Category: Space Law

Posey, Kilmer Introduce ASTEROIDS Act To Grant Property Rights to Asteroid Resources – UPDATE

Posey, Kilmer Introduce ASTEROIDS Act To Grant Property Rights to Asteroid Resources – UPDATE

By Marcia Smith | Posted: July 10, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: July 17, 2014 10:29 am ET

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) and Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) introduced the American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act today that they say will establish and protect property rights for commercial exploration and exploitation of asteroids.

Two U.S. companies prominently promoting the potential of asteroid mining are Planetary Resources, headquartered in Redmond, WA, and Deep Space Industries in Houston, TX.

In a statement, Posey and Kilmer said that while it may be many years before asteroids actually are mined for their resources, the research is underway now and companies need greater certainty about property rights to what they are mining.  Nickel, iron, cobalt and platinum-group minerals (platinum, osmium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium and palladium) are specifically cited as potential minerals that might be mined on asteroids.  They say that their bill will —

  • Clarify that resources mined from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained them
  • Ensure U.S. companies can conduct their operation without harmful interference
  • Direct the President to facilitate commercial development of asteroid resources

The major issue is whether such property rights in space are legal under international law.  The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States and 102 other countries are signatories, prohibits claims of national sovereignty in outer space, including on the Moon and other celestial bodies, which includes asteroids.   The treaty also states that governments bear responsibility for the actions by both government and non-government entities — such as private companies — to ensure that they abide by the treaty’s provisions. 

Scholars in space law have long argued over whether the treaty prohibits exploitation of resources entirely.  In 2004, the Board of Directors of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) issued a statement that “prohibition of national appropriation also precludes the application of any national legislation on a territorial basis to validate a ‘private claim'” and it is the “duty” of governments to “implement the terms of the treaty within their national legal systems.”   The IISL statement was spurred by a company that purports to sell deeds to parcels on the Moon, but has broader applicability.  The IISL issued a further statement in 2009 to clarify its position that “any purported attempt to claim ownership of any part of outer space … or authorization of such claims by national legislation, is forbidden…. Since there is no territorial jurisdiction in outer space or on celestial bodies, there can be no private ownership of parts thereof….”  It calls for a “specific legal regime” to be “elaborated through the United Nations, on the basis of present international space law.”

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is one of five space treaties negotiated through the United Nations.  The United States is signatory to four of the five.  A synopsis of all five treaties can be found under the “space law” tab on SpacePolicyOnline.com’s home page.

A spokesman for Posey’s office said that the bill repeatedly states that it should be implemented “consistent with international obligations” and does not confer ownership rights to asteroids.  It only “allows those companies that mine the asteroid to keep what they bring back.”  The bill affects only U.S. companies engaged in such activities.

Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Deputy Director of the International Institute of Air & Space Law at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, agrees that existing treaties do not seem to prohibit ownership of extracted resources, but adds that exploitation of space resources must comply with general space law principles.

Michael Listner, founder and principal at Space Law and Policy Solutions in New Hampshire, says that the bill is “crafted with international law in mind,” but the underlying caveat that property rights will be granted in accordance with international obligations could be a “showstopper.”  He also points out that the European Space Agency (ESA) is “planning on granting resource rights as well” and asks how claims under this legislation would be reconciled with competing foreign claims.

Marco Ferrazzani, ESA Legal Counsel, said in a July 17 email to SpacePolicyOnline.com that “the European Space Agency is working towards exploration opportunities carried out in international cooperation and in full respect of international space law, with provides for the principle of non-appropriation.”

UPDATE:  This article was updated on July 17, 2014 to add the quote from ESA’s Marco Ferrazzani.

Last Updated: Jul 17, 2014 10:29 am 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
What's Happening in Space Policy June 23-27, 2014

What's Happening in Space Policy June 23-27, 2014

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 22, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 22, 2014 4:46 pm ET

Here is our list of space policy events coming up in the next week, June 23-27, 2014, and any insight we can offer about them.  The House and Senate are in session.

During the Week

The House has S. 1681, the Senate-passed version of the 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act, on the suspension calendar for this week.  The Senate Intelligence Committee confidently predicted that the House would accept its version of the bill and that is looking likely.  Bills considered under suspension of the rules typically are non-controversial and the sponsors expect to achieve a two-thirds aye vote easily.  The Senate bill differs in many ways from the House version.  For example, it is only for FY2014 while the House-passed bill was for FY2014 and FY2015.   If the Senate bill is enacted, it gives Congress another opportunity to weigh in on intelligence issues legislatively in FY2015, which begins October 1.  The Senate bill also requires Senate confirmation of the Director and Inspector General of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which designs, builds and operates the nation’s signals and imagery reconnaissance satellites (the bill also requires Senate confirmation of the Director and Inspector General of the National Security Agency).   No  other space-related bills are on the House agenda as of today (Sunday) and the Senate has only consideration of various nominations on its public schedule.  The fate of the appropriations bills that include NASA, NOAA, and the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation remains in limbo in the Senate.

The House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee will hold a hearing on the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) new report on the future of human space exploration on Wednesday. The co-chairs of the NRC committee, Mitch Daniels and Jonathan Lunine, will testify.  So far the report has gotten positive responses from Congress via press releases, but this hearing is an opportunity for Members to get their viewpoints on the record and ask questions that highlight their areas of interest.  The NRC committee’s lack of enthusiasm for the Asteroid Redirect Mission, support for human missions back to the lunar surface, and identification of humans on Mars as the “horizon goal” are all in line with the views of most Members of the House SS&T Committee.  One point on which there may be disagreement is the NRC committee’s endorsement of space cooperation with China, which Congress has prohibited by law.

Those and other space policy-related events for the upcoming week that we know about as of Sunday afternoon are listed below.

Monday, June 23

Monday-Tuesday, June 23-24

Tuesday, June 24

Wednesday, June 25

Thursday, June 26

Last Updated: Jun 22, 2014 4:46 pm ET
Senate Appropriations Process Hits a Snag, Minibus Derailed for Now

Senate Appropriations Process Hits a Snag, Minibus Derailed for Now

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 19, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 19, 2014 11:58 pm ET

Optimism about completing congressional action on at least some FY2015 appropriations bills earlier than usual hit a wall today (June 19) when the Senate postponed action on a set of three appropriations bills, including those that fund NASA, NOAA and the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation.  Substantive issues underlie the disagreement, but they are unrelated to the space program and are being manifested in procedural moves.

Since last week, the Senate has been debating the Motion to Proceed to consideration of H.R. 4660, the House-passed FY2015 Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill.   The Senate plans to replace the language passed by the House with an “amendment in the nature of a substitute” – amendment 3244 – incorporating the texts of three appropriations bills that cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee – the CJS bill (which includes NASA and NOAA), the Transportation-HUD bill (which includes the FAA), and the Agriculture bill.  The combined bill is referred to as a “minibus,” a somewhat joking reference to a smaller version of an “omnibus” appropriations bill that typically groups all 12 regular appropriations bills together.

The issue is how the Senate will deal with amendments to the minibus.  The two parties have been at loggerheads for years over what amendments are allowed to be offered during floor debate and whether the amendments can be adopted by majority vote (51 of the 100 votes in the Senate) or if a 60-vote margin is required.

The current breakdown of the Senate is 53 Democrats, two Independents who usually vote with Democrats, and 45 Republicans.  An amendment sponsored by Republicans needs to attract just six Democratic votes to win under the majority rule, but 15 if the 60-vote rule is in effect.  Conversely, an amendment sponsored by Democrats can pass with support only from other Democrats under majority rule, but requires five Republicans to join them under the 60-vote rule.

Logically, that would mean Democrats would want decisions based on majority vote on the assumption they can get the vast majority of their own party members to vote in favor of Democratic amendments, while Republicans would favor a 60-vote threshold to force Democrats to find at least five Republicans to join them.   Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has argued for the 60-vote threshold in the past.

Today, however, he and other Republicans were insisting that amendments to the minibus be able to pass with only 51 votes while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was arguing for the 60-vote threshold.

Divining the intricacies of Senate politics is a treacherous undertaking best left to those with that expertise rather than space policy.   However, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, took to the floor today to say that the real issue is that Republicans want to offer amendments that would repeal the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.  Indeed, in its Statement of Administration (SAP) policy on the bill, the White House warned against attempts to “advance ideological riders, which the President has made clear are unacceptable.”

The bottom line is that action on the minibus is stalled until the two parties can reach agreement on how to proceed.  A timeline for such an agreement is impossible to forecast.

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the top Republican on the committee, have been striving to restore “regular order” to the appropriations process.  Mikulski said on the floor that she was “sad” with what happened today because it will delay funding for many critical programs and hopes that the appropriations process “does not die today.”

Meanwhile, Senators have been making statements about the bill on the Senate floor while the Motion to Proceed has been under consideration.  A NASA issue of particular interest is language inserted in the CJS bill by Shelby, who also is the top Republican on the CJS subcommittee, requiring commercial crew contractors to abide by accounting practices usually required for cost-plus government contracts rather than firm fixed-price contracts.  Opponents refer to it as a “poison pill” that will add cost to the program and is particularly disadvantageous to small companies (like SpaceX) that do not have large cadres of personnel experienced in conforming to such regulations.  Advocates insist that it adds transparency and will help avoid cost overruns.

Yesterday (June 18), Shelby, a long-standing critic of the commercial crew program, defended the language on the Senate floor saying its intent was “not to up-end a fixed-price contract: rather the goal is to make certain that the price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual development expenditures. NASA and its contractors have a history of cost overruns and schedule delays … [and] I believe we cannot find ourselves at the eleventh hour with an overburdened program that requires a bailout to succeed.”   For his part, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee that authorizes NASA’s activities and supports commercial crew, said he wants to work with Mikulski and Shelby as the bill is conferenced with the House “to make sure that we have the right mix of oversight and innovation in how NASA contracts for this competition.”

Last Updated: Jun 19, 2014 11:58 pm ET
Senate Begins Debate on FY2015 Appropriations Bill for NASA, NOAA, FAA Space Office

Senate Begins Debate on FY2015 Appropriations Bill for NASA, NOAA, FAA Space Office

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 17, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 17, 2014 1:02 pm ET

The Senate Appropriations Committee says that the Senate will begin consideration of a FY2015 “minibus” appropriations bill today that bundles three regular appropriations bills together:  Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS, including NASA and NOAA), Transportation-HUD (T-HUD, including the FAA and its Office of Commercial Space Transportation), and Agriculture.   The White House supports the Senate bill, but expressed concerns about certain NASA provisions.

Congress routinely combines several appropriations bills together.  When all 12 of the regular appropriations bills are grouped into one it is called an “omnibus” bill.  When a smaller number are bundled they are somewhat jokingly referred to as a minibus.

The Senate is using the House CJS appropriations bill, H.R. 4660, as the vehicle for its minibus, inserting its language combining the three Senate bills in place of what the House passed.  This “amendment in the nature of a substitute” is posted on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s website.

The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the bill today.  The SAP supports the bill overall, but warns against using it to “advance ideological riders, which the President has made clear are unacceptable.” 

With regard to NASA, the SAP expresses concern about three issues in the version of the bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee:

  • Language inserted by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) requiring commercial crew companies to abide by accounting requirements associated with cost-plus rather than fixed-price contracts.  Opponents of the language call it a “poison pill” because complying could cost a small company like SpaceX a lot of money because it does not have a cadre of personnel in place to handle the paperwork while larger companies like Boeing do.  The SAP says the requirements are “unsuitable for a firm, fixed-price acquisition” and could increase cost and delay schedule.
  • The reduction in the budget for Space Technology.  The White House requested $706 million while the Senate bill allocates only $580 million. 
  • Language regarding two NASA science programs — a Landsat follow-on and a Europa mission.   Saying that it is premature to specify elements of future missions, the SAP asserts that it is “not feasible” to build a new Landsat as described by the committee within the committee’s cost cap of $650 million, and it is premature to designate the Space Launch System (SLS) as the launch vehicle for a Europa mission before the costs and benefits are understood.

The SAP does not list any concerns about NOAA’s satellite programs or the FAA’s space office.

These three bills — CJS, T-HUD and Agriculture — also were bundled together for FY2012.  The House already has passed its versions of  the FY2015 CJS and T-HUD bills and begun consideration of the Agriculture bill, stoking optimism that this may be a rare year when at least some appropriations bills are enacted before the new fiscal year begins on October 1.  That is far from guaranteed, of course, but it has been many years since Congress has gotten even this close.

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm ET
Obama Administration Opposes New Money for RD-180 Replacement Engine

Obama Administration Opposes New Money for RD-180 Replacement Engine

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 17, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 17, 2014 10:07 pm ET

The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the FY2015 defense appropriations bill this evening.  The bill is scheduled for House floor action tomorrow.  The White House “strongly opposes” the bill for many reasons, one of which is the $220 million it provides to begin development of a new rocket engine to replace Russia’s RD-180 used for the Atlas V launch vehicle.

The White House asserts that it is premature to commit that level of resources to a new engine while it is still “evaluating several cost-effective options including public-private partnerships with multiple awards that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base, and reduce costs through competition.”

As the SAP says, a recent study of alternatives to the RD-180 concluded that building a new engine would take eight years and cost $1.5 billion, with another $3 billion needed for a suitable launch vehicle to utilize it.  The White House apparently believes it can reduce that cost and schedule through public-private partnerships.

Last night, the United Launch Alliance (ULA) announced that it had awarded commercial contracts to “multiple” U.S. companies to develop concepts for a new U.S. liquid rocket engine that could be ready in five years — by 2019.  ULA said it plans to choose one design and supplier by the end of this year.  ULA is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing that builds and launches the Atlas V and Delta IV families of rockets.  They are primarily used for national security space launches, as well as for NASA and NOAA satellites. ULA President Michael Gass said that as “the nation’s steward of the launch industrial base” it is “incumbent” on the company to “bring forward the best solutions.”   ULA added that it is evaluating the technical feasibility of the new concepts for “both private investment and the potential for government-industry investment” — in short, public-private partnerships. 

U.S. reliance on Russian RD-180 rocket engines for launching national security satellites entered the spotlight earlier this year when the U.S.-Russian geopolitical relationship deteriorated after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region.   Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees Russia’s aerospace sector and is one of the Russians sanctioned by the Obama Administration, threatened to prohibit use of the RD-180s for launching U.S. national security satellites.   The response from the Administration and Congress has been to eliminate U.S. reliance on Russian rocket engines by building a U.S. alternative, though there clearly are differences in how to accomplish that goal.

Lockheed Martin’s decision to use Russian rocket engines for the Atlas V dates back to the 1990s, soon after the Soviet Union collapsed.  At the time, the Air Force required the company to build a co-production facility in the United States to manufacture the engines independently of Russia in case the geopolitical relationship changed.   The Air Force later waived that requirement and Lockheed Martin — through ULA — stockpiled a two-year supply of the engines to guard against any such eventuality.  Consequently, today the engines are still manufactured in Russia by Energomash and provided to ULA through RD-AMROSS, a joint venture between Energomash and United Technologies, a U.S. company.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, SpaceX filed a lawsuit against the Air Force for awarding a sole-source block-buy contract to ULA in December rather than allowing SpaceX to compete.  SpaceX founder and Chief Designer Elon Musk argues that the Atlas V should be discontinued because of its reliance on Russian engines.  U.S. space policy requires that the government support two launch vehicle families to ensure access to space in case one should experience a lengthy hiatus because of a failure.  Atlas V and Delta IV are those two families today, but Musk sees a future when it is Delta IV and his American-made Falcon.

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2014 10:07 pm ET
What's Happening in Space Policy June 16-20, 2014

What's Happening in Space Policy June 16-20, 2014

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 15, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 15, 2014 5:02 pm ET

Here is our list of upcoming space policy related events for the week of June 16-20, 2014 and any insight we can offer about them.  The House and Senate both are in session this week.

During the Week

Inside the Beltway, perhaps the most interesting event will be Senate debate on a “minibus” appropriations bill that bundles the bill that funds NASA and NOAA (Commerce-Justice-Science or CJS), the bill that funds FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (Transportation-HUD or T-HUD), and the Agriculture bill.  The Hill newspaper reports that’s the plan and the Senate did begin debate on the motion to proceed to the CJS bill last week, a procedural step.   Those three bills were bundled together in FY2012, too. 

It’s hard to remember the last time the Senate took up the CJS appropriations bill so early in the year.  Typically the Senate turns to such bills after the August recess.   It is amazing to see how much progress is being made on appropriations bills on both sides of Capitol Hill this year thanks to the Ryan-Murray budget agreement reached last December that set the spending limits for FY2014 and FY2015.  It’s never over till the fat lady sings, of course, but one kernel of optimism for those three bills, at least, is that the House already has passed two (CJS and T-HUD) and begun debate on the third (Agriculture) though it is not the Majority Leader’s schedule for the coming week.  Instead the House will be debating the defense appropriations bill, which was reported from committee on Friday (H.R. 4870, H. Rept. 113-473).

Outside the Beltway, the third International Space Station Research and Development Conference in Chicago should be interesting.   Organized by the American Astronautical Society (AAS) in cooperation with NASA and the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), the conference has a very impressive agenda.  AAS sometimes offers webcasts of key sessions of its conferences; we’re checking to see if they are providing webcasts this time and will add the information to our calendar item for that event if the answer is yes.

Those and the other events we know about as of Sunday afternoon are listed below.

Monday, June 16

Monday-Friday, June 16-20

Tuesday-Thursday, June 17-19

Wednesday, June 18

Wednesday-Thursday, June 18-19

Friday, June 20

Last Updated: Jun 15, 2014 5:02 pm ET
Senate Continues Work on Its Version of New NASA Authorization Bill

Senate Continues Work on Its Version of New NASA Authorization Bill

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 10, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 10, 2014 10:45 pm ET

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is continuing to work on a NASA authorization bill although its version may be for more than just one year.

The House passed a one-year NASA authorization bill (H.R. 4412) yesterday, meaning that its funding recommendations cover only FY2014, which is already in progress.  Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) said during floor debate that she wished the committee had been able to agree on a multi-year bill.

Last year the Senate committee approved a three-year bill on a party line vote.  A Senate aide confirmed to SpacePolicyOnline.com that the committee continues to work on that bill and its multi-year time span remains an important feature.

NASA’s authorizations are under the purview of the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.   Each committee approved bills last year, but intense disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over top-level funding caps – based on budget resolutions independently passed by the House and Senate using entirely different assumptions – resulted in the bills being approved on party line votes and they did not progress past the committees.

Following the Ryan-Murray budget agreement for FY2014 and FY2015 reached in December, budget tensions have eased, opening the door to greater bipartisan agreement as evidenced by the House bill.

The Senate committee similarly may be able to reach bipartisan agreement on budget matters now and the main issues will be in the policy arena.  One key will be whether the goal is for a two-year bill or if the committee pushes for maintaining the three-year time horizon.    A two-year bill would be for FY2014 and FY2015, the years covered by the Ryan-Murray agreement.  A three-year bill would take the budget recommendations into FY2016, which is unknown territory.

The sequester will return in FY2016 unless Congress again changes the law.  That may depend on the outcome of the November elections.  Currently the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats.   The House is expected to remain in Republican hands, but the Senate is up in the air.  If Republicans also gain control of the Senate, the Republican Party may fight for deeper government spending cuts and the sequester may be upheld. 

No timetable for Senate action is set, but the ball is in their court.

Last Updated: Jun 10, 2014 10:45 pm ET
House Appropriators Support RD-180 Replacement, Want More EELV Info – UPDATE

House Appropriators Support RD-180 Replacement, Want More EELV Info – UPDATE

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 9, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 10, 2014 12:05 pm ET

UPDATE, June 10, 2014:   The committee approved the bill today with no changes to the space provisions.

ORIGINAL STORY, June 9, 2014:  The House Appropriations Committee supports adding $220 million to begin development of a U.S. liquid rocket engine to replace the Russian RD-180s currently used for the Atlas V rocket in its draft FY2015 defense bill.  The committee also directs the Air Force to provide more information about changes in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.  

Those recommendations are included in the committee’s draft bill and report on the FY2015 defense budget request, which are posted on the committee’s website. The defense subcommittee approved the draft on May 30.  Full committee markup is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 10).

U.S. dependence on Russian engines for one of the two rockets used to launch most U.S. national security satellites is getting a lot of attention as U.S.-Russian relationships remain strained due to events in Ukraine.  Lockheed Martin’s decision to use Russian engines for its Atlas V rocket dates back to the 1990s and was approved by DOD initially with the requirement that the company build a co-production facility in the United States where the engines could be provided independently of Russia in case geopolitical circumstances changed.  That requirement was later waived by the government, with the company buying extra engines to stockpile instead.   Today, a Lockheed Martin-Boeing joint venture, United Launch Alliance (ULA), builds both Atlas V and Boeing’s Delta IV.  ULA says it has a two-year supply of RD-180s, but it would take longer than that to develop a U.S.-built replacement creating the conundrum now being faced by the U.S. government.

The House passed the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in May, which includes $220 million to begin development of a U.S. engine to replace the RD-180.   That is an authorization bill, though, not an appropriation.  (Authorization bills set policy and recommend funding levels, but do not actually provide money.  Only appropriations bills provide money).  Winning support from House appropriators is a key step, though not the only one.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not acted on its version of the bill so it is too early to tell if it will follow the lead of the Senate’s DOD authorization committee.   The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) recommended $100 million for FY2015 rather than $220 million for this purpose when it approved its version of the NDAA in May.  Senator John McCain (R-AZ) included language in the committee-approved NDAA prohibiting the purchase of any more RD-180 engines after the current block buy contract is completed, although waivers are permitted in certain circumstances.  Even if the Senate Appropriations Committee does agree with SASC, there is quite a difference in the dollar amount between the House and Senate that would have to be negotiated.

Apart from the RD-180 issue, the House Appropriations Committee’s draft bill and report highlight these other space-related recommendations:

  • Cuts the FY2015 EELV procurement request of $1.346 billion for three launches and infrastructure by $35 million.
  • Rescinds $118.7 million of FY2014 EELV funding.
  • Directs the Secretary of the Air Force to notify Congress of “each change to the EELV acquisition plan and schedule as compared to the plan and schedule” in the FY2015 budget submission “including the national security rationale for the change, the impact on the EELV block buy contract and launch manifest, the impact on the change in opportunities for competition for certified EELV launch providers, and the costs or savings associated with the change.”
  • Cuts the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and associated ground system request of $309.5 million by $10 million.
  • Provides $212.6 million for the GPS III operational ground control segment, the same as the request.
  • Adds $30 million to the $57 million requested for advance procurement of the GPS IIII space segment to allow for acquiring two satellites per year instead of one.
  • Provides the full request of $156.7 million for the Military GPS User Equipment program.
  • Provides the full request of $32.9 million for the GPS Space Modernization Initiative, but directs that $20 million be used to study “technological maturation, including the use of an alternative digital GPS payload, and risk reduction consistent with the GPS enterprise analysis of alternatives.”
  • Directs the Secretary of Defense to consider upgrading existing communications terminals to accelerate the fielding of the full capability of the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS), a Navy satellite communications program.

Full committee markup is at 9:30 am ET tomorrow morning. 

Last Updated: Jun 10, 2014 12:05 pm ET
NASA Authorization Bill Easily Passes the House – UPDATED

NASA Authorization Bill Easily Passes the House – UPDATED

By Marcia Smith | Posted: June 9, 2014 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: June 10, 2014 11:33 am ET

UPDATE, June 10, 2014:  This article was updated with the names of the two members who voted against the bill and a link to the Congressional Record page where the full roster of votes is available.

ORIGINAL STORY, June 9, 2014: The House passed the 2014 NASA Authorization Act, H.R. 4412, today under a legislative procedure called suspension of the rules.  No amendments are allowed under that procedure, which is used for bills expected to be non-controversial.  The bill passed by a vote of 401-2. 

The chairmen and ranking members of the full House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee and its Space Subcommittee were the main speakers:  Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-MS), and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD).   The only other speakers were committee members Randy Weber (R-TX) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR).

Bipartisanship was the order of the day, although all three Democrats noted how far the two sides had come since last year when sharp political divisions on an earlier version of the bill resulted in tense party-line votes in committee.   Much of the rancor was because Republicans were working under strict budget limits adopted by the House for FY2014 while Democrats rejected those limits.   In December, the Ryan-Murray budget agreement for FY2014 and FY2015 eased those limits, which has enabled significantly greater cooperation between the two parties on many issues this year, including authorization and appropriations legislation.

Much of today’s discussion focused on the need for the long-term human spaceflight plan required by the bill – a Human Exploration Roadmap.  That provision is strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats.   The report released last week by the National Research Council on the future of the human exploration program was repeatedly cited as the type of plan they are hoping to get from NASA.

Not surprisingly, Republicans continued their criticism of President Obama’s cancellation of the Constellation program and the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) he proposed to replace it.   However, Democrats did not come to the defense of ARM and just as enthusiastically supported the need for a new roadmap.

Palazzo said the human spaceflight program has been “adrift” since Constellation ended and the country “can’t keep changing our program of record every time there’s a new President.”   The bill does not require that NASA reinstate lunar surface missions to its human exploration plan, but Palazzo noted that the NRC report pointed to the “significant contributions” such missions could provide for the longer term goal of human landings on Mars.

Republicans and Democrats agreed it was “not a perfect bill,” but they supported it because there was broad agreement on so many topics.  Palazzo said he would continue to raise concerns about certain issues, however, including “distractions” like ARM and the need for adequate funding for the Space Launch System (SLS).

The funding recommendations in the bill are only for FY2014, which is already underway so are not very important.   Edwards said she would have preferred a multi-year authorization, but this bill is “foundational” and provides important policy guidance.

The two “nay” votes were cast by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) and Mark Sanford (R-SC).  Thirty members did not vote.  A full roster of the votes is printed in the Congressional Record. 

The final version of the bill as reported from committee is available on the Library of Congress THOMAS website, but not the accompanying report.  (The report number is there, H. Rept. 113-470, but it does not link to anything yet.)

The next step is Senate action.   Like the House SS&T committee, last year the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee approved a bill on a party line vote.  There has been no committee action this year.

Last Updated: Jun 10, 2014 11:33 am ET

SPACEPOLICYONLINE.COM

About | Contact | Privacy