Space industry responds to NASA’s Commercial Crew decision
Photo Credit: United Launch Alliance
America may be one ‘giant leap’ closer to getting back to being a spacefaring player. NASA’s decision on Tuesday, Sept. 16 announcing the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts, gave the nation much anticipated proof that the time when the U.S. will regain the ability to send crews to space from U.S. soil is only a matter of time. An array of space-related organizations weighed in on NASA’s decision to have Boeing and SpaceX provide access to orbit by spacecraft produced by the two companies.
“This is a good day for our nation’s space program and for all Americans,” said House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith. “I look forward to the time when we once again launch American astronauts on American rockets from American soil.” Other Congress members also shared the enthusiasm: “I am encouraged by today’s announcement as it will allow NASA, Boeing, and SpaceX to complete development, testing and certification of the needed capability,” remarked Science, Space and Technology Committee member Eddie Bernice Johnson. “I offer my congratulations to Boeing and SpaceX and wish them success in carrying out this phase of the Commercial Crew Program (…) We must continue to dedicate ourselves to our Nation’s space program. The next generation of Americans is counting on us,” said Donna F. Edwards of the same Committee.
The one contestant that was not selected, Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser, was a favorite among many space enthusiasts. Image Credit: SNC
Congressman Steve Stockman applauded the efforts by both companies in building the next generation of spacecraft to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. “Boeing has been building spacecraft since the dawn of the space age, and I am excited to see their spacecraft selected in this competition. SpaceX has created an exciting space industry from scratch, which is bringing the satellite launch market home to the United States, and we will see more exciting commercial space ventures from them in coming years,” he said.
NASA’s decision is an important step according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). AIAA Executive Director Sandra H. Magnus said in a statement: “AIAA commends NASA’s important next step as it continues on a stable path to commercial crew transportation. I am sure that the selection process was particularly difficult, given the three excellent proposals put forward from SpaceX, The Boeing Company, and Sierra Nevada. This commitment means that our nation will once again have the capability to put astronauts in orbit.”
It’s also a major step for the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF). “With this award, we are one major step closer to restoring our nation’s ability to launch U.S. astronauts to the ISS from American soil,” stated CSF President Michael Lopez-Alegria. “NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is developing safe, reliable transportation to low-Earth orbit through the use of innovative contracting mechanisms. NASA’s selection of two companies demonstrates its prudent commitment to both competition and operational redundancy. With these commercial companies developing transportation for astronauts to and from Low Earth Orbit (LEO), NASA can focus more of its resources on deep space exploration.”
SpaceX has recently unveiled the crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft that NASA has tapped to fly crews to the ISS. Photo Credit: Robert C. Fisher / SpaceFlight Insider
“The Commercial Crew Program is the quickest and most cost-effective way to get our astronauts flying again in U.S. vehicles,” stated CSF Chairman Frank DiBello. “However, the beauty of the commercial space industry is in its diversity. While these companies work to restore crewed LEO transportation capabilities, other companies are working to grow those and other markets in space. CSF congratulates NASA on the awards and we look forward to supporting the next steps in the new space era.”
The Space Frontier Foundation (SFF) congratulated Boeing and SpaceX on their selection as the next U.S. human spaceflight providers, and declared victory in a 20-year-long battle to open the space station transportation market to commercial services. SFF also congratulated NASA for ensuring a competitive marketplace while setting an aggressive timetable for the return of U.S. human spaceflight capabilities.
Boeing’s CST-100, depicted in orbit above the Earth. Image Credit: Boeing
The National Space Society (NSS ) also praised the decision. NSS Executive Vice President Paul Werbos summed up the situation: “This is a great moment for Boeing, SpaceX, and NASA. The door to the American future in space is opening wider, and we need to ensure that Commercial Crew is fully funded to keep it that way.”
But what about another side of the decision, a side that could loose a lot? NASA currently pays Moscow $70 million for every astronaut carried into space by Russian Soyuz capsules, according to the latest deal signed last year and in effect until 2017. Congressman Stockman warned of increasing tensions with Russia over Ukraine: “I urge both companies to find ways to launch a year earlier than planned, to counter any potential threats by Russia against launching our astronauts.”
Russian chief analyst at GLONASS Union, Andrei Ionin is convinced that it will take a long time to complete the project to launch spacecraft with American astronauts into orbit from US soil. “It’s important to understand that the implementation of the new American pilot project will be completed not by the end of 2017, as it has been announced, but in 2018-2020 at best. That’s if everything goes according to plan, with no accidents,” he said.
The expert noted that, despite the fact that the United States has developed the partially reusable Dragon cargo spacecraft, to create a crewed version will be much more difficult.
“In the USSR, the development took a reverse course: the Soyuz crewed spacecraft, legendary in its reliability, was created first, and then, based on that, the Progress expendable cargo spacecraft was developed,” Ionin recalled.
Having the current reliance on Russia in mind, Chairman Lamar Smith emphasized that: “The days of paying Russians $70 million per astronaut for access to the International Space Station must come to an end as soon as possible. I look forward to working with these companies and NASA, to end our reliance on foreign carriers by ensuring safe, reliable, timely, and cost effective transportation to the International Space Station.”
This article originally appeared on SpaceFlight Insider partner site – Astro Watch and can be viewed here: CCtCap
Welcome to The Spaceflight Group! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: The Spaceflight Group as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightGrp
Tomasz Nowakowski
Tomasz Nowakowski is the owner of Astro Watch, one of the premier astronomy and science-related blogs on the internet. Nowakowski reached out to SpaceFlight Insider in an effort to have the two space-related websites collaborate. Nowakowski's generous offer was gratefully received with the two organizations now working to better relay important developments as they pertain to space exploration.
Well at least Rep Smith is behind the CC initiative now. We’ll see if he will keep trying to gut the program.
Really a shame about Sierra Nevada’s entry. It was at least an exciting entrant worthy of the 21st century. I sure hope they continue development and show the world what they are capable of.
A few others to add to the list
Newt Gingrich – http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/?c&page=2
I won’t post an entire op-ed, but its here for everyone to see
And Lori Garver, from Twitter verse
Great to see continued competition & congrats to winners! But can someone explain how we suddenly have $6.8B over next 3 years for #CCiCap?
https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/511998612994527234
“Great to see continued competition & congrats to winners! But can someone explain how we suddenly have $6.8B over next 3 years for #CCiCap?”
A good question, unfortunately (based on recent past experience) we probably do not.
What is really going to happen is likely far from settled.
I liked this article all the way up to the point of talking about what the Russian chief thinks. It really was not necessary to point out what an inferior space nation thinks. We have out performed the Russians in all different ways, raising their stature to our level to this matter is insignificant in the point of this article.
The Russian do not have a clue, so I suggest ignore them.
The Russians developed and fielded the Soyuz/Progress crew and cargo logistics vehicles and now has decades of experience with them.
Since SpaceX is in essence trying to emulate that system their analysis is pertinent to the subject of the article.
Both Boeing and SpaceX have a known history of project delays. The 1+ year slip is a reasonable prediction, and something to keep an eye out for.
Which was the whole purpose of the Russian experts statement and my response to James.
Glad somebody understands it, even if James does not.
Hey Joe, Everything you talk about in regards to Russia is technology they steal from us, just like the Boron copy of our space shuttle. Make no mistake they are light years away in technology from us.
Hi James,
Not trying to start a protracted argument.
Your observations about the Buran are, as far as the orbiter is concerned, are essentially correct (actually saw the hi-fidelity mockup of it in Star City once). The rest of the launch stack is a different matter. Long story but, in my opinion, one of the only things to be mourned about the end of the Soviet Union is the loss of that potential launch capability.
The real issue here is the Russian experience with the Soyuz/Progress System. That was begun in the 1960’s with the crewed Soyuz developed first and that made the development of the Progress relatively easy, which was the main point of Ionin’s statement (not who stole which technology from whom). Many people assume that because the cargo version of Dragon has flown, SpaceX has an easier job in producing the crewed version and that simply is not true.
If your reason for objecting to giving the Russians any credibility is patriotism, that is admirable. Remember, however, that you do your cause no good by underestimating a potential opponent.
Hey Joe, This technology of joining to spacecraft together was also used during the Apollo days. After the landing on the moon the two craft came back together. The computers are different, however the principle was still there. Also, don’t forget we also had linked up with the Russian space station before the shuttle. Then there is the years with shuttle did the same thing. I see there is no point in this discussion, because we (both nations) have been doing this for years.
Now new comer SpaceX which has only been around for twelve years is learning everything at a fast pace and, and not only discovered how to do it, but making improvements beyond what all the others had ever done. Let’s be fair however, they had NASA’s help. You can see the difference between the new NASA spacecraft and SpaceX f9r they much different.
So my statements are beyond patriotism, but the realization that the technology speaks for its self, and the Russians even know it when they compare their new space craft to SpaceX. The Russians think they have a comparable (not cheaper) ride to space than SpaceX. Today cheaper and safer is better and hands down SpaceX has the cheapest on the planet… You can tell when they speak they tell you they are scrambling to try to catch up. Next year I predict SpaceX will really demonstrate how cheap they can go with their art of reusability. Just like a passenger jet is today.
Hi James,
The real issue in moving from Dragon Cargo to Dragon Crew is not any of the issues you discuss but mastering life support/crew interfaces. SpaceX currently has no background in that. Other SpaceX aficionados have told me that life support/crew interfaces are trivial and present no challenge; I can assure you they are wrong.
The rest of the SpaceX commercial:
– SpaceX which has only been around for twelve years is learning everything at a fast pace
– not only discovered how to do it, but making improvements beyond what all the others had ever done
– Today cheaper and safer is better and hands down SpaceX has the cheapest on the planet
– You can tell when they speak they tell you they are scrambling to try to catch up
– Next year I predict SpaceX will really demonstrate how cheap they can go with their art of reusability
– Just like a passenger jet is today
Is enough to show that no further discourse will serve any purpose.
Hey Joe, Former astronaut Dr. Garrett Reisman is in charge building the Dragon V2, as a former NASA employee he understands what it takes to make the life support system work. I am confident they know what they are doing.
You sir are mixing my words up of my comments about SpaceX and Russia’s comments about scrambling to catch up to SpaceX. I was talking about what the Russian’s were saying about their new space craft. The following words from them explain what I am saying.
“Russia’s Proton rockets can compete with American SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicles in terms of commercial launch costs. So says United Rocket and Space Corporation (URSC) Deputy Director-General Pavel Popov. Popov made his statements on Thursday, bringing to light the deepening competition between international launch service providers.”
James,
I am sure Reisman will do the best he can to make things work out, he will not be the first former Astronaut to go to work for SpaceX, then leave with no particular explanation.
As for the rest of your comment, you say you were “talking about what the Russian’s were saying about their new space craft”: then refer to a quote about the Proton rocket that first flew in 1967 (that means the Proton is not a “new space craft” by any definition). That is the reason I said further discussion with you was pointless.
This will be my last response to you on this subject.
This is great news for the US. We are long overdue in getting our own people back to work instead of keeping the Russians employed. Now for a reality check; Where’s the money gonna come from. From what I understand, NASA awarded these contracts with NO Money, in hoping the funds will be allotted from who knows where.
Just like SLS is being slow walked by NASA, I predict these funds will dribbled out the same, hence, pushing this program well to the right.
I hate to sound like a pessimist, and am all for these programs, but this administration has put Bolden in charge for a reason, to slow walk all human spaceflight.
Even the GAO report that came out recently says NASA has the funding, their just not using it appropriately.
I’m afraid nothing is going to change until Obama, Bolden and Nelson are gone.
Hi Jesse,
You have got the gist of it.
I am sorry Joe, you sound like an disgruntled former employee mad about the situation you face. SpaceX is like any other company trying to eliminate the people who do not want to work there. Think of it as healthy for both parties. Now you want to take out on them in the blog section you find, where they can not refute what you say, because maybe they are not watching.
As far as the article that was reported recently about the Proton Rocket maybe the reporters got it confused with the Angara Rocket that was just sent up July 11, 2014. I took it that way, because that is the new rocket that was produced.
This comment violated SFI’s commenting policy and was removed.
Hey Joe, Don’t worry about James, he’s like most of those spacex groupies out there. As soon as someone says anything remotely or they think it’s negative about spacex, they attack the person. These people are either Elon plants or have never worked for or knew anyone who worked for space x. I know dozens of people who currently work for spacex and some who have in the past. Not a single one of them has anything to good to say about the company.
And spacex is not like any other company; Most companies treat their employees a whole lot better than spacex does. Somehow they get the definition of intimidation mixed up with loyalty.
This comment violated SFI’s commenting policy and was removed.
This comment violated SFI’s commenting policy and was removed.
This comment violated SFI’s commenting policy and was removed.
Nope, Never have been employed by spacex, nor want to or need to.
I have to agree with Joe. My point of view may be a little bit different, as I’m from Poland, but we cannot deny Russia’s increasing experience in sending humans to ISS. The fact is currently only Russia and China are capable of doing that. And speaking of US we talk about plans by 2017 at best. It’s also a shame that Europe hasn’t yet developed it’s own manned program. Moreover, ESA now also uses Russian Soyuz launcher for some satellite launches.
Time will tell whether who is right on this subject, because SpaceX will be doing it themselves. My bet is they will not have any difficulties.
NASA paid for the current upgrades to the Soyuz spacecraft so that it could carry taller astronauts. So, in essence Soyuz is the first commercial human rated spacecraft. It just happens to be owned by a foreign government. NASA now buys seats/services from the Russians. NASA purchased all the excess capacity/seats from the Russians. So the Russians are unable to sell seats on the international market because of this. Now, NASA uses this model for the U.S. private companies to build the capacity to launch cargo/humans to orbit. Finally, a toast to Soyuz being the first commercial human rated spacecraft for NASA’s astronauts.