I have a report and analysis of Tuesday’s press conference with Paul Allen and Burt Rutan over at PJMedia.
Category Archives: Space
More On NASA’s Reprieve
I have the story up over at Open Market.
[Late morning update]
Here’s Alan Boyle’s take.
[Early afternoon update]
Joe Pappalardo has the story at Popular Mechanics.
This really is a rare bit of good news in space policy.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Commercial Space Federation weighs in with a press release from Alex Saltman, the new executive director:
Washington, DC, Thursday, December 15, 2011 – The Commercial Spaceflight Federation congratulates NASA on the space agency’s important decision, announced today, to continue to use Space Act Agreements for the Commercial Crew Development Program. This decision will shorten the gap in U.S. access to space, help spur additional private investment, reduce America’s dependence on Russia, save taxpayer money, ensure the future of the International Space Station, and increase industry competition. Now that the Space Shuttle has retired, the Commercial Crew Program is the fastest way for America to regain our domestic access to space.
“Space Act Agreements are a proven way to get rapid, cost-effective results and will help ensure that the Commercial Crew Program is a success,” said CSF Executive Director Alex Saltman. “Space Act Agreements were used in the previous rounds of the Commercial Crew program, as well as the COTS Cargo Program. A NASA cost study has shown that the COTS Cargo development program, using Space Act Agreements, has been successful for a fraction of what a traditionally run program would have cost.”
“Competition is the key to the Commercial Crew Program, and we are pleased to see that NASA is continuing to promote competition, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office in a report released today.”
“This decision maximizes NASA’s bang-for-the-buck and brings America one big step closer to replacing the Space Shuttle with safe, reliable, and affordable commercial transportation to low-Earth orbit. The commercial crew program is an exciting partnership between commercial companies and NASA to combine innovative ideas and new investment from the private sector with NASA’s deep experience in human spaceflight.”
Today’s decision by NASA to continue using Space Act Agreements is supported by the results of previous programs. All recent NASA and Air Force launch vehicle development programs that have resulted in flights to orbit have used similar milestone-based agreements, rather than traditional contracts, for system development.
In June 2011, the CSF released a public white paper titled, “Commercial Spaceflight Federation Supports Use of Space Act Agreements (SAAs) for Next Phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Development Program,” stating, “SAAs are the best means for NASA to support commercial development of systems to transport crew and cargo to the Space Station.”
Yes. Though if Ralph Hall has his way, the battle will continue next year.
[Mid-afternoon update]
Marcia Smith has a story up now.
[Bumped]
Ralph Hall Weighs In On Commercial Crew
Hey, you know what, Mr. Chairman? If you were really worried about the schedule and dependence on the Russians, you’d have asked Frank Wolf and Barbara Mikulski to shift some funds from the useless SLS and properly fund the Commercial Crew Program.
Stratolaunch
Jeff Foust has a contrarian view. I think a key issue, and a source of a lot of the cost uncertainty, is regulatory. If they have to certify that thing under Part 127 (as Stargazer is) it could add hundreds of millions in cost.
A Reprieve From The FAR, For Now
I just ended a telecon with Bill Gerstenmaier, who announced that Commercial Crew is going to stick with Space Act Agreements for the next phase. Here are my raw notes:
Changed approach, doing Space Act Agreements for next phase. Goal is to get CC capability ASAP for ISS, in light of tight budget think that Space Act provides the best means of moving forward quickly for now.
Alan Boyle: Did you consult with commercial providers? No. Had planned Firm Fixed Price, but too much budget uncertainty to move forward, Space Act provides a lot more flexibility for milestones, to allow as much progress as possible for next 21 months. Space Act don’t allow as much technical involvement by NASA, but allows providers to move forward to Critical Design Review. Phase originally schedule for RFP on Monday, selection and award next summer. Think that now SAA’s will be in place next summer, to go into 2014. Period of performance will vary with agreement, but expect to get to critical design that allows certification of FFP.
Want to carry a minimum of two providers through this period, and hopefully more, and the only way to do it with existing funds is SAA. Does increase technical risk that they won’t get exactly what they want.
Ken Chang: Still capability in 2016? Think it’s moved into 2017, because didn’t get sufficient funding in 2012. Be close to CDR with SAA, but will have to think about how to transition to certification and service phase.
Morring: Will have to procure more Soyuz seats, and another waiver of INKSNA. Has it gone up to the Hill yet, and how many more seats? Congress understands the position, will take waiver issue forward as needed, more seat purchases needed in 2013. Current contract runs out in Spring of 2016.
Cowing: Will contractors be allowed/encouraged to be more innovative in risk reduction? Basic intent provided, and providers offer solutions, up to them to be creative and innovative.
Did they make decision on their own, or was this a result of the complaints from industry? On their own, driven by budget uncertainty, contractors seemed happy to do FAR contracts.
Think can get to CDR level, depending on how many providers they continue to carry.
Certification requirements well along and have been released, for both safety and mission success. No TBDs.
Seth Borenstein, AP: Does switch from RFP to Space Act Agreement change the amount or timing of the funding? They’re appreciative of getting the 406M in 2012, more than they’ve had in the past. Timing is up to contractors and their milestones, so can’t define funding profile for space acts right now. Less certainty of schedule with Space Act, but more flexibility with budget.
Denise Chow: Concerned that SAA will make certification process longer? Potentially has that capability, but requirements are out there, and providers should know pretty clearly what’s being asked for. Some risk that they wont get exactly what is anticipated, but it’s mitigated somewhat by the requirements, as well as competition.
Jeff Foust: Does this take NASA as far as it can go on SAA, or is there some flexibility to use them for later phases? When there is a need for actual transportation services to ISS, they’ll need a contract. Probably as far as they’ll go with them, but there may be some limited possibilities.
Klotz: why is this a good use of government funds when so many people are putting in their own private money? Expecting some share with contractors, are providing intellectual property, they have ability to use for transportation to other facilities. Space Act activity actually increases desire for them to spend their own money. Government investment helps insure that capability is developed in a timely manner.
[Update a while later]
Clark Lindsey took notes, too.
[Update late morning]
Jeff Foust has the story now.
More On The Giant Airplane
Here’s Popular Mechanics‘ take.
[Update a few minutes later]
Paul’s puzzling press-a-palooza. I like “Birdzilla.”
Science-Fiction Newt
It’s interesting that even some of the folks at Think Progress like some of Newt’s SF policy. I don’t think this is as wonderful a weapon against him as Romney seems to. Speaking of which, he doubled down yesterday:
That article also includes a clip of a video interview with Romney on Monday where the former Massachusetts governor again raised the issue when asked about differences between himself and Gingrich. “The idea of a lunar colony? I think that’s going to be a problem in the general election,” Romney said about two and a half minutes into the clip. “So you’re suggesting he’s a little nutty?” asked POLITICO’s Mike Allen. “I’m suggesting he has differing views than I do on very important issues,” Romney responded, but later added, “I’m not going to characterize the Speaker’s views on science.”
Emphasis mine. That Romney thinks that this discussion is about science just demonstrates how completely out to sea he is on the topic. One of his advisers really needs to explain things to him. He’s going to turn off a lot of people needlessly, and probably already has.
“Why,” Not “Where”
How to reduce churn in space activities:
Establishing these goals is critical because, as the Augustine committee rightly noted, “Planning a human spaceflight program should start with … the goals to be accomplished by the program … its raison d’être, not … which object in space to visit. Too often … planning … has begun with ‘where’ rather than ‘why’.” And one might add that on occasion planning has begun with “what.” Our community has been so energetic in advocating destinations and vehicles that we appear to think that they are the “why,” which defeats sustainability.
These goals, a fundamental expression of “why,” serve several critical functions. Most importantly, they are the basis for setting priorities to determine the most relevant path through the destination-capability trade space. Having a path makes human space exploration coherent and provides the basis for measuring progress. “Why” makes human space exploration an intelligible and, one hopes, compelling whole that promotes stakeholder understanding and support. “Why” also differentiates human space exploration from its competitors in creating value, such as other ways to inspire young people or support competitiveness. There is a fundamental difference between “why” NASA should have a human space exploration program and its value.
Until people understand this, we’ll continue to spin our metaphorical wheels, and waste billions with little progress.
Today’s Paul Allen Announcement
The press conference starts in less than two hours, but I have some reason to believe that it has something to do with this. Whatever it is.
[Update a few minutes later]
Less than an hour before the press conference, Alan Boyle seems to have the scoop. And the web cast is live now. Here’s the low-res version for the bandwidth challenged.
[Update a few minutes before the presser]
They’re playing Elton John’s “Rocket Man” on the webcast, waiting for the event to begin.
[Update during presser]
The wingspan of that aircraft is over three times the distance of the Wright Brothers first flight.
[Update during questions]
An order of magnitude more money than SpaceShipOne. In other words, less than a billion.
[Update a few minutes later]
They’re going to have to certify that aircraft under Part 127. That will triple its cost at least. On the other hand, it might find other markets.
[Update a couple minutes later]
They just asked my question about schedule (though others probably emailed that as well). First aircraft flight 2015, first space flight in the next year. I asked whether they fuel on the ground or in the air, but the question has been asked of the panel yet. It may not be.
[Update a few minutes later]
About an hour into the conference now, and Clark Lindsey has been taking notes.
More Moon-Mine Thoughts
I have a related post up over at Open Market.