SpaceX is planning to conduct a much-anticipated pad abort test on May 5, 2015 as part of its development of a crew version of its Dragon capsule. There is a four-hour launch window that day and a backup opportunity on May 6,

Apparently to moderate expectations, the NASA press release announcing the date cautions that as a “development test, the likelihood of encountering an issue is higher than with operational missions.”  As typical, May 5 is designated as a “no earlier than” (NET) date, meaning that is the first opportunity for the test, but it could be later.

The window opens at 9:30 am ET and live coverage will be provided on NASA TV.  

The test is being conducted under the NASA-SpaceX Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) agreement.  SpaceX is one of the two companies selected by NASA last year to continue with full development of a crew space transportation system to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP) contract.  Boeing is the other with its CST-100 capsule.

Similar to the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo systems of the 1960s and 1970s, the Dragon capsule will be positioned on top of its rocket, unlike the space shuttle where the crew was located in the side-mounted orbiter.  The crew version of Dragon will incorporate an abort system that can carry its occupants to safety in case the rocket explodes, for example.  The intent is the same as the abort systems used by Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo (usually referred to as “escape towers”) although the Dragon design is different.

SpaceX founder and chief designer Elon Musk unveiled the crew version, Dragon V2, last year. NASA expects that it will be operational by 2017, but there are many milestones that must be achieved between now and then, including this test.  (SpaceX already launches a cargo version of Dragon that is not outfitted
to accommodate people.  One of those is currently attached to the ISS.)

The commercial crew program is a public private partnership (PPP) where NASA pays some, but not all, of the development costs and agrees in advance to buy a certain number of launches. The company pays the rest of the development costs and is expected to find other customers to create a viable business case. 

The CCtCAP contracts awarded to SpaceX and Boeing last year guarantee that each company will be paid for two launches, with an option for four more each.  The total contract value is $2.6 billion for SpaceX and $4.2 billion for Boeing if all options are exercised.  Those costs are for the final phases of development and services.  

Neither NASA nor the companies will reveal what percentage of the development costs are being borne by the taxpayers, although NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Bill Gerstenmaier acknowledged at a 2012 House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee hearing that the government was paying the majority of those costs and did not disagree when asked if it was 80-90 percent.  At a February 2015 hearing before the House SS&T Space Subcommittee, representatives of SpaceX and Boeing demurred when asked the question, but neither disagreed with committee members who used 90 percent as the figure.  Boeing’s John Mulholland conceded that NASA was paying the “preponderance” of the costs, while SpaceX’s Garrett Reisman said “we put a lot of our own money in … but we’ve also enjoyed a lot of help from NASA.” 

When asked to compare the costs of using a PPP to NASA’s traditional procurement methods, Gerstenmaier said he could not offer a specific number, but the PPP is “extremely more efficient.”

The United States has not been able to launch anyone into space since the space shuttle program was terminated in 2011.  NASA buys ISS crew transportation services from Russia on its Soyuz spacecraft.  Today’s price is about $76 million per seat and NASA needs six seats per year, a total of $456 million annually.  The oft-stated goal of the commercial crew program is to restore America’s ability to launch American astronauts on American rockets from American soil and to stop sending money to Russia.  Gerstenmaier said in his written statement for the February 2015 hearing that while it is difficult to compare the Russian prices (purchased on a per-seat basis) to commercial crew prices (purchased on a per-mission basis), an equivalent price-per-seat over the duration of the CCtCAP contracts will be $58 million.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden spent two hours this morning defending the Obama Administration’s FY2016 budget request for the agency before a House subcommittee.  Perhaps the most contentious moment came during a debate between Bolden and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) who was arguing that America has lost its preeminence in human spaceflight.  Bolden forcefully countered that he just returned from the Space Symposium and no one there had such a low opinion of NASA and the United States:  “We are the preeminent leader in the world. Always have been, always will be.”

The exchange took place as part of Brooks’ proposition that the approximately $2 billion NASA spends on earth science should be reallocated to NASA’s other space and aeronautics programs and the earth science activities be transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Bolden strongly defended the earth science component of NASA’s program as part of a balanced portfolio.

Brooks, who represents Marshall Space Flight Center, contended that more money is needed to support human exploration because, since the end of the space shuttle program, America has had to “hitch a ride” with the Russians to the International Space Station (ISS) and thus lost its preeminence.   Bolden’s rejoinder that no one at the Space Symposium would agree with that assessment did not persuade Brooks:  “When Russia is reducing the United States of America to saying if we want to go to the space station we can do it by a trampoline, that’s not the kind of preeminence I’m accustomed to, having seen the Saturn V rocket built … in the 5^th congressional district of Alabama.”

Other Republican subcommittee members also argued against NASA’s earth science funding.  The discussion followed the familiar lines expressed by committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and others at least since 2013 that 13 federal agencies are involved in climate change/earth science research, while NASA uniquely is responsible for space exploration.  Therefore NASA should focus on its unique role of exploration and shift earth science to the other agencies.

The hearing on NASA’s FY2016 budget request was held before the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee today.  Generally speaking, members of both parties criticized the request.

The Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) was one key topic, both in terms of why Bolden is ignoring advice from the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) and more broadly about where it fits into the longer term plan for human exploration of Mars.

Bolden was grilled by subcommittee chairman Steve Palazzo (R-MS) and committee chairman Smith on why he was ignoring NAC’s advice to (1) obtain an independent cost evaluation (ICE) of ARM prior to the Mission Concept Review (which just took place), and (2) modify it so that its primary objective is demonstration of high power solar electric propulsion rather than obtaining a sample of an asteroid, and to send the spacecraft to Mars and back rather than to an asteroid.  Bolden replied that he is not changing ARM’s objectives because he is committed to “constancy of purpose” and will do an ICE now that the Mission Concept Review is completed.  Palazzo warned that “without consensus in the scientific, exploration and international communities, not to mention the people here on Capitol Hill, I think you will be challenged” on ARM.

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) focused on the fact that NASA has not provided a roadmap for the human exploration program and how ARM fits into it.  She argued that the committee needs to know why NASA is choosing various options instead of simply being told what it is going to do without any communications.

Edwards, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, also pressed Bolden on why the budget request cuts funds for programs the Administration knows are congressional priorities, such as the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft, aeronautics, and the Europa mission. “Part of me thinks it’s a game,” she said.    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the top Democrat on the full committee, asked why NASA was ignoring the advice of the National Research Council (NRC) in its “Pathways” report last year.  The report provided “unambiguous” advice that NASA needs more funding to achieve the goal of sending people to Mars, so “it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next  budget request” cuts funding for SLS and Orion.  That is “directly counter” to the NRC’s advice and “Congress needs to correct that.”

Bolden insisted it was all a matter of priorities.  He repeated several times that he believes the budget request for SLS and Orion will enable the agency to meet the milestones it has promised. Regarding Europa, he said he knows the planetary science community wants to launch that spacecraft in 2022, but “it can’t be done in that time frame.” In an unrelated exchange later in the hearing, he said he thinks Europa could be launched in 2029, but it was clear he was not committing to that date.

Palazzo and Smith repeated their criticism of NASA’s decision to fund two commercial crew companies instead of one and using SLS/Orion as the redundant capability if it is needed.  The 2010 NASA authorization act requires NASA to design SLS/Orion so it can service the ISS in case the commercial crew concept did not result in viable systems.  Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) asked if NASA could downselect to just one of the two companies and thereby accelerate when a commercial crew system would be ready.  Bolden said no, and choosing only one company could actually slow the program because that company would become a “monopoly that dictates to me what it can or can’t do.”

Many other topics were discussed (a webcast of the hearing is available on the committee’s website) that covered familiar ground.  The overall thrust was that Republicans and Democrats are unhappy with the budget request because it cuts programs that the Administration knows are congressional priorities and does not lay out a roadmap for human exploration.   Republicans also disagree with the funding for earth science because that should not be a NASA priority.

Bolden testified to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee on the FY2016 budget request later in the day.

Hours after defending the President’s FY2016 budget request before a House subcommittee, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden was in front of a Senate subcommittee with the same task – convincing skeptical lawmakers that the request reflects the right priorities for the space agency.  He also used the opportunity to once again urge Senate confirmation of Dava Newman as Deputy Administrator.

Bolden testified before the House subcommittee that authorizes NASA’s activities this morning.  This afternoon’s hearing was across Capitol Hill in the Senate and before the appropriations subcommittee that funds the agency.  Authorizing committees set policy and recommend funding levels, but only appropriators have money to spend.

In this case, Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Hill, authorizers and appropriators alike, expressed dissatisfaction with the choices made in the President’s $18.5 billion budget request for NASA.

The hearing before the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee was comparatively brief, lasting less than an hour.  The four Senators present focused almost entirely on issues affecting their constituents, but the opening statements by subcommittee chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) touched on broader issues.

Shelby said the significant increase in the request compared to FY2015 should have represented balanced funding for NASA priorities, but instead there are significant increases for commercial crew and for space technology, but reductions for science missions and exploration systems development.   His primary interest is the Space Launch
System (SLS), being built in his state of Alabama, and he criticized the
“20 percent cut” to SLS at a critical phase in its development.  Warning that “a lot of us are troubled” by the request, Shelby said that “requiring development programs to operate with insufficient funding is irresponsible.”  

Later in the hearing Shelby queried Bolden about the commercial crew program.  Shelby is a strong skeptic about that program.  Today he wanted to know why NASA was buying more seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft for a period of time when commercial crew systems should be available.  What is worrying NASA about the progress of that program, he asked, that is causing it to buy more Russian seats?  Bolden replied that his concern is that Congress will not provide the needed funding for the program.   Congress historically has not fully funded the commercial crew program and Bolden often reminds Congress that if full funding had been provided, the commercial crew systems would be ready this year.  Instead, there is a two-year slip.  Shelby retorted that NASA wasted resources by supporting too many companies.

Shelby also wanted an update on Russia’s commitment to the International Space Station (ISS) and whether it has formally notified NASA that it plans to end its participation in 2024 and remove some of its modules as reported in the press.  Bolden said no, it was quite the opposite.  He met with the new head of the Russian space agency, Igor Komarov, last month and Komarov made it clear that Russia is committed to ISS until 2024 and has no plans to remove any modules.  Bolden added that the other ISS partners had been waiting for Russia to make that commitment and he now expects that they will do so as well.  Bolden firmly said “yes” when Shelby asked if NASA can operate ISS without the Russian segments.

Mikulski was particularly distressed about cuts to Goddard Space Flight Center in her state of Maryland, but more broadly worried that the choices made in the request would undermine the bipartisan agreement on a balanced space program that has been in place for several years.  “I have very deep concerns” about the threat posed to that balanced program, she said in her opening statement, later adding that “I want to make sure our best days aren’t behind us.”

Mikulski was especially concerned about cuts to the satellite servicing development program at Goddard.  Bolden asked if he could talk to her in person later  to explain why he reduced its funding.  The private sector is already working on those technologies, he explained, and for four years he has been trying to determine who the customer for NASA’s efforts would be.  “I want to make sure we are not at odds with industry” because his experience is that industry wants NASA to be its customer, not the reverse.  Mikulski also worried about an overall cut of more than $300 million for activities at Goddard, but Bolden assured her that as more programs are assigned to Goddard during the year, more money will accompany them.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, asked if Bolden thinks Congress and the Administration are working together constructively on the SLS program.  SLS will be tested at Stennis Space Center in Cochran’s state of Mississippi.  Bolden exclaimed that he did not think he has been as effective as he could be and promised to spend more time with the committee explaining what NASA is doing, adding that “I am pleading for the Senate to confirm Dr. Dava Newman as my Deputy because I need the help.”

Cochran later commented that a “robust testing infrastructure” is needed at Stennis to test new rocket engines in the future and then asked “Is there a future?”   Bolden used the opportunity to declare, in reaction to Mikulski’s earlier comment, that “our best days are in front of us.  I can promise you that.”

Sen. Shelley Capito (R-WV) also attended the hearing, asking questions about the future of NASA’s Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) facility in her state of West Virginia (Bolden assured her of its importance) and diversity in NASA’s workforce (Bolden said he was not happy with it and is seeking ways to encourage women and minorities to remain in science and engineering leadership positions).

Several other topics were discussed.  A webcast of the hearing is available on the committee’s website.