space.”

Indemnification was another issue.   Under the 1988 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments, the government indemnifies companies for part of claims that could be made if a launch goes awry and hurts the general public or damages their property.  This is called “third party” indemnification because it protects only third parties, not companies or individuals directly involved in the launch.  Nield’s office determines what the maximum probable loss is from a launch and the launching entity must buy insurance to cover that loss.  The government, however, will cover losses between $500 million and $2 billion.

The authority to provide third party liability indemnification has been extended several times.  The current authority expires at the end of this year.  In response to questions from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), Nield said that COMSTAC recommended that indemnification be renewed for as many as 10 years or even making it permanent, and lifting the $1.5 billion limit on what the government can cover.  However, Trafton, who chairs COMSTAC, said that it was asking for only a  one-year extension right now while it continues to study the issue.   He did stress, however, that the government-provided indemnification is needed to keep the U.S. launch industry globally competitive because all other countries indemnify their launch providers.

Rohrabacher defended indemnification, noting that the government provided indemnification to the nuclear power industry, which was critical for its development considering its high risk, and space launches are no different.    Subcommittee chairman Palazzo noted that he will hold a hearing on the indemnification issue in late May where the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will testify about an analysis it is currently conducting on this topic.

• Hearing Charter 
• Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Palazzo
• Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Costello 
• Prepared Statement of George Nield, Director, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
• Prepared Statement of Wilbur Trafton, Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC)
• Webcast