The overriding message from government and private sector witnesses at yesterday’s hearing on NASA’s commercial crew program is that “adequate” funding will determine how quickly such systems can be ready to take astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The message from most members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee in return is that they remain skeptical that there is a market for commercial crew services other than NASA to help defray the costs. Their concern is that the government will end up paying dearly for those services in addition to the billions of dollars it plans to invest in development costs.

The commercial crew program, initiated by President Obama in February 2010, is a public-private partnership where NASA and private sector companies share the costs of developing new crew transportation systems to low Earth orbit (LEO), including the ISS. The systems would be operated by the companies, not NASA. NASA would pay the companies to take astronauts to the ISS while the agency focuses on developing a new system to take astronauts further into space. With the termination of the space shuttle program earlier this year, NASA does not have the capability to launch anyone into space today. It pays Russia to take astronauts to the ISS.

The President’s commercial crew proposal caught Congress by surprise last year and created significant controversy.

NASA requested $850 million for the commercial crew program in FY2012. The House Appropriations Committee approved $312 million, the same as FY2011. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $500 million, the same level as recommended for FY2012 in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. The recommendations have not been voted on by the House or Senate yet.

Those funds are to help the commercial companies develop their systems. NASA would pay separately for the crew transportation services the companies plan to offer. NASA’s goal is to have at least two commercial crew providers from which to purchase services.

NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Bill Gerstenmaier told the committee that if Congress provides the full $850 million request, commercial vehicles could be ferrying crews to the ISS by 2016. At the $500 million level, and assuming funding above projected levels for future years, the date would slip to 2017. During that year, he said, NASA would be paying Russia $480 million for crew transportation services, the implication being that the money would be better spent now on developing U.S systems.

In response to a comment from another committee member that 2017 seems like a long time to wait, committee chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) agreed, arguing that someone needs to say “damn it, let’s go.”

Representatives of Boeing, Sierra Nevada and SpaceX all said their systems could be ready to go by 2015, but only if there is adequate funding. Boeing is working on the CST-100 spacecraft, which it plans to launch on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket. Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser spacecraft also would use the Atlas V. SpaceX is developing its own rocket, Falcon 9, and spacecraft, Dragon. All three are receiving funding through NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. SpaceX also is one of two companies (along with Orbital Sciences) receiving NASA funds to develop a commercial cargo system, which was the subject of an earlier hearing.

ULA testified about the Atlas V, emphasizing its proven track record for uncrewed launches. George Sowers, ULA Vice President for Business Development and Advanced Programs, said it could be ready for test flights for commercial crew spacecraft in 2014 and operations in 2015. ULA also is receiving NASA funds through the CCDev program.

ATK wants to compete with ULA to launch commercial crew spacecraft. It is developing a new rocket, Liberty, using solid rockets originally developed for the space shuttle program that were being adapted for the now-canceled Constellation program, plus an upper stage from the European Ariane V rocket. ATK’s Charlie Precourt, a former astronaut, said their concept required only a modest amount of NASA funding, but in order to get outside capital, “customer endorsement” of the project is required. ATK has an unfunded agreement with NASA to share data and information. It was not successful in getting a CCDev award because in the round of financing for which it applied (CCDev2), NASA funded only spacecraft and not launch vehicles, Precourt said.

Several committee members expressed concern about the overall cost to the taxpayer, which is a combination of the government’s share of the development costs and payments for services once the systems are operating. Although many members have expressed reservations in the past about being reliant on another country for human access to space, the concern at this hearing was that it would cost much more for the commercial crew option than continuing to pay Russia. The United States is committed to using the ISS only until 2020. If the commercial systems are not ready until 2016 or 2017, their utility for ISS operations is limited. Committee members wanted to know if U.S. commercial systems would be competitive with Russia’s prices if the development costs are included in the calculation.

Top committee Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) each asked about a statement last week by NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver that NASA has an analysis showing that the agency needs to spend $6 billion over 5 years for development.

Rep. Edwards asked to see that analysis. NASA’s Gerstenmaier said he could provide her with the basis for the estimate, which actually is a range from $4-6 billion, he said.

The cost for services once the systems are operational will be affected by how large of a non-NASA market exists for space tourism or other potential reasons for people to travel into LEO. NASA’s Gerstenmaier confirmed that the agency needs only two flights a year of three astronauts each – six “seats.” He expects to pay $80 million per seat, for a total of $480 million per year. The question is whether that is a sufficient market for companies to make an acceptable return on investment.

Boeing’s John Elbon and Steve Lindsey of Sierra Nevada stressed that their companies are basing their business case on having only NASA as a customer. If there are additional customers, that would be a bonus.

Elon Musk, founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer of SpaceX, took a different tack. He said that the goal of SpaceX is to “advance the cause of space … not to maximize profit,” adding that he retains majority ownership of SpaceX to “make sure the idealistic goals of SpaceX remain true.” He told the committee that one advantage of his system is that the same spacecraft will be used for cargo and crew so he would be launching not just two crew flights per year using the Dragon spacecraft, but 6-8. In addition, he said his company has many flights booked for the Falcon 9 rocket, so the emergence of a non-government market for crew flights to low Earth orbit was not as critical a factor in his business plan. The Dragon spacecraft is being designed to carry seven people, and he said he was putting it on record that he would charge $20 million per seat in today’s dollars – or $140 million per flight. He argued that is competitive with the $63 million per seat that he says Russia charges. (Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft can accommodate only three people so the per flight costs are comparable.) Musk stressed, however, that if NASA wants to use a firm fixed price contract, then its requirements must also be fixed.

If Musk is correct and the costs are roughly the same as Russia’s, that still would mean taxpayers would be investing $4-6 billion in development costs for systems that NASA would need for only 3-4 years of ISS operations. The Obama Administration has raised the possibility of extending ISS operations until 2028, 30 years after the first ISS module was launched, but the United States and its ISS partners (Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada) have not agreed to that extension.

Safety is another issue. All of the witnesses stressed that it is their top priority. Two of the company representatives -Lindsey of Sierra Nevada and Precourt of ATK – are former astronauts and were particularly emphatic in their statements on that point.

In his opening statement, Chairman Hall singled out one of CCDev winners, Blue Origin, for criticism for declining to testify at the hearing. The company has received $14.9 million so far in taxpayer dollars, he said, and would have to explain its decision not to appear.

• Hearing Charter
• Opening Statement by Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX)
• Opening Statement by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
• Written Statement of John Elbon, Boeing
• Written Statement of Steve Lindsey, Sierra Nevada
• Written Statement of Elon Musk, SpaceX
• Written Statement of Charlie Precourt, ATK
• Written Statement of George Sowers, United Launch Alliance
• Written Statement of NASA Inspector General Paul Martin
• Written Statement of NASA AA for HEO, Bill Gerstenmaier
• Webcast

Two NASA advisory committees that spent one day reviewing progress on the development of Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) for the International Space Station (ISS) expressed some reservations, but generally appeared cautiously optimistic about the effort.

Joe Dyer and Tom Stafford, chairs of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and the ISS Advisory Committee, respectively, testified to a House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee last week on a related topic. Stafford told the subcommittee that the report of their joint one-day review was attached to his testimony as an appendix. The appendix is not yet posted on the committee’s website, but SpacePolicyOnline.com has obtained a copy.

The report summarizes a joint public meeting of the two advisory committees held on September 9, 2011 in which committee members commented on what they learned at an August 9 “fact finding” meeting that was not open to the public. At the August meeting, the two committees were briefed by SpaceX and Orbital about the status of their CRS systems. Stafford and Dyer emphasized at the September meeting that they had only one day to review the companies’ plans and progress, so the review was not comprehensive, and they were calling themselves a “Review Team” for this exercise.

NASA anticipates that both companies will begin offering cargo services to the ISS next year.

The Review Team expressed concern that the schedules are success oriented, with SpaceX anticipating the next launch of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft in November, and Orbital planning the first flight of its Taurus II rocket and Cygnus spacecraft in February 2012. (The launch date for Falcon/Dragon is expected to slip because of changes to the crew rotation schedule for the ISS necessitated by a Russian launch failure in August.) They commented that SpaceX’s plan to combine their second and third test flights and include two Orbcomm satellites “appears to be very aggressive mission planning.”

Regarding safety, the Review Team said it could not “unequivocally endorse” the companies’ safety efforts because it did not have time for a thorough review, but from what the members did learn, there were no “indications of significant systemic failings of … safety efforts.” However, they were concerned about “the perceived responsibility in the event of a catastrophic failure.” Discussions with the ISS Program Office about who is responsible for safety and mission assurance “seemed somewhat casual,” the report says, concluding that “Written ground-rules and assumptions need to be well documented.” Similarly, it said that formal rules need to be written about who has go-no go authority for each phase of flight.

SpaceX and Orbital are using very different approaches to design and verification, the Review Team noted, and both “can be made to work with a performance-based contract.”

The Review Team expressed concern about SpaceX’s software presentation, calling it “unsettling” because the company’s “software chief said he didn’t worry about errors because ‘there were no mistakes in the software.’ In the Review Team’s experience, this is unlikely.” Later, the Review Team commented that while Orbital “generates the confidence of a company that has ‘been there, done that,'” SpaceX is “entrepreneurial; their thinking is a fresh approach … [with] the potential to deliver at lower cost with innovations.” However, they cautioned that SpaceX’s software comments were “very disturbing and presented a lack of insight and sophistication on what can go wrong in this business.”

The report also stressed that attention is needed to cultural differences between the companies and NASA. It commented that the two companies “could pay more attention …. in a more formal manner” to cultural differences, and NASA personnel “have an excellent opportunity to be alert to cultural issues … and it is not clear that they are effectively trained to recognize their role and execute against it.” All three organizations need to establish a “good ‘tone at the top,'” the Review Team noted.

Transparency within NASA and between NASA and the companies regarding issues and challenges was strongly encouraged by the Review Team.

Stafford said at the September meeting that a transcript would be made available, but one is not yet posted on the websites of either advisory committee. One comment made by Dyer at the end of the September meeting, but not reflected in the report, is that “if we could put these two companies in a blender, we’d have it just right.” Absent that, “transparency will help get us to the right place,” he said.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report today recommending that the Department of Defense (DOD) reconsider the number of years its block buy of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) will last. SpaceX, in particular, has expressed concern that if DOD commits to buying 40 EELVs over the next five years, it will effectively preclude the company from competing with its Falcon Heavy design because it is not clear that the government will need that many launches.

The GAO report comes on the heels of an announcement by NASA, the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) last week that could create opportunities for emerging launch service suppliers like SpaceX. On Friday, the three agenices announced a coordinated certification process for commercial launch services, including “new entrants.”

To date, DOD’s focus has been on stabilizing the launch industry industrial base. The argument is that DOD’s current approach of purchasing launch services one at a time creates uncertainty that wreaks havoc with suppliers, especially at the sub-tier level. DOD relies primarily on the Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs built and launched by the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. DOD therefore is working on revising its acquisition strategy to a block buy approach, guaranteeing the purchase of eight EELV cores per year for the next five years at an expected cost of $15 billion.

Whether the government demand for launches requires that many vehicles is uncertain, however. If the 40 vehicles satisfy demand, there would no opportunity for other companies, like SpaceX, to compete.

GAO agrees that DOD should leave the door for competition from new entrants. The report notes that SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation are potential providers “that may be capable in the near future” to compete for the type of services DOD requires. Both companies told GAO that they needed a “clear set of criteria” from DOD; the deparrment was supposed to issue them by July 31. Those apparently are the NASA-USAF-NRO criteria announced on Friday.

GAO’s recommendations about DOD’s acquisition strategy are much broader, however. The agency concludes that DOD should resolve a number of questions before finalizing the block buy. DOD is planning to release it by the end of the year, but GAO found “some critical knowledge gaps” and was particularly critical of DOD for relying on “contractor data and analyses” about the industrial base rather than independent reviews.

Considering that the purpose of the block buy is to stabilize the launch vehicle industrial base, it is somewhat surprising that GAO found DOD’s knowledge of the state of the industrial base lacking. Flaws and “metholodological weaknesses” were found in surveys conducted by ULA that were used in several DOD studies, and the data generated by the surveys were not “reviewed or independently assessed by DOD officials,” GAO said.

Among its recommendations, GAO called on DOD to do an independent study of the launch vehicle industrial base, reassess the block buy contract length, work closely with NASA to facilitate its ability to negotiate EELV launch contract prices, refrain from waiving federal regulatory requirements that prevent the department from knowing more about EELV costs, and ensure mission assurance activites are “sufficient and not excessive.”

DOD concurred with six of the seven recommendations and partially concurred with one — the recommendation to reassess the block buy contract length. On that one, DOD said that it would make its decision “balanced among price, operational requirements, budget realities and the potential for new entrant competition.”

GAO conducted the study at the request of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. It apparently was completed some time ago since it refers to the need for DOD to obtain knowledge about NASA’s design for the Space Launch System. The design was released on September 14.

Orbital Sciences Corporation officially announced today that Kate Kronmiller is its new Senior Vice President (SVP) of Government Relations.

Kronmiller has an extensive background in the aerospace industry. Most recently she was Vice President of Washington Operations for United Space Alliance, which operated the space shuttle. Her background in space includes jobs both with traditional aerospace companies like Boeing and Rocketdyne when it was part of Rockwell International as well as entrepreneurs. In the early 1980s, she worked at Space Services Inc., the first entrepreneurial company to successfully launch a payload into orbit in 1982 aboard its Conestoga rocket.

Kronmiller succeeds Mark Bitterman, who left Orbital for SpaceX, but shortly thereafter switched to United Launch Alliance, which launches the Atlas and Delta rockets.

Orbital is on the cusp of launching its new Taurus II launch vehicle that will take cargo to the International Space Station in competition with SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Orbital currently launches satellites with its Pegasus and Minotaur rockets, and with Taurus XL, although the last two launches of that rocket failed, dooming two NASA earth science satellites (OCO and GLORY). Orbital also manufactures a variety of satellites, is involved in missile defense programs, and built the launch abort system for the Orion crew capsule.

The chair of the White House’s Export Control Task Force, Brian Nilsson, will provide an update on President Obama’s plans and strategy on Thursday morning. Joining him will be Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a leading figure on Capitol Hill with regard to export controls and the space program.

The discussion is being held in conjunction with a meeting of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) and is sponsored by the National Capital Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Remy Nathan, Vice President for International Affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, is the third member of the panel.

The panel will begin at 8:30 am on Thursday, October 13, at the National Housing Center, 1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC. It is free and open to the public, but will not be streamed or webcast.

Jeffrey Carlisle, Executive Vice President of LightSquared, has been added to the witness list for the House Small Business committee hearing tomorrow.

LightSquared is under attack from some quarters because of concerns that its mobile broadband system will interfere with GPS signals. Several congressional hearings have been held. The hearing tomorrow is the first to focus on the impact on small businesses.

According to The Hill newspaper, Carlisle will tell the committee that his company will create jobs for small business and “support over 15,000 jobs a year for each of the five years that it will take to construct this network…” LightSquared has a satellite, SkyTerra, and plans to build 40,000 cell towers nationwide to provide mobile broadband service. Service may involve the satellite only, the “ancillary terrestrial component” cell towers only, or both.

The controversy over LightSquared is far from over. Another congressional hearing is scheduled for next week about that company’s plans to implement a mobile broadband system that critics assert will interfere with reception of GPS signals. At the same time, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee continues to demand reports from certain federal agencies about the impact of LightSquared on their operations.

Next week’s hearing is by the House Small Business Committee. It will feature witnesses representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Agriculture Retailers Association, and the Aircraft Electronics Association.

LightSquared is facing opponents from many quarters because it is using spectrum that is next to that used for signals from the Global Positioning System (GPS) of navigation satellites. The GPS system is owned and operated by the Department of Defense (DOD), but GPS receivers are ubiquitous throughout American (and global) society. Not only is GPS embedded in many smartphones and installed in automobiles and aircraft, but it is the foundation of precision agriculture and myriad other applications.

The frequency bands assigned to LightSquared originally were intended for satellites — and LightSquared’s system does include a satellite, SkyTerra — but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) permitted the addition of an Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC). That means LightSquared also can use terrestrial cell towers for its system, and plans to build about 4,000 of them nationwide. It is the terrestrial component that is causing distress.

LightSquared argues that it has been developing this system for many years and, in response to concerns raised throughout that process, has ensured that its transmissions will not interfere with GPS. At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing in September, a LightSquared official asked rhetorically why these new concerns are being raised only now. The company asserts that it is the GPS receiver manufacturers who have not properly designed their receivers who are at fault, not LightSquared.

Although the debate does have a technical component, it increasingly is drifting into the political realm. Philip Falcone, a major financial backer of LightSquared, charged in a September 19 interview with Fox News that competitors were fueling the controversy now that it appears that LightSquared will succeed.

The involvement of President Barack Obama in LightSquared has become the most recent lightning rod in the debate. According to the Fox News segment, in 2005-2006, Mr. Obama invested “up to $90,000” in the company that is now known as LightSquared. Falcone said in the interview that Obama sold his shares later, but did not indicate when. LightSquared critics allege that the Obama Administration is giving favorable treatment to LightSquared. Raising the stakes, Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, asserted that Gen. William Shelton told subcommittee members in private that the White House tried to force him to change his September 15 testimony to the subcommittee to make it more favorable towards LightSquared. Shelton is commander of U.S. Air Force Space Command.

Rep. Turner has called for an investigation. In addition, following its own hearing into the matter, Republican members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee wrote a letter to two White House offices requesting documents related to the impact of LightSquared on the science activities of various federal agencies. Yesterday, the committee issued another press release criticizing some agencies for not providing that information to the committee. It also released information that other agencies did provide.

During a speech at the National Press Club today, SpaceX founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer Elon Musk made what he called an “exciting” announcement – SpaceX will develop a fully reusable space transportation system.

Perhaps more exciting, and a bit surprising in that venue, was his extended discussion of why humanity should become a multi-planet species. Since Mars is the closest comparatively habitable planet, that’s where he wants to send people.

But the first step is lowering the cost of launch, and that means reusable rockets, he said. In an animation posted on the SpaceX website (click on the illustration), both stages of the two-stage rocket return to Earth and make a soft landing after completing their tasks of delivering the Dragon capsule to orbit. Dragon is shown docking with the International Space Station (ISS), then undocks and returns to Earth also making a soft landing (similar to how Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft lands).

His passion, though, is clearly what he believes low cost launch will enable – “a self sustaining human population” on Mars. He stressed that to him a “little base” of people is “not interesting.” He wants large numbers of people to move there permanently. He views it as “life insurance” for our species in the event of a human-made or natural catastrophe.

How much should be spent on this kind of life insurance, he asked? About one quarter of one percent of GDP is about right in his view.

As for those who want to move to Mars, Musk suggested a ticket price of $500,000 per person. By the time such a possibility is available, he forecast there would be 8 billion people on the planet (there are almost 7 billion now) and if only “one in a million” could afford the price and wanted to go, that would be 8,000 people right there.

After a speech that focused on the long-term future, Musk replied to questions that were mostly about the near-term. He expressed gratitude to NASA, saying that SpaceX would not be where it is today without the agency’s support. The Air Force was another matter. Saying he was surprised the Air Force did not have more interest in SpaceX, he lamented the fact that the Air Force plans to extend its contract with the Boeing-Lockheed Martin United Launch Alliance until 2018 because of concerns about preserving the industrial base. “For some reason we’re not included in the industrial base,” he asserted, even though SpaceX rockets are American-made while the Atlas 5 uses Russian rocket engines and other non-U.S. hardware.

As for the schedule of upcoming launches to the ISS, he said that the next Falcon 9 flight might be delayed to January because of the rescheduling necessitated by the failure of Russia’s Soyuz launch vehicle last month.

In response to a question of just how quickly Falcon 9 and Dragon could be put into service to take crews to ISS, Musk said they could do so on the next flight if the safety requirements were the same as those for the space shuttle. The shuttle did not have an escape system for the crew during ascent, and neither does Dragon at the moment. SpaceX is developing such a system however – NASA and SpaceX agree that should be a requirement. He said it would take two or three years for SpaceX to design and certify the system, which he described as innovative because the thrusters will be on the sidewall of the capsule and thus could be used for a soft landing on Earth as well.

China was also a topic of conversation. No mention was made of China’s successful launch of its first experimental space station module this morning. Instead, Musk responded to a question about who are his main competitors. China, he said, adding that it is difficult to compete with a government that subsidizes its industry, “but we think we’ll win.”

Editor’s Note: the adjective “toe tapping” with reference to the animation was deleted after reflection.

Sea Launch AG successfully launched Eutelsat’s Atlantic Bird 7 yesterday, the first launch for the company since it emerged from bankruptcy last year.

Sea Launch AG uses the Zenit 3SL launch vehicle, the first two stage of which are Ukrainian. The third stage is Russian. Zenit-3SL is launched from a converted mobile oil rig that moves from its home port in Long Beach, CA to the equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean for launch.

The original company, Sea Launch, was owned 40 percent by Boeing, with Russia, Ukraine and Norway (which converted the oil rig) owning the remainder. It filed for bankruptcy in 2009. It completed its Chapter 11 reorganization process in October 2010, emerging as a Russian corporation, Energia Overseas Ltd. with headquarters in Switzerland. Energia Logistics Inc., a U.S. corporation, manages rocket assembly and satellite integration operations at the existing home port in Long Beach, according to a company press release.

UPDATE: It was a short strike — one day. The Ariane successfully launched the two satellites on September 21.

ORIGINAL STORY: The launch of two communications satellites on an Ariane V launch vehicle scheduled for tonight is being postponed because of a labor strike.

Arianespace, the European company that launches from Kourou, French Guiana, announced that the Trade Union of French Guiana Workers had declared a strike within the Telespazio company. Consequently, “means of measurement” necessary for the launch are unavailable.

A new launch date for the SES-2 and ARABSAT 5C satellites will be announced as soon as possible, Arianespace said.