Deficit hit men target NASA's post-shuttle plans

Nov 25, 2010 By MARCIA DUNN , AP Aerospace Writer
This artist's rendering provided by Sierra Nevada Space Systems shows the company's Dream Chaser spacecraft docking with the International Space Station. The company hopes that by 2014 the Dream Chaser will makes its first orbital flight and then eventually take space travelers to the International Space Station. NASA's effort to farm out astronaut trips to the International Space Station to private companies over the next decade is under fire again, this time by federal deficit hit men. (AP Photo/Sierra Nevada Space Systems)

(AP) -- NASA's effort to farm out astronauts' space station trips to private companies over the next decade is under fire again, this time by federal deficit hit men.

Spaceflight vendors stand to lose $1.2 billion in NASA funding in 2015 under a proposal by the co-chairmen of President Barack Obama's bipartisan deficit commission.

Eliminating federal funding for commercial rocket rides is just one of dozens of ideas put forth earlier this month. It was No. 24 on the list and, outside of space circles, was barely noticed, overshadowed by proposed cuts in Social Security benefits and a call for higher taxes.

NASA isn't overly worried, for now. Neither are the entrepreneurs who are counting on government dollars to hurry their spacecraft and rockets along; they're used to the Earth-mired roller coaster ride. Besides, few if any observers expect the proposed cut to muster enough support.

But the fact that commercial spaceflight was targeted, underscores the vulnerability and controversy of the Obama administration's plan to get American astronauts to the International Space Station via commercial craft once the space shuttles stop flying next year.

"We're at the point now where it's either commercial human spaceflight or no human spaceflight in the U.S.," said the founder and chief executive officer of Space Explorations Technologies Corp., Elon Musk.

His California-based SpaceX is one of several companies vying to build rockets and spacecraft that could deliver astronauts or supplies to the space station, freeing NASA up to focus on grander deep-space adventures.

Unless those private businesses come up with safe and reliable means of transport, NASA will be forced to continue buying seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft at a cost of tens of millions of dollars - per person.

A round-trip ticket to the space station in 2011 and 2012 will run NASA as much as $51 million, up from the current $26 million. The price will jump to $56 million in 2013 and 2014.

With two or three Americans on the space station at any given time, and crew swaps every six months, the millions add up fast. The orbiting outpost is expected to operate until at least 2020.

"The Russian price goes up every year, and they have a monopoly," said Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Mark Sirangelo. The company is building Dream Chaser, a winged mini-shuttle that it hopes to launch atop a rocket to the space station.

"Why should the U.S. spend money in Russia?" asked Sirangelo, who also serves as chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. "Why should we create Russian jobs and spend money on Russian technology when there are a number of U.S. companies who could provide the same kind of service?"

The federation represents 37 companies employing thousands of Americans working on real hardware and new concepts. Some of the firms are pushing the space tourism frontier on their own dime and have little if anything to lose by the government funding fracas.

NASA does not want to make too much out of the proposal to hack away at commercial space funding. A space agency spokesman in Washington said there would be no official comment on these "what ifs."

So far, NASA has pumped $723 million into the commercial crew and cargo effort. Sirangelo sees opposition to all this as "somewhat of a PR issue." NASA has been working with private companies for decades to launch people as well as payloads, he noted.

Obama wanted $6 billion set aside for commercial spaceflight in NASA's budget over the next five years, an amount that was reduced by Congress in the three-year spending plan that the president signed in October. Further cuts are possible as Congress wrangles over budget appropriations.

SpaceX's Musk said his Falcon rockets and Dragon capsules could be carrying cargo to the space station next year and people within three years of getting the go-ahead from NASA.

A Falcon 9 is due to blast off in December from Cape Canaveral on the first test flight under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program for space station cargo. (June's successful test flight of the Falcon 9 was strictly a SpaceX affair.) The operational Dragon capsule will orbit the Earth a few times, for systems testing, before making a Pacific splashdown.

This week, the Federal Aviation Administration issued SpaceX a license for spacecraft re-entry from orbit - a first for commercial space.

SpaceX's has a $1.6 billion contract with NASA for 12 cargo flights to the space station. Orbital Sciences Corp., NASA's other partner on cargo, has a $1.9 billion contract for eight supply hauls. Orbital Sciences is revving up for an early 2011 test launch of its Taurus rocket and Cygnus spacecraft from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.

Hauling humans is trickier - and costlier - because of all the safeguards that need to be built in.

Retired space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale wrote in his blog in mid-November that commercial human spaceflight faces a "coming train wreck" because of all the astronaut-launching requirements proposed by the space agency. He said the document - a draft - "runs a mind-numbing 260 pages of densely spaced requirements" that would take massive amounts of work to document and verify.

"This, folks is the old way of doing business," he wrote. "This is one of the major reasons why spaceflight is as costly as it is."

Within three days, Hale was backtracking - a bit - after criticism from all sides.

If all goes well, Sierra Nevada expects to be flying Dream Chaser with a crew by 2014. The company is among five competing under NASA's $50 million commercial crew development program, round one.

The others: Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos' rocket company, Blue Origin; Boeing, which is teaming up with commercial space station builder Bigelow Aerospace; Paragon Space Development Corp., which is designing life-support systems; and United Launch Alliance, which builds the Atlas and Delta rockets.

It's no secret NASA wants to hedge its bets, in case the commercial contenders fall behind with their launches. Top managers are pushing for an extra shuttle flight next summer before the 30-year program ends to carry up enough supplies to tide the crews over until the commercial deliveries begin.

If the commercial rockets are delayed and there are no more shuttle flights, the space station could end up with a shortfall of supplies, shuttle program manager John Shannon warned last month. That, in turn, could prompt a reduction in crew size and a hiatus in research.

SpaceX wants to carry people into space one way or another. It will happen more quickly with NASA's help, said Musk, the co-founder of PayPal.

"NASA's like a huge accelerator, a huge risk reduction," Musk said. "They are key anchor tenants, the key anchor tenant, I'd say. You can do something without an anchor tenant, but it's a lot harder."

Explore further: Scientists find meteoritic evidence of Mars water reservoir

More information:
NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/index.html

Commercial Spaceflight Federation: http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/

Deficit commission: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

5 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA ponders future without shuttles

Mar 10, 2008

U.S. space officials are concerned NASA will have to rely on other countries to carry astronauts into space after its three space shuttles are retired.

NASA: Good night moon, hello new rocket technology

Feb 01, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is redirecting America's space program, killing NASA's $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon and using much of that money for new rocket technology research.

NASA proposes $17.6 billion budget

Feb 05, 2008

U.S. space officials proposed spending $17.6 billion next year with a focus on the International Space Station and space shuttle programs.

Recommended for you

Image: Christmas wrapping the Sentinel-3A antenna

2 hours ago

The moment a team of technicians, gowned like hospital surgeons, wraps the Sentinel-3A radar altimeter in multilayer insulation to protect it from the temperature extremes found in Earth orbit.

Video: Flying over Becquerel

2 hours ago

This latest release from the camera on ESA's Mars Express is a simulated flight over the Becquerel crater, showing large-scale deposits of sedimentary material.

Spinning up a dust devil on Mars

3 hours ago

Spinning up a dust devil in the thin air of Mars requires a stronger updraft than is needed to create a similar vortex on Earth, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2010
Obama is anti-science. If he get re-elected the USA will be very green as there will be no jobs, no power, no air travel, no space technology.
Skepticus
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2010
What? National Air and Space Administration that have no spaceship? Should be renamed No Air and Space Access/Asperations!
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
"Obama is anti-science." - DeadBeatDebtor

40 years of Republican Borrow and Spend Treason has finally managed to bankrupt the American State.

What America needs now is another tax cut for the wealthy to provide wealth to the growing levels of impoverished created by the vast quantities of money borrowed by the Bush Administration.

Snicker...

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2010
"What? National Air and Space Administration that have no spaceship?" - Skepticus

Republicans for decades have been looking for ways to destroy NASA.

"We need to manufacture an [economic] crisis in order to insure that there is no alternative to a smaller government." - Jeb Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.

"Starve the beast of government."
TAz00
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2010
What america needs is a new governmental system, and I think you will get one, but i fear it won't swing the way i'd like.
YawningDog
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
Republicans or Democrats, it makes no difference. They are two branches of organized crime and the American "government" has become an on-going criminal enterprise. Our nations economy is ruled by an arrogant aristocracy who will never relinquish their positions of power and privilege. Heads must roll for there to be change. Other than that, everything is fine.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2010
"Republicans or Democrats, it makes no difference" - Dog

Americans love to blame politicians for their problems and yet they are the people who elect them to office.

Ignorance is the primary problem in America. Americans are no longer intelligent enough to govern themselves.

Claiming that both parties are equivalent is just proof of that ignorance.

Husky
not rated yet Nov 26, 2010
It still looks attractive to farm out the manned flights, to the Russians with an average of $ 40 million per person (If we take this year and next year in account).

Given the $ 700 million already spend on developing this capacity inhouse and the proposed $ 1.2 billion budget cut, we are talking about $ 1,9 billion, wich would despite increased russian ticketprices still be good for nearly 50 tickets. This should be enough to bridge the coming two years or so. Probably better to tackle one problem at the time in a good way, like getting the SpaceX cargo delivery done in a safe affordable way and then, freed from that burden refocus attention on crew delivery, you can only spend your money once, or cut it in halve and risk buying two halve working capacities.
El_Nose
not rated yet Nov 26, 2010
Even NASA has stated that it only makes sense to allow the commercail sector to take up space travel. NASA should do what companies cannot - and that is reseach new propulsion techniques, ans scientific satelite design... and that seems resaonable at least to me.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
If Bush would have cut this, he would have been labled as anti science, interesting how the media and the leftists think Obama is so pro-science, yet he has done nothing for science.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2010
Bush did cut this. He killed replacements for the shuttle. He also wrecked the economy which has crippled Obama.

Kind of like what happened with the first Bush and Clinton. Only MUCH worse and Obama is neither as good or as lucky as Clinton PLUS the Republican's had Gingrich who was semi-competent and semi-reasonable. This is no longer the case as Gingrich has been replaced by people that think if it isn't Republican than it isn't American.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.