Category: Military

NRC Finds Too Much Hype About In-Space 3-D Printing

NRC Finds Too Much Hype About In-Space 3-D Printing

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 18, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 18, 2014 3:54 pm ET

The National Research Council (NRC) released a report today that makes no bones about its skepticism regarding the utility of 3-D printing in space at the present time, saying claims in the popular press are “exaggerated” and it is no “magic solution.”

Formally called “additive manufacturing,” this technology allows three-dimensional (3-D) parts to be built directly from computer files.  It has been in use terrestrially since the 1980s and is becoming more wide-spread. Using it in space presents unique challenges, however.  The vacuum, lack of gravity and intense thermal fluctuations are obstacles that must be overcome; they are important not only in completing the manufacturing process, but in the integrity of the final product, according to the NRC.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert D. Latiff  (Ret.), who chaired the NRC committee, and his colleagues found that while 3-D printing “is a fairly mature technology for components that can be manufactured on the ground, its application in space is not feasible today, except for very limited and experimental purposes.”

“Many of the claims made in the popular press about this technology have been exaggerated,” Latiff said in a press release.  Even in the longer term, it will be “one more tool in the toolbox” and “not a magic solution.”

That is not to say that the committee rejected the idea of in-space 3-D printing entirely.  Indeed, the report begins by saying it has “the potential to positively affect human spaceflight operations by enabling the in-orbit manufacturing of replacement parts and tools,” thereby reducing logistics requirements for the International Space Station (ISS) and human trips beyond low Earth orbit.  However, the “specific benefits and potential scope … remain undetermined, and there has been a substantial degree of exaggeration, even hype, about its capabilities in the short term.”

As for the longer term, “[w]hat can be accomplished in the far future depends on many factors, including decisions made today by NASA and the Air Force.” The study was sponsored by those two entities and offering them advice is the focus of the NRC report.

Many of the recommendations involve the two working together in this field.  Indeed, the report’s first recommendation is that NASA and the Air Force jointly “research, identify, develop and gain consensus on standard qualification and certification methodologies for different applications,” and bring in other government agencies and industry as well.  The committee also recommends a joint cost-benefit analysis of 3-D printing for building smaller, more reliable satellite systems or their key components.

Among the committee’s recommendations for NASA alone is that the agency sponsor a workshop to bring together experts in the field and improve communications internally and externally since input from multiple disciplines is required.  It should also create an agency-wide technology roadmap and quickly identify experiments that it can develop and test aboard the ISS while that facility is still available.  Under current plans, ISS will operate until 2024, just 10 more years.

The Air Force should also develop a roadmap, conduct a systems-analytic study of the operational utility of spacecraft and their components produced with 3-D printing, and “make every effort” to cooperate with NASA on technology development.  That includes conducting its own research on the ISS, jointly sharing the costs and the results with NASA.

Both agencies should consider increased investments in education and training of materials scientists with this expertise and spacecraft designers and engineers with deep knowledge of the use and development of 3-D printing, the committee recommended.

Latiff is a materials scientist himself and spent part of his military career at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).  Later he was vice president, chief engineer, and technology officer for SAIC’s space and geospatial intelligence unit.  He is a former chair of the NRC’s National Materials and Manufacturing Board (of which he is still a member) and of the NRC’s Air Force Studies Board.  A full roster of committee members is provided in the report, which can be downloaded for free from the website of the National Academies Press.

Last Updated: Jul 18, 2014 3:54 pm ET
New Obama Sanctions Seem to Skirt Space Activities, But Future is Unknowable

New Obama Sanctions Seem to Skirt Space Activities, But Future is Unknowable

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 17, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 17, 2014 10:13 pm ET

It is impossible to know how the Malaysian airliner crash in Ukraine today (July 17) will affect U.S.-Russian relationships, but yesterday the Obama Administration imposed new sanctions on certain Russian economic sectors because of Russia’s actions in Ukraine up to that point.  One Russian company that was sanctioned, NPO Mashinstroyennia, has a renowned history in Soviet space activities, but apparently is not involved in many space activities currently.

U.S.-Russian relationships have been on edge since Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula earlier this year.  The Obama Administration has invoked a number of sanctions against Russian individuals and entities.   Some NASA activities have been impacted, but the most high profile – such as the International Space Station (ISS) – were exempted.  The deteriorating relationship has focused attention on U.S. dependence on Russia for taking astronauts to and from the ISS, for the RD-180 engines for United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket, and the for NK-33/AJ-26 engines for Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares rocket, however.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued new sanctions.  Among the Russian entities on the list is NPO MASHINOSTROYENIA – “NPO Mash” – an important player in Soviet space activities.  Founded by Vladimir Chelomi, it developed the Almaz series of military space stations launched in the 1970s ( Salyut 2, 3 and 5 —  though Salyut 2 was a failure).  It was not able to compete effectively with its rival, Energia, in space activities, but survives because of other lines of business.

Currently its primary business is cruise missiles according to Anatoly Zak, an expert on Soviet and Russian space activities and editor of RussianSpaceWeb.com.  In an email, Zak said that NPO Mash is not involved in any of the three major cooperative space activities with the United States – the RD-180 or NK-33/AJ-26 rocket engines or the ISS.

Until now it appears that all of the U.S.-imposed sanctions based on the Ukraine situation have barely impacted U.S.-Russian space relationships. Three Russians, two Americans and one German are currently aboard the ISS.

What will happen in the wake of events today – where Ukrainian and some U.S. sources assert that a Russian surface-to-air missile operated by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine shot down Malaysia’s commercial airline flight 17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur – is unknowable.

Many commentators today are theorizing that there was no intention to destroy a commercial airliner and cite two previous incidents where military errors led to the loss of innocent lives on commercial airlines.  In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines (KAL) 007, from New York to Seoul, because it said the airplane encroached on restricted airspace.   In 1988, a U.S. Aegis cruiser destroyed Iran Air 655, a commercial flight from Tehran to Dubai, mistaking it for an attacking military jet.  The death toll for KAL007 was 269; from Iran Air 655 was 290; and from today’s MH17 was 295.

Last Updated: Jul 17, 2014 10:13 pm ET
Senators Wants Quick RD-180 Replacement, SpaceX Certification

Senators Wants Quick RD-180 Replacement, SpaceX Certification

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 16, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 17, 2014 7:34 am ET

On a day when the Obama Administration increased sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine, two Senate committees held a joint hearing that looked at how to cope with the possibility that Russia’s RD-180 rocket engines might no longer be available to power the U.S. Atlas V rocket.  Atlas V is one of two workhorse rockets used to launch the nation’s national security satellites.

The hearing also addressed how to ensure that new companies – “new entrants” – like SpaceX can compete to launch national security satellites rather than using only the United Launch Alliance (ULA).  The Air Force awarded a sole-source contract to ULA last year for 36 rocket cores for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.  SpaceX later filed suit because it was not allowed to compete.  The Justice Department and the Air Force subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  Action is pending before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The joint hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) was co-chaired by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) from the Commerce committee and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) from SASC.

The hearing took place this morning (July 16), before the White House announced that it was imposing additional sanctions on Russia.  The deterioration in U.S.-Russian relationships since Russia took control of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula this spring already resulted in U.S.-imposed sanctions.   Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees Russia’s aerospace sector, is among the individuals sanctioned.  The additional sanctions announced today reportedly include some targeted at Russia’s defense sector, but details are not yet available on whether any are associated with the space program.

In response to the sanctions and other issues, Rogozin made remarks suggesting that Russia might prohibit use of RD-180s for U.S. national security launches.  The United States is also dependent on Russia for Soyuz spacecraft to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and Rogozin tweeted that NASA should use a trampoline instead.

Coupled with the strained U.S.-Russian relationship overall, Congress and the Obama Administration are reconsidering U.S. dependence on a foreign supplier for rocket engines needed to place U.S. national security satellites into orbit.  Today’s hearing focused primarily on that topic, but also on the question of how to ensure that companies like SpaceX can compete with ULA.

The hearing covered a lot of ground and only key points are summarized here, separated into the two broad issues that were addressed:  what to do about replacing the RD-180 and Air Force certification of SpaceX. The expertise of the seven witnesses spanned a wide range, but none was from the companies that would build a new rocket engine or launch vehicle.  They were:

  • Alan Estevez, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
  • Gen. William Shelton, Commander, Air Force Space Command
  • Robert Lightfoot, Associate Administrator, NASA
  • Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition Sourcing and Logistics, Government Accountability Office (GAO)
  • Maj. Gen. Howard “Mitch” Mitchell (Ret.), chair of an Air Force review of alternatives to the RD-180 engine
  • Daniel Dumbacher, Purdue University (recently retired from NASA as head of the SLS and Orion programs)
  • Yool Kim, Senior Engineer, RAND Corporation

RD-180 Options

Senators and witnesses recounted the many factors in the 1990s that led to the decision to use RD-180s for Atlas V:

  • Engineering:  the RD-180 is “perhaps the most advanced rocket engine in the world,” Shelton said;
  • Cost: the Russians initially charged only $10 million each for the engines according to Mitchell;  and
  • Policy: the United States wanted to encourage Russian aerospace workers to remain in Russia instead of selling their talents to U.S. adversaries.

Nelson pointed out that it was also U.S. policy at the time to develop a domestic rocket engine, but that effort disappeared.  A co-production facility also was supposed to be built in the United States so RD-180s would be produced here, as well as in Russia, but that never happened either.

The Atlas V with its RD-180 engines has a perfect track record.   Shelton acknowledged that it is now time for the United States to develop its own engine, but almost seemed regretful.  He spoke of “dire” consequences if the supply of RD-180s is cut off before a new American engine is available — launch delays of 12-20 months for many national security satellites and as much as 48 months for the heaviest ones, at a cost of $1.5 billion.  He argued that the best outcome would be for the United States to keep buying RD-180s until a domestic engine is ready.

If geopolitical relationships worsen or Rogozin follows through on his threat to prohibit use of RD-180s for national security launches, there are no good short term options.   Mitchell stressed that his panel concluded that shifting satellites from Atlas V to Delta IV and using new entrants like SpaceX cannot replace the Atlas V capability until 2017 or beyond. ULA has 15 RD-180s in storage according to Shelton, so if no more deliveries are made, decisions would have to be made on how to prioritize their use (the Atlas V is also used for NASA and NOAA launches).

Estevez and Shelton were asked several times how long it would take to develop a new U.S. engine and how much it would cost.  While they said 5-8 years and $1-2 billion, the main point was that the Executive Branch is still looking at options and until decisions are made on the path forward, no reliable estimates can be provided.  The only agreement within the Administration is that it is time to move away from foreign dependence.  Some of the Senators expressed exasperation that it would take so long to build a domestic engine.

Chaplain, who has spent many years at GAO reviewing national security space programs, many of which have encountered large cost overruns, commented that her experience cautions against believing any of the numbers used today.  She also stressed that they reflect only the cost for the engine, not for a new launch vehicle to use it or related ground facilities.

That latter point was emphasized repeatedly by Dumbacher.   He warned the Senators that they need to look at the issue from a systems perspective.  “You can’t swap out one engine for another” in a rocket, he said.  A new launch vehicle will be needed as well as associated ground infrastructure.

While the hearing had a sense of urgency about it, Shelton also stressed that nothing has actually changed in the U.S. relationship with the Russian RD-180 supplier (Energomash).  It is “business as usual” with the Russians, he said.

Estevez also cautioned that DOD wants to build a new engine in the most affordable way.  A new rocket engine is a priority, he said, but there are other priorities as well.

At the end of the hearing, Nelson remarked that “We are only in this position today” because of Rogozin’s “sarcastic comments,” but they brought the issue of U.S. dependence on a foreign supplier “to a head.”  The bottom line, Nelson stressed, is that the United States needs assured access to space.

Competition and Space X Certification

The United States has been dependent on Russia for RD-180 rocket engines for more than a decade, but that fact gained prominence only this spring after Russia’s actions in Crimea and a Senate hearing in March where SpaceX founder and chief designer Elon Musk raised it as a reason that his SpaceX Falcon should be allowed to compete against ULA for national security space launches.

U.S. national policy is that the government support two rocket families to launch national security satellites in case one suffers a failure that shuts it down for a lengthy period.  Today those are ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV.  Musk suggested it should be Delta IV and his Falcon rocket, since Atlas V is reliant on Russian engines while his is not.

A central piece of the debate is the Air Force’s block-buy sole-source award to ULA  over which SpaceX filed its lawsuit. The issue has exploded over the past several months, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) supporting SpaceX’s position.  At the hearing today, McCain sharply questioned Shelton, insinuating that Shelton is on ULA’s side and against SpaceX.   He has become dogged in his determination to scrutinize the block-buy deal.

The Air Force contends that by buying so many rocket cores together, it saved $4.4 billion compared to its current approach of buying services one-at-a-time.  McCain contended that it was not a matter of cost savings, but cost avoidance.  He asked Chaplain, who has led many GAO studies investigating DOD’s acquisition of space launch services, to comment on that point.  She replied that it was a savings in the price at the start of DOD-ULA negotiations versus where the contract ended up.  She stressed that the Air Force followed GAO recommendations to obtain better cost and price data from ULA which put them in a better position to negotiate.

For his part, McCain reminded the panel about his investigation into what he believed were improprieties in DOD’s award of an aerial tanker lease to Boeing:  “People went to jail and people got fired.”  His message was clear.  He is not convinced DOD’s sole-source contract to ULA was proper.  “I don’t like this deal,” he declared.

The Air Force is in the process of certifying SpaceX to be able to win Air Force launch contracts.  SpaceX currently launches cargo missions to the International Space Station (ISS) as well as for commercial customers.  One oft-asked question is why SpaceX must go through an Air Force certification process when NASA entrusts its launches to the company.

NASA’s Lightfoot explained that the agency has different categories of missions – A, B, C and D – in decreasing order of their criticality.  SpaceX is only allowed to launch Class D missions today – those of least criticality.  NASA is currently determining whether to allow SpaceX to launch a higher priority mission (Jason-3, an ocean altimetry satellite).

Shelton said that, if all goes well, SpaceX will be certified by the end of the year.  The Air Force will have spent $60-100 million on the SpaceX certification effort, he added.   Shelton pointed out, however, that SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is technically unable to launch many national security missions.  Atlas V has 10 configurations, he said, and SpaceX cannot launch seven of them.  Thus accelerating SpaceX certification is not a solution to the RD-180 problem. 

Last Updated: Jul 17, 2014 7:34 am ET
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Adds Small Amount for RD-180 Replacement

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Adds Small Amount for RD-180 Replacement

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 15, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 15, 2014 1:42 pm ET

The Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved its version of the FY2015 defense appropriations bill this morning (July 15).   It allocates $25 million to initiate a competitive program to build a new domestic rocket engine to replace Russia’s RD-180, in sharp contrast to the House version of the bill, which added $220 million.  The subcommittee also recommends $125 million for an additional competitive space launch.

Subcommittee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said the bill allocates $125 million “to accelerate full and open competition among any certified rocket providers,” but SpaceX is the company he specifically cited.  His enthusiasm is based on a hearing the subcommittee held in March.  Recounting that at the hearing “folks from SpaceX said ‘we’re ready to compete'”, Durbin said “Let’s give them the chance.”  His hope is that competition will reduce launch costs, though he acknowledged that the United Launch Alliance (ULA), which essentially holds a monopoly on most national security space launches today, is “taking good steps to control costs.”  

Durbin said the March hearing also highlighted U.S. dependence on Russia’s RD-180 rocket engine for one of the ULA launch vehicles — Atlas V — used for national security launches.  “America’s access to space should not depend on cooperation” with a country “that sadly has dreams of empire at the expense of its innocent neighbors,” Durbin cautioned.  Therefore the bill “accelerates investment” in a new competition to build a U.S. liquid rocket engine to replace the RD-180.  “Both development and use are directed to be fully competitive so U.S. rocket companies can lead and have a fair shot at developing and using this new technology,” Durbin stressed.

The amount that was added, however, was quite small in comparison to the House-passed version of the defense appropriations bill.  That bill adds $220 million for a new rocket engine development program.  The White House opposed the addition as “premature” while it continues to evaluate options that could lead to multiple awards that would “drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base, and reduce costs through competition.”  The Senate subcommittee allocated only $25 million.  Its action appears to be more in line with the White House position.

The markup was short and sweet, as appropriations subcommittee markups are these days, with most controversial matters debated at full committee markup or on the floor.  Full committee markup of this bill is scheduled for Thursday.

The only other Senator to address space issues during the markup was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).  Referring to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), who chairs the full Senate appropriations committee (as well as its Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee), Murkowski said “the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee knows that both Alaska and the Delmarva peninsula are home to private space launch facilities.  We are seeing them play an increasing role … in national security space launch and this bill recognizes their importance, I think, for the first time.  I appreciate what you’ve done here.”

The text of the bill is not yet publicly available, so it is not clear precisely what Murkowski is referring to since SpaceX, which figured so prominently in Durbin’s comments, does not launch either from Alaska’s Kodiak Launch Complex or from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility on the coast of Virginia.  (That part of the Virginia is on a peninsula that also includes parts of Delaware and Maryland, hence its nickname Delmarva — Delaware, Maryland, Virginia.)   Orbital Sciences Corp. launches its Minotaur and Antares rockets from Wallops.  Orbital also launches Minotaur from Kodiak and Lockheed Martin used Kodiak for a launch of its Athena rocket in 2001 and plans to use it again for Athena now that it is reinstating that program.  What the bill says or does about private space launch facilities, and whether it is only for Kodiak and Wallops or for any private space launch facilities (SpaceX is planning to build one in Texas) is not mentioned in the summary of the bill posted on the committee’s website.

Last Updated: Jul 15, 2014 1:42 pm ET
Hidden Benefits of NRO ""Spy"" Technology Revealed in Hill Briefing

Hidden Benefits of NRO ""Spy"" Technology Revealed in Hill Briefing

By Laura Delgado | Posted: July 12, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 27, 2017 11:33 am ET

While “spying” is getting bad press lately, society has derived multiple benefits from intelligence-gathering technology developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), said speakers at a Friday briefing on Capitol Hill.

The event, hosted by the Space Foundation, featured Dr. Robert McDonald and Dr. James Outzen from the Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance within the NRO. McDonald and Outzen described the political context leading to the establishment of the agency in 1961 and gave examples of how approaches and technology developed by the agency have seeped out of the intelligence-gathering world and into daily life.

Outzen identified three events – the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, and the movement of the North Korean army into South Korea in 1950 — as driving the shift in mindset that the United States “could not afford” to be surprised by the activities of its adversaries.  It was formalized during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, who said at the time “no more Pearl Harbors.”

McDonald and Outzen grouped the NRO’s contributions to society into four areas: organizational, intelligence-related, technological and data-related. The organization of the NRO itself was “unique” and “innovative,” and so were the agency’s early leaders, they explained.  Of note is Edwin Land who, in addition to creating the Polaroid instant camera, is credited with a phrase that characterized the goal of reconnaissance: “see it all, see it well, and see it now.”

Alluding to the NRO’s long history of success in answering intelligence questions – many of which could not be disclosed at the briefing – Outzen offered a couple of examples from the Cold War. The Soviets, said Outzen, were carrying out a “fabulous deception” about the extent of their offensive capabilities. Intelligence gathered by U-2 aircraft and later by the CORONA program, the first U.S. photo reconnaissance satellites, helped defray fears of “the missile gap” and inform U.S. decisions about how best to use resources during the Cold War. Outzen explained that intelligence gathered by NRO satellites has also contributed in areas as diverse as treaty verification and assessments during humanitarian and environmental crises, such as hurricanes Rita and Katrina in the United States.

By enabling the “massive collection of information,” McDonald reiterated that aerospace technologies have been “very critical” in answering intelligence questions. He explained the dramatic mechanical and technological improvements as early reconnaissance satellite programs evolved, as well as the development of the first military meteorological satellite to improve the efficiency of imaging satellites in cloudy and nighttime conditions.  He and Outzen also pointed to advancements in photography – such as the development of digital photography —  as well as systems engineering and other improvements that supported reliable launch capability, as key contributions from NRO activities. McDonald commented on the “staggering” number of NRO launches in the height of the Cold War, with one or two successful launches almost every month.

The final area of contributions the speakers commented on was data. Thinking about intelligence questions as data problems – dependent on the ability to gather the right data at a fast rate – helped drive innovations in data acquisition, integration, and processing. While much of these data remain classified, some of the long-term records are helping answer questions in other fields. In response to a question about the role of historical data in environmental research, McDonald noted that imagery collected by the CORONA satellites has been declassified and is available through the National Archives and the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. He said that because these records allow researchers to examine conditions before NASA’s land remote sensing satellites began launching in 1972, they have been “invaluable” in environmental studies.

Lessons learned from NRO’s history and activities are captured in the National Reconnaissance Journal produced by the Center.  Three issues have been published, in 2005, 2009 and 2012.

Last Updated: Jul 27, 2017 11:33 am ET
What's Happening in Space Policy July 13-18, 2014

What's Happening in Space Policy July 13-18, 2014

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 12, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 14, 2014 9:49 am ET

Here is our list of space policy-related events for the upcoming week, July 13-18, 2014, and any insight we can offer about them.   The House and Senate will be in session.

During the Week

Hopefully this week will get off to a roaring start — literally — with the launch of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Orb-2 cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS).  Delayed a number of times, as of mid-afternoon today (Saturday) Orbital’s Antares rocket is scheduled to lift off from Wallops Island, VA at 12:52 pm ET tomorrow (Sunday, July 13) sending the Cygnus spacecraft to the ISS.  If the launch does, in fact, take place tomorrow, Cygnus should arrive at the ISS on Wednesday.  Follow us on Twitter @SpcPlcyOnline for up to date information on the launch.

The Senate Appropriations Committee will markup the FY2015 defense appropriations bill this week (subcommittee markup is on Tuesday, full committee on Thursday).  One of the more interesting space policy-related issues will be whether it allocates any funding for the Air Force to begin a program to develop an alternative to Russia’s RD-180 rocket engines.  The House version of the bill adds $220 million to do so even though the White House opposes the addition because it is “premature.”   The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended $100 million in FY2015 in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, but that bill has not passed the Senate yet.

U.S. dependence on Russian rocket engines is among the topics to be explored at a joint hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The hearing on Options for Assuring Domestic Access to Space features witnesses from DOD, NASA, GAO and RAND, as well as the chair (retired AF Maj. Gen. Howard Mitchell) of a recent Air Force review of alternatives to the RD-180 and the very recently retired head of NASA’s Space Launch System and Orion programs (Dan Dumbacher).  It’s somewhat interesting that NASA will be represented by Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot instead of Administrator Charlie Bolden, who would be closer in rank to the other agency witnesses:  Gen. William Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command, and Alan Estevez, Principle Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.  Lightfoot, however, is a former director of NASA’s rocket-building Marshall Space Flight Center so knows rockets inside and out.

Lots of other interesting events coming up this week.  The full list of events that we know of as of Saturday afternoon is shown below.

Sunday, July 13

Monday, July 14

Tuesday, July 15

Wednesday, July 16

Thursday, July 17

Thursday-Friday, July 17-18

Last Updated: Jul 14, 2014 9:49 am ET
SpaceX One Step Closer to AF EELV Contracts & Gets FAA OK for Texas Launch Site

SpaceX One Step Closer to AF EELV Contracts & Gets FAA OK for Texas Launch Site

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 11, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 11, 2014 10:50 pm ET

SpaceX announced today (July 11) that the Air Force has certified that the company’s Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket has successfully completed three flights.  That is one of the steps required before SpaceX can be awarded contracts from the Air Force for launches within the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.  Separately, on Wednesday it received approval from the FAA to conduct launches from a new launch site it plans to build in Texas.

The Air Force decision comes at a time when the SpaceX-Air Force relationship is rather strained.  The company is suing the Air Force because it awarded a block-buy contract to United Launch Alliance (ULA) last year for 36 EELV cores on a sole-source basis rather than allowing SpaceX to compete.  The Air Force and the Justice Department filed a motion last week asking the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to dismiss the suit.

Today’s brief announcement by SpaceX is carefully worded to say that the Air Force certified that the Falcon 9 system successfully completed three flights, not that the company has been certified to win EELV contracts.   While asserting that it is “already qualified to compete for EELV missions,” SpaceX said today it “must also be certified by the Air Force before any contract can be awarded…”   The statement concludes by saying that it expects to satisfy the remaining requirements by the end of this year.

SpaceX and the Air Force signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) in June 2013 that details the requirements SpaceX must meet to win contracts for EELV-class launches of national security satellites.  They include an evaluation of the Falcon 9’s flight history, vehicle design, reliability, process maturity, safety systems, manufacturing and operations, systems engineering, risk management, and launch facilities.  Achieving three successful flights of a common configuration of the Falcon 9 is part of that evaluation.

In February 2014, the Air Force certified the first successful flight under the CRADA.  That launch, of a Canadian science satellite and five smaller satellites from Vandenberg Air Force Base, took place on September 29, 2013 and was the first of the Falcon 9 v1.1.  The other two flights, on December 3, 2013 and January 6, 2014, now also have been certified as successful.  Both of those were from Cape Canaveral and launched commercial communications satellites for SES and Thailand, respectively.

Separately, on July 9 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved SpaceX’s plans to conduct launches from a new launch site the company plans to build south of Brownsville, TX.  The Record of Decision provides FAA’s final environmental determination and approval to support issuing launch licenses and/or experimental permits to launch the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy (still in development) “and a variety of reusable suborbital vehicles” from 68.9 acres adjacent to the village of Boca Chica.  The location is in Cameron County, TX, and is approximately 3 miles north of the U.S./Mexico border.  The approval is for up to 12 “commercial launch operations” per year.

Meanwhile, SpaceX is getting ready for another attempt to launch six Orbcomm second generation (OG2) communications satellites on Monday, July 14.  That launch has been delayed several times for a variety of technical or weather-related reasons.

Last Updated: Jul 11, 2014 10:50 pm ET
Senate Armed Services and Commerce Committees to Hold Joint Hearing on Launch Industry

Senate Armed Services and Commerce Committees to Hold Joint Hearing on Launch Industry

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 9, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 9, 2014 5:29 pm ET

Two Senate committees will hold a joint hearing next week on the status of the U.S. launch industry.  “Options for Assuring Domestic Space Access” will feature witnesses from DOD, NASA, RAND and GAO, as well as the chairman of a recent Air Force study on alternatives to Russia’s RD-180 rocket engine and the very recently retired head of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion programs.

The hearing on July 16 will be co-chaired by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chairman of the Science and Space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Many U.S. space launches take place from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the adjacent NASA Kennedy Space Center on the Florida coast.  Colorado has the nation’s third largest aerospace economy.  It is home not only to a large number of aerospace companies, such as United Launch Alliance’s (ULA’s) headquarters, but also to military users of space systems, including Air Force Space Command.

The three government witnesses on the first panel are the head of acquisition for DOD, Alan Estevez; the commander of Air Force Space Command, Gen. William Shelton; and NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot.  Lightfoot is the former director of NASA’s rocket-building Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. 

Questions that are likely to arise include the Air Force’s long term procurement plan for launch vehicles and how “new entrants” like SpaceX are — or are not — being accommodated.   SpaceX is trying to get certified to bid for Air Force launch contracts and in the meantime filed a lawsuit against the Air Force because it gave United Launch Alliance (ULA) a sole source contract last year instead of allowing SpaceX to bid on it.  That matter is before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims so it is not clear how far Estevez or Shelton can go in discussing it, but the topic is almost certain to come up.   The Justice Department and the Air Force recently filed a motion with the Court to dismiss the lawsuit.

That contract is for ULA’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), Atlas 5 and Delta IV.  They are also used for NASA and NOAA satellites, so NASA’s requirements are also an important part of the calculus, especially since two of the three companies it is funding in the commercial crew program (Boeing and Sierra Nevada) plan to use the Atlas V to launch their crew spacecraft (CST-100 and Dream Chaser, respectively).

NASA itself is developing a new launch vehicle, SLS, much more capable than the EELVs.  Whether DOD has any use for that type of capability may also be of interest to the committees.  SLS is being designed to take people beyond low Earth orbit (LEO).  The initial version will be able to take 70 tons to LEO, more than twice the capability of the biggest EELV (Delta IV Heavy), and a future version will be able to launch 130 tons to LEO.  At the moment NASA is the only customer, which means a very low flight rate and high costs per flight.

As critical as the SpaceX and SLS issues are, perhaps of greatest interest is U.S. reliance on Russia’s RD-180 engines for the Atlas V rocket.   With the deteriorating geopolitical situation between the Untied States and Russia, the House recently voted to allocate $220 million in the FY2015 defense appropriations bill to begin a rocket engine development program to replace the RD-180.   The Senate appropriations defense subcommittee is scheduled to markup its defense bill the day before this hearing, and the full committee may be debating it at the very same time.  The White House opposed the addition of the money in the House bill as premature.

In any case, Maj. Gen. Howard Mitchell (Ret.), now with the Aerospace Corporation, is one of four witnesses on the second panel.  He just chaired a study on RD-180 alternatives for the Air Force that concluded there are few good options in the near term.   He will be joined by Dan Dumbacher who retired from NASA on July 1 and is now at Purdue University.  His last assignment at NASA was as Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development — the person in charge of the SLS program and the Orion crew spacecraft it will launch.  Also on that panel are Cristina Chaplain of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) who has extensive experience in auditing and analyzing DOD acquisition of space systems for GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, and Yool Kim of the RAND Corporation.  Kim was one of the authors of a 2008 RAND study on improving cost estimation for space systems.

The hearing is at 9:30 am ET in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.  

Last Updated: Jul 09, 2014 5:29 pm ET
U.S. Government Seeks Dismissal of SpaceX Suit

U.S. Government Seeks Dismissal of SpaceX Suit

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 3, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 3, 2014 11:31 pm ET

The U.S Government responded yesterday to the lawsuit filed by SpaceX against the Air Force and the United Launch Alliance (ULA).   Lawyers for the Justice Department and the Air Force requested that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismiss the lawsuit because SpaceX does not have “standing” to file such a protest.

SpaceX filed suit in April arguing that the Air Force should not have awarded a sole-source contract to ULA in December 2013 for 36 rocket cores for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, but instead have opened the contract for bid.  ULA builds and launches the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, which are used primarily for launching national security satellites, but also spacecraft for NASA and NOAA.

The legal arguments are complex, but the bottom line of the government’s “Motion to Dismiss” seems to be that SpaceX does not have standing to file a protest because, in legal terms, it is not an interested party and does not have a direct economic interest.

Citing case law to support its arguments, the government asserts that companies cannot successfully argue after the fact that they could have competed for a contract and won if they were not a qualified bidder when the contract was open and did not indicate at the time that they intended to bid.  In this case, SpaceX had not completed its certification flights at the time the request for proposals was issued in 2012 or when the contract was awarded in 2013.  it completed its third certification flight only in 2014 and is still in the process of being certified by the Air Force to bid for launch service contracts.  The government stresses that SpaceX did not file any complaints while the contracting process was underway in 2012-2013 even though it had opportunities and access to the necessary documentation to do so.

The government argues that SpaceX must show both that is an interested party and that it has a direct economic interest in order to have standing to file a protest. 

To be an interested party, SpaceX would have to be either an actual or prospective bidder.  To be an actual or prospective bidder, it would have had to have notified the government that it wanted to compete by submitting a statement of capability before the deadline, which it did not.  The government cites SpaceX’s own legal filing in this case as saying that it “could be a bidder for future contracts,” not for past contracts.

The government also argues that SpaceX did not have a “direct economic interest” because to “prove a direct economic interest, a party must show that it had a ‘substantial chance’ of winning the [challenged] contract.”   Since SpaceX did not submit a statement of capability, it could not have had a substantial chance of winning the contract, therefore does not have a direct economic interest, and consequently does not have standing.

In short, the government contends, SpaceX “failed to submit a capability statement in response to the March 2012 solicitation. … Nor … did it indicate any dissatisfaction with the Air Force’s intent to procure the launches sole-source” from ULA, and “took no steps to get involved in the procurement at the time the agency was planning its course.  It is too late for SpaceX to try to bring a challenge to that procurement now.” 

The government makes a series of other arguments as well, all leading to a request that the court dismiss the case.  (It is somewhat more complicated than that because the government complains that the SpaceX lawsuit is “amorphous” in that it protests any sole-source EELV award, not just the one issued in December 2013.  The government asks the court to narrow the scope of the proceeding to the December 2013 contract, FA8811-13-C-0003, and therefore its filing is a Motion to Dismiss “portions” of the SpaceX lawsuit.)

Michael Listner, founder and principal at Space Law & Policy Solutions in New Hampshire, analyzed the government’s Motion to Dismiss in a series of tweets (@ponder68) today and concluded it is “substantive, focused and confident.”  While SpaceX may object, “they will have a difficult time overcoming this Motion,” he predicts.

For more SpacePolicyOnline.com coverage of this issue, see these previous articles:

Last Updated: Jul 03, 2014 11:31 pm ET
What's Happening in Space Policy June 30 – July 18, 2014

What's Happening in Space Policy June 30 – July 18, 2014

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 29, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 2, 2014 3:18 pm ET

This edition of “What’s Happening in Space Policy” covers THREE weeks rather than one since so many people — including Congress — are on vacation this coming week as the United States celebrates the July 4th (Independence Day) holiday and future activities have not yet been announced.   Here is our list of events June 30 – July 18, 2014 and any insight we can offer about them.  The Senate is scheduled to return for legislative business on July 7 and the House on July 8.

During the Weeks

There could be some particularly interesting launches in the next three weeks — or not.    

Russia’s launch of its new Angara rocket was postponed in the final minutes of countdown on June 27.   As of today (June 29), Russian government and news sources have been silent about what caused the abort or when a new attempt will take place.  Angara is a family of launch vehicles that has been under development for about the past 20 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The new vehicles of various capabilities are intended to replace many of the Soviet-era rockets.  This suborbital test flight is of the smallest version and carries a dummy payload.

Here in the United States, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket also experienced an anomaly during countdown on June 22. It was the latest delay in the launch of six next-generation communications satellites for Orbcomm.  Like the Russians, SpaceX was not very forthcoming about what the problem was or how long it would take to fix.  SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said during a radio interview on The Space Show this past week, however, that the problem involves the first stage thrust vector control actuator and launch probably will not take place until at least July 14.  That information is not posted on SpaceX’s website, however.

Also uncertain is when Orbital Sciences will conduct the next cargo run to the International Space Station (ISS), Orb-2. Orbital is investigating the failure of an AJ-26 rocket engine during a May 22 test at Stennis Space Center before deciding whether to clear the Antares rocket designated to take a Cygnus cargo spacecraft to the ISS.  The engine that failed is for a launch in 2015, but the company needs to determine whether the problem affects more than that one engine.  The “no earlier than” launch date for Orb-2 at the moment is July 10.  The launch was originally scheduled for May and initially delayed because a SpaceX cargo flight to ISS was postponed, but the May 22 engine test failure led to several additional delays. 

One U.S. launch that is on schedule, as of today at least, is NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2).  Launch is scheduled for very early in the morning of July 1 (2:56 am Pacific time, 5:56 am Eastern).  OCO-2 is a replacement for the original OCO, which was lost in a launch failure in 2009.

What’s on tap in Congress when it returns is up in the air.  The House is passing appropriations bills, but the process in the Senate remains stuck.  Whether any agreement will be reached to allow progress once the Senate returns on July 7 remains to be seen.   The new fiscal year begins on October 1, which may seem a long time away, but Congress will be in recess all of August, so there are few legislative days available to get work done. 

In short, the space business and the space policy business is in an uncertain period.  Keep checking back here for updates!  

Sunday, June 29

Tuesday, July 1

  • OCO-2 launch, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, 2:56 am PDT (5:56 am EDT), watch on NASA TV.  A post-launch press conference will take place approximately 2 1/2 hours after launch.

Thursday, July 10

Wednesday, July 16

Thursday, July 17

Thursday-Friday, July 17-18

Last Updated: Jul 02, 2014 3:18 pm ET

SPACEPOLICYONLINE.COM

About | Contact | Privacy