At a hearing that was more lively than usual, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden reassured a House committee on Thursday that the International Space Station (ISS) will not be affected by current U.S.-Russian tensions and assertively defended the President’s Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) and the need for Congress to fully fund the commercial crew program.

The hearing was before the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee.  There was a wide range of questions, including a couple on the proposed termination of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) that received considerable attention at a hearing on Wednesday.

The meat of this hearing, however, was a continuation of the debate over the future of the human spaceflight program.   By far the most interesting exchange concerned the relationship among ISS, commercial crew, the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion spacecraft.  Bolden argued that without ISS, medical research and technology development required before sending humans into deep space would not be possible.  If there is no ISS, he asserted, there is no need for SLS or Orion.

Congress and the Administration have argued over these programs since enactment of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that set NASA on its current course of pursuing commercial crew as the Administration’s priority and building SLS and Orion as Congress’s priority.  With each Administration budget request since then, Congress argues that the Administration is favoring commercial crew over SLS/Orion and consequently adds money for SLS/Orion and cuts it for commercial crew.

This year is no exception, but the debate has a new twist – a growing sense of urgency to be able to “launch American astronauts from American soil on an American rocket” as the saying goes.  One might imagine that would mean increased congressional support for commercial crew to get it ready as soon as possible, but, instead, members of this subcommittee from both sides of the aisle continue to fight for SLS/Orion as the top priority.   (The budget requests for these programs are available in our FY2015 NASA Budget Request Fact Sheet.)

First, on the question of whether ISS is at risk because of the current geopolitical climate, Bolden insisted repeatedly that he does not believe it is.   He said that NASA and its Russian counterpart, Roscosmos, talk every day and the two countries are mutually dependent to keep ISS operating.   “Russia has one thing we need – access,” Bolden said, while Russia needs NASA’s electrical power, communications and navigation systems.   Russia cannot operate the ISS without NASA, he maintained.

The United States is dependent on Russia for access to the ISS because the space shuttle program was terminated in 2011 with no U.S. system to replace it.   The commercial crew program is striving to develop systems that NASA currently hopes will be ready by 2017, but that depends on Congress providing the requisite funding.  In response to a question from subcommittee chairman Steve Palazzo (R-MS), Bolden said that “this committee, this Congress, chose to rely on Russia” by deciding not to fully fund the commercial crew request in prior years – “you can’t have it both ways.”

The discussion broadened as the hearing progressed to encompass the connection between commercial crew and access to the ISS in low Earth orbit (LEO) and plans for human exploration beyond LEO.  Although he had made the same point earlier, it came to a head after Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked about the consequences if Russia stops transporting U.S. astronauts to the ISS.  After restating that he does not think that will happen, Bolden said that if it did, the ISS probably would have to be shut down and “I will go to the President and recommend that we terminate SLS and Orion because without the International Space Station I have no vehicle to do the [necessary] medical tests and technology development and we’re fooling everybody that we can go to deep space if the International Space Station is not there.  …  I don’t want anyone to think I need SLS or Orion if I don’t have the International Space Station.”

As the back and forth continued – with Brooks asking if the ISS could be resuscitated if it were shut down (Bolden said he would provide an answer for the record later) – Bolden exclaimed “there is no either/or in terms SLS and Orion and commercial crew… If I don’t have commercial crew and I can’t get to low Earth orbit, I don’t need SLS and Orion…. if I can’t get to low Earth orbit, there is no exploration program.”

Assuming the exploration program continues, the Obama Administration is still trying to gain support for its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM).   Bolden assiduously defended ARM at the hearing, though he did not appear to win over many committee members. In fact, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), the top Democrat on the subcommittee, used her opening statement to clarify recent remarks she made that many interpreted as indicating that she now supports ARM.  In her statement, she said that she still has many questions about it.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the full committee, contends that ARM has no realistic budget, no destination (in terms of a specific asteroid), or certain launch date, and is not part of a larger exploration roadmap.  Edwards voiced similar concerns.   Bolden’s message was that ARM is a “proving ground” in cislunar space (between the Earth and the Moon) as a steppingstone to Mars.  He presented a chart to which he referred many times that lays out the steps to Mars showing how ARM fits within a bigger picture.

Graphic used by Administrator Bolden at the March 27, 2014 House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing.   Source:  NASA

A webcast of the hearing, member opening statements and Bolden’s prepared statement are available on the committee’s Republican and Democratic websites.

A note to those who may be confused about the amount of NASA’s FY2015 budget request:   Some subcommittee members referenced an $18.3 billion budget request, while Bolden and everyone else discussed a $17.5 billion request.  The difference is $886 million the President included for NASA in his Opportunities, Growth and Security Initiative (OGSI).   The $17.5 billion request is called NASA’s “base” budget and conforms with the budget caps Obama and Congress agreed to in December.   The OGSI is a separate request for $56 billion across the government above those caps, including $886 million for NASA.   If the OGSI request for NASA is added to the base budget request, it’s $18.3 billion.  For more information, see our FY2015 NASA Budget Request Fact Sheet.

Russia’s actions in Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula may have chilled geopolitical relationships, but so far there is no apparent impact on space activities.

U.S. dependence on Russia for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS) as well as ISS “lifeboat” services is well known in the space community (if not by the general public).   Less well known is that two U.S. launch vehicles – Atlas V and Antares – rely on Russian rocket engines.  United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V is used primarily for national security satellites, but also some NASA and commercial spacecraft and two of NASA’s commercial crew competitors plan to use it.  Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares is used to launch cargo to the ISS.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden was asked about any impacts on ISS operations yesterday in connection with the release of the FY2015 budget request.  He stressed that everything is “normal” with regard to ISS operations.   The ISS crew currently consists of three Russians, two Americans and one Japanese.  Two of the Russians and one American are due to return to Earth in a few days (March 10 EDT) and a new crew – also two Russians and an American – will launch at the end of the month.

A number of international crises have occurred during the past 13 years of ISS operations, Bolden said yesterday, citing the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, another former USSR republic, as an example.  “People in [the ISS] program are focused on how to make the world better,” Bolden insisted, and indicated there has been no impact on the ISS program because of current tensions.

The United States has been dependent on Russia for taking crews to and from the ISS since the space shuttle program was terminated in 2011.   NASA’s commercial crew program is designed to facilitate the development of new U.S. crew space transportation systems by the private sector, but none is expected to be operational before 2017.   The ISS has been dependent on the Russians for lifeboats to escape the ISS in an emergency since the beginning of the program. Some of the commercial crew vehicles might be able to replace that capability.  Under current schedules, however, there is no way to keep crews aboard the ISS without Russia until at least 2017.   (Russia also needs the United States to keep the ISS operating, since the U.S. segment provides electrical power, for example, to the Russian segment.)

Michael Gass, President and CEO of United Launch Alliance, reassured Congress at a hearing this morning that launches of the Atlas V rocket also will not be affected.  Gass and competitor Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Designer of SpaceX, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee (SAC-D) today to discuss DOD’s procurement of launch services.  SpaceX is trying to break into the DOD market, which is dominated by ULA with its Delta IV and Atlas V rockets that are used to launch virtually all U.S. national security space satellites (as well as a few NASA and commercial missions).

The Atlas V’s RD-180 engines are Russian.  Subcommittee chairman Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) first question was directed at Gass on this topic    Noting that there is talk of sanctions, Durbin asked Gass for his assessment of the reliability of the supply of engines under these circumstances.  Gass replied that ULA has a two-year stockpile of engines and the blueprints for making more themselves if needed.   He added that ULA has produced specific parts from those blueprints to demonstrate that they can, if needed, build that exact engine.   He also noted that the Delta IV could be used.

“We are not at any risk” for supporting the nation’s launch needs, Gass insisted, adding that  “We have always kept our ability” to not be “leveraged in case of any kind of supply interruption.”

Musk, conversely, used ULA’s reliance on Russian and other foreign parts as a rationale for arguing that the Atlas V be discontinued.   He agreed with U.S. space policy, which requires two families of launch vehicles to meet national needs, but said they should be ULA’s Delta and his Falcon.  Musk may have been sincere, but some might view his proposal as disingenuous since his two competitors for NASA’s commercial crew program – Boeing and Sierra Nevada – both plan to use Atlas V to launch their spacecraft (CST-100 and Dream Chaser, respectively).  If it were phased out, that would leave SpaceX as the only option.

Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares rocket also uses Russian engines – NK-33’s, which are refurbished by Aerojet Rocketdyne and redesignated AJ-26.  Antares is currently used only for launching cargo missions to the ISS under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, although the company is seeking additional customers.  Each Antares uses two NK-33/AJ-26 engines.  Press reports indicate Aerojet acquired 36 of them, so there apparently is a substantial inventory, but Space News recently reported that Orbital is looking at two or three alternatives – all Russian – for future supplies.   A spokesman for Orbital said the company was “watching the situation carefully” and the number of engines is sufficient to meet its entire CRS contract with NASA.  The first stage core of the Antares is made in Ukraine and he said there are three in the United States right now which will take the company through early to mid 2015.  Two more are scheduled for delivery in the second half of this year and “so far, so good” with their suppliers in Ukraine.

Note:  This story was updated with the information from Orbital’s spokesman.

A House hearing today (February 27) on the concept of sending two people on a flyby mission to Mars – via Venus – in 2021 continued the persistent debate over the future of the human spaceflight program. While there is a general consensus that landing humans on Mars is the long term goal, the steps between now and then remain a matter of controversy.

The House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee’s hearing was entitled “Mars Flyby 2021: The First Deep Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch System?”   Its focus was a variation of Dennis Tito’s Inspiration Mars (IM) proposal, announced exactly one year ago today, to send two people on a 501-day flyby mission to Mars in 2018.

Tito is a multimillionaire who paid Russia about $20 million to fly to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2001 as the first ISS “space tourist.”   His proposal in February 2013 was for a mission that would be privately funded.  By November 2013, he said it should be primarily (70 percent) funded by NASA.   Also, while initially he left open what launch vehicle would be used, by November he conceded that NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) was the only viable choice in that time frame.

The latest iteration of this concept, discussed at the hearing today, has two more differences from the original version.  First, it now apparently would be entirely funded by the government, and, second, it would launch in 2021 instead of 2018.   Launch windows to go directly to Mars occur every 26 months and there is no such window in 2021.  Instead, the revised concept calls for the crew to first flyby Venus to get a gravity assist from that planet and then go on to Mars.

Doug Cooke, a former NASA official whose last position at the agency was head of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, showed a video demonstrating the trajectory of the year-and-a-half long mission.  It begins with launch in November 2021, Venus flyby in April 2022, Mars flyby in October 2022, and return to Earth in June 2023.  He and other witnesses referred to this “unique” alignment of Earth, Venus and Mars as the reason for pushing for a 2021 launch.

Some committee members were skeptical about mounting such a mission just seven years from now.   Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) noted that the first crewed launch of SLS is not scheduled until 2021 and “I doubt that Mars will ultimately be considered to be an appropriate first ‘shakedown’ flight.”

None of the witnesses was willing to say how much the mission would cost.  When asked directly, Cooke said that the committee needed to ask NASA that question.   This is not a NASA mission, however, and, as Johnson also pointed out, no one from NASA was invited to testify.

NASA, of course, is focused on meeting President Obama’s goal of sending astronauts to an asteroid as the next step in human spaceflight – the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM).  The President has said that sending people to orbit Mars in the 2030s, and someday to land there, are long term goals, but not the next step.   The ARM mission has won little support from Republicans or Democrats in Congress and this hearing was another indication that the Administration has a lot of work to do to win them over.

Generally, the hearing was very friendly.   Apart from Johnson’s skepticism, the only strong dissenting voice came from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).   Noting that he had been a supporter of Tito’s initial proposal for a privately funded mission, he called this new version a “foolhardy” use of limited taxpayer dollars.

Cooke, now a consultant, was joined at the witness table by Scott Pace of George Washington University, Sandy Magnus, a former astronaut who now is Executive Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and Gen. Les Lyles (Ret.), a consultant who chairs the National Research Council’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and has served on or chaired a number of studies on the future of human spaceflight.

All the witnesses appeared to support the 2021 Mars flyby concept, though some were more reserved than others.   They also all emphasized the need for a long term strategy and appropriate resources, but Magnus, in particular, stressed those points.   “The Mars flyby can only be discussed in the context of a larger strategy,” she said, and “any plan … is doomed to failure without the resources to support it.”

Pace, another former NASA official who was deeply involved in developing the Bush-era Constellation program to return humans to the Moon by 2020, and Cooke, who worked on Constellation as well as its Obama-era replacement, each acknowledged that they advocate a human return to the Moon, but see the Mars flyby as a bridge to that goal.  Pace went so far as to argue that it “is a faster and more efficient way of returning to the Moon.”   Cooke said supporting the Mars flyby mission is “not contradictory” because of the unique planetary alignment available in 2021.

Pace said that NASA is not planning a human return to the Moon now because it cannot afford to build a lunar lander, yet this flyby mission also requires additional hardware not currently in NASA’s budget plans.  Pace and Cooke mentioned several required elements including a more capable SLS upper stage, a habitation module with advanced life support systems, and a more effective heat shield for the Orion spacecraft.   It is not clear how anyone envisions NASA affording those elements for the Mars flyby mission when it cannot afford the lunar lander.  The hearing provided no insight into costs or budgets, however.

In the end, all the witnesses agreed that the Mars flyby mission is achievable if the country has the will and commitment to pursue it.  The question is whether it does.  Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) emphasized that his main goal was to “do no harm” and not fall back into the practice of start-and-stop programs.

Though Tito was not cited at the hearing as the originator of this revised version of his IM plan, he did issue a statement after the hearing saying he was “very encouraged” by the discussion and explaining that it had become clear that 2021 was more “practical and beneficial” than 2018.

The opening statements of the Republican and Democratic committee leaders, the prepared statements of the four witnesses, and a webcast of the hearing are on the committee’s Republican and Democratic websites.