Responds To What It Calls Recent Misperceptions Related To U.S. Human Spaceflight

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation, which continues to be a strong supporter of a robust NASA, says there are still a number of misperceptions relating to human spaceflight, including commercial human spaceflight.

The CSF says that commercial companies are not relying on untested and unproven companies or launch vehicles. The Commercial Crew Program announced by President Obama in February will include the use of highly proven launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, which has achieved a perfect record of 21 consecutive successful flights to orbit. In addition to Atlas V, the commercial Delta IV has 13 consecutive successful flights, and the Falcon 9 recently reached orbit on its first flight, with over a dozen more Falcon 9 flights scheduled in the next few years.

The Commercial Crew competition will include highly experienced firms, including major aerospace prime contractors, such as Boeing, which is developing the CST-100 commercial crew capsule under CCDev, and Boeing has built nearly every U.S. human spacecraft since Mercury. The list of companies winning CCDev or COTS demonstrates the wide experience base of potential competitors, such as Boeing (158,000 employees), United Launch Alliance (3,900 employees), Orbital (3,600 employees), Sierra Nevada Corporation (2,000 employees), and SpaceX (1,000 employees).

In addition, commercial companies, such as United Launch Alliance, have already proven the ability to successfully carry high-value cargo to orbit. Given the urgency of closing the gap, the CSF says Commercial Crew should be promptly started. Only two companies are developing cargo capabilities under the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, so it is not logical for the other companies to be forced to wait for the completion of the COTS Cargo program. The Department of Defense already trusts commercial launch vehicles such as the proven Atlas V to launch cargo worth billions of dollars per mission and on which the safety of troops overseas depends.  These vehicles are also entrusted by NASA to handle some of the most safety-critical applications in the civil space sector. For example, the Atlas V is Category 3 certified by NASA for launch of NASA's most critical payloads.

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation says that developing a low Earth orbit Gemini-class capability (which is the historical human spaceflight project most similar to Commercial Crew) is a simpler, and therefore shorter, task than developing an Apollo or Orion-class capability. The first piloted Gemini flight to orbit was achieved only about 3 years and 3 months after McDonnell accepted a contract to develop Gemini. Today, it says the fastest way for America to regain its ability to send astronauts to the International Space Station is to develop a simple Gemini-class capability rather than waiting for a more complex Apollo-sized system. Because Commercial Crew funds multiple redundant capabilities, schedule delays with any one company will not delay the availability of astronaut launch capability. Commercial Crew is actually less vulnerable to schedule slips than a program such as Ares I that has only one provider. With Commercial Crew, a delay with a single competitor does not increase the gap because other competitors are progressing in parallel, while under the old plan, each delay with Ares I does increase the gap

In terms of cost, as the Augustine Committee stated, "Gemini is the closest historical program in scope to the envisioned commercial crew taxi." In GDP-inflator-corrected FY 2009 dollars, the DDT&E [design, development, test, and evaluation] cost of this program was about $2.5-3 billion, depending on the accounting for test flights. Since that time, technology for human spaceflight has benefited from 40+ years of technology advances and lessons learned. If Gemini were built today, it would likely cost even less to develop.

Gemini 7

Commercial Crew does not require spending money to develop new launch vehicles, only capsules. The launch vehicles already exist. Atlas V has flown 21 consecutive times to orbit successfully, Delta IV has flown 13 consecutive times to orbit successfully, and Falcon 9 just had a successful flight to orbit. Not needing to develop all-new launch vehicles is a substantial cost advantage of Commercial Crew. 

The Commercial Spaceflight Federaltion asserts that the new plan increases flexibility, in that it funds multiple redundant capabilities to transport crew to LEO. This will mean that NASA's human spaceflight program will no longer be solely dependent on any one single domestic vehicle.  America will finally have "assured access to space" for astronauts, similar to how military satellites have assured access to space by using both the Delta and Atlas. Achieving that assured access for astronauts, via multiple commercial capabilities, will dramatically improve our ability to fully utilize the International Space Station.

Commercial Crew is a continuation of existing national policy. The 2008 NASA Authorization Act endorsed commercial crew, stating:
"In order to stimulate commercial use of space, help maximize the utility and productivity of the International Space Station, and enable a commercial means of providing crew transfer and crew rescue services for the International Space Station, NASA shall issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with two or more commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) crewed vehicle demonstration program."

Atlas V Launch

Similarly, the 2008 NASA Appropriations House report endorsed commercial crew. It "encourage[d] NASA to consider exercising its option for the Commercial Cargo (COTS) Capability D (crew transport) as soon as possible."

While some say the data shows commercial vehicles are less safe than other vehicles such as Ares I, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation holds that the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles, combined with numerous upcoming manifested flights, means that the family of commercial vehicles already has, and will continue to have, a much stronger track record than other vehicles such as Ares I. The Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes, and additional unmanned flights will occur over the next few years before any astronaut flights begin. By contrast, NASA was planning to place astronauts on just the second full-up orbital flight of the Ares I system. Furthermore, the first crewed flight of Ares I will not occur until the year 2017 as determined by the Augustine Committee. At the planned rate of two Ares I flights per year, it would take the Ares I rocket until at least the year 2025 to match the demonstrated reliability that the Atlas V rocket already has today.

Private companies understand that they will not be in business if the systems they develop are not safe. In fact, private industry recognizes that it must increase safety from that demonstrated in the past in order to fulfill its vision of greatly increasing human activity in space, and the commercial industry is planning to meet or exceed the safety standards that NASA applies to its own vehicles. Thirteen former NASA astronauts who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in an October Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely.

SpaceX Dragon Artist's Concept

In the area of cost, the CSF says that the development cost of Ares I plus a crew-launch-capable Orion is at least $35 billion ... 6 times more expensive than the Commercial Crew Program that will develop multiple redundant systems. The $35 billion cost figure is a direct NASA quote from the June 17, 2009 New York Times. In addition, the per-flight costs to transport astronauts to the International Space Station on Ares I would significantly exceed that of simpler commercial systems.
 
There are at least four distinct reasons for these cost savings under Commercial Crew:

• Proven launch vehicles already exist, such as Atlas V, and others have demonstrated successful orbital flights, such as Falcon 9, substantially reducing the amount of new hardware needing development.
• Commercial vehicles also launch commercial communications satellites and national security payloads, leading to an increased flight rate that reduces per-flight cost.  By contrast, NASA-unique vehicles are prohibited from launching commercial satellites, so there are usually fewer flightsamong which  to share costs.
• Low Earth Orbit transportation is less difficult than extended missions to the Moon, so a capsule built just for LEO is less expensive. 
• Unlike traditional programs, commercial procurements utilize fixed-price, pay-for-performance, milestone-based agreements and leverage the power of competition between multiple providers.

While it is true that non-NASA human spaceflight markets have implications for regulatory frameworks and corporate business approaches, they are not the primary source of cost savings for the NASA government customer. The benefits of additional commercial markets for human spaceflight are to increase the safety, reliability, and diversity of the services offered and further reduce the cost to NASA.

Space Station servicing is an urgent need that requires the quicker, simpler solution of the Commercial Crew program that is optimized just for the Space Station. Heavy-lift systems designed to go beyond low Earth orbit are far more capable than is needed for low Earth orbit operations, so for the specific mission of Space Station servicing they are neither cost-effective, nor available in a timely manner. While it is entirely appropriate for NASA to develop heavy-lift systems for exploration, those systems are not the solution to the needs of the Space Station. Because Commercial Crew and heavy-lift serve entirely separate missions, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation feels the ability to utilize the Space Station depends entirely on whether Commercial Crew is robustly funded.

Since the $6 billion requested for the Commercial Crew program is much smaller than the $35 billion Ares I-Orion effort, not to mention that Ares V costs would be significantly larger, diverting money from Commercial Crew would only fund a small fraction of a system that, even if fully funded, would not come online until 2017 or later, increasing the spaceflight gap and jeopardizing our utilization of the International Space Station.

Launch vehicles such as Atlas, Delta, and Falcon already have multiple customers today for the launching of satellites and cargo. The Augustine Committee report, in the section on Commercial Crew, pointed out "the existing markets of ISS cargo to low-Earth orbit, science and national security space satellite missions, and commercial satellite launches." The costs of the launch vehicle are thus already shared among multiple customers.

Falcon 9 Launch

Investment in the commercial spaceflight industry offers the opportunity for America to win back a larger share of the international launch market. Norman Mineta, who served under the Bush Administration as the Secretary of Transportation, and under the Clinton Administration as the Secretary of Commerce, stated in a recent op-ed, "With Russia, China and India close on our heels, the only way we can maintain our hard-won leadership in space transportation is by employing America's unique entrepreneurial strength. Obama's new plan for NASA does exactly that."

FMI: www.commercialspaceflight.org