Military / National Security News
The State Department today accused China of conducting another antisatellite (ASAT) test on Wednesday. China said that it had conducted a missile intercept test. The distinction between the two operations can be difficult to draw and there continues to be dispute in western circles as to how many ASAT tests China has already conducted.
Everyone agrees that in 2007 China destroyed one of its own satellites with an ASAT weapon. The test was condemned internationally because of the vast debris cloud it created in low Earth orbit -- about 3,000 pieces (the exact number changes as some pieces reenter and new pieces are created by collisions within the debris cloud) -- that threatens all satellites operating in that realm.
There also is agreement that China conducted tests in 2010 and 2013, but whether they were missile intercept or ASAT tests is a matter of debate in western circles. While some western analysts consider them ASAT tests, the U.S. government has not officially characterized them that way.
Therefore, this is only the second time the United States government has directly accused China of conducting an ASAT test and it called on China to "refrain from destabilizing actions ... that threaten the long-term security and sustainability of the outer space environment, on which all nations depend."
The full statement from the State Department issued today (July 25, 2014 EDT) reads as follows:
"The United States has concluded that on July 23, the People’s Republic of China conducted a non-destructive test of a missile designed to destroy satellites. A previous destructive test of this system in 2007 created thousands of pieces of debris, which continue to present an on-going danger to the space systems of all nations, including China. We call on China to refrain from destabilizing actions – such as the continued development and testing of destructive anti-satellite systems – that threaten the long term security and sustainability of the outer space environment, on which all nations depend. The United States continuously looks to ensure its space systems are safe and resilient against emerging space threats."
In answer to an emailed query from SpacePolicyOnline.com, Grant Schneider of the State Department's Bureau of Arms Control and Verification and Compliance, replied "We have high confidence in our assessment. We refer to you to Chinese authorities for further information on this anti-satellite test."
China's Xinhua news agency on Thursday said only that it had conducted a successful land-based missile intercept test on July 23 that "achieved its preset goal."
In an emailed exchange this afternoon, Brian Weeden, technical adviser to the Secure World Foundation, noted that China's announcement called it a successful missile intercept test while the State Department referred to it as a "non-destructive test." Weeden observed that China did not mention a designated target for Wednesday's test, unlike the 2010 and 2013 tests where it said the target was launched on a ballistic missile. "There was no mention of that this time," he said, and "My guess is that this test didn't have a designated target."
The United States and the Soviet Union developed ASAT systems early in the Space Age. The fate of the Soviet system is unclear, but it has not been tested since 1982. The United States ended its dedicated ASAT programs by the 1990s. In 2008, however, the United States destroyed one of its own spy satellites (USA-193) using a missile launched from an Aegis cruiser because, it asserted, the satellite was out of control and carried hazardous fuel that posed significant risk to populated areas if it made an uncontrolled reentry. The operation demonstrated an inherent U.S. capability to conduct such operations even though there is no official ASAT program.
Just as the decision to rely on the RD-180 engine was driven by “geopolitical interests,” rather than “space community necessity,” the answer of whether to continue to use the Russian engine or build a U.S. alternative will not be “in the space community’s hands,” says a member of Air Force’s RD-180 Alternative Study.
At an event yesterday hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute, Josh Hartman, CEO of Horizon Strategies Group and a member of the independent advisory panel that examined alternatives to the Russian RD-180 rocket engine, summarized the findings and recommendations of the Air Force-convened panel. Chaired by Major General Howard J. ‘Mitch’ Mitchell, USAF (ret.), the expert panel was asked to submit its report in just 30 days – rather than the original 60 days – because of congressional interest in the study, Hartman explained. While the final report is classified, SpacePolicyOnline.com posted a set of unclassified briefing charts and summarized highlights from them in May.
The panel concluded that the loss of the Russian RD-180s, on which the United States depends to power the Atlas V rocket, one of two Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) that are the workhorses of national security space launches, would be “significant.” Although the United States has enough RD-180s for two years’ worth of launches, the current launch manifest would need to be prioritized, costing billions of dollars in delays and in retrofitting existing payloads to launch on other rockets.
In a scenario where the RD-180s disappeared, the United States would lose its ability to use the Atlas V. While the second EELV –Delta IV – is technically capable of launching the satellites now manifested on Atlas V, some question whether the production rate could be accelerated sufficiently to compensate. Therefore, the national security sector would need to rely on new entrants, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, both of which have expressed an interest in providing national security space launches.
However, doing so would mean incurring a “great level of risk,” said Hartman. On the one hand it is a question of how soon new entrants would be ready to launch rockets equivalent in capability to Atlas V. The Mitchell panel found that even if new entrants were certified and ready to compete for national security launches in 2015, the first launch would not be before 2017. On the other hand, Hartman said these companies are not advertising that they would meet the full spectrum of national security launches. He added that SpaceX and Blue Origin are “not motivated by national security launches” but see these as a “stepping stone” to other activities.
The second speaker, Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at the George Washington University, expanded on the policy questions, opportunities and risks of what he said was a “looming crisis.” He argued that the reasons to reconsider U.S. launch options go beyond the current geopolitical situation and include longer-term issues. These include the increasing cost of the EELV program, which includes “imposed costs” that come with the U.S. government’s “way of doing business,” and the interest created by new entrants. In his remarks, Pace highlighted the need to reexamine the benefit of imposing extensive rules and restrictions on industry partners – some that have no value-added – and can sometimes hamper innovation.
To a question about the potential role of foreign partners in this effort, Hartman said that new partnerships would be considered on a “case-by-case basis.” He noted that while the Russian engine was the main issue of interest, there is ongoing foreign participation in other components of the EELV program.
Pace said that he sees more opportunities for foreign partners in civil space exploration, including launch infrastructure. For national security launches he thinks it will be commercial rather than international partners.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) praised NASA's technical progress in building the Space Launch System (SLS) in a report released today, but warned that the agency does not have enough funding to complete the rocket in time for its promised first flight in 2017.
GAO pointed out that most NASA programs are required to have a funding and schedule profile that affords at least a 70 percent chance of success -- a "joint confidence level" or JCL -- and SLS does not have that. The program may be $400 million short of what it needs in order to be ready for the first test launch in 2017 at a 70 percent confidence level, GAO concluded using analysis by the SLS program itself.
NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden conceded in a Senate hearing earlier this year that NASA is not using the 70 percent confidence level for SLS. In a colloquy with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), SLS's strongest supporter in the Senate (it is being built in Alabama), Bolden said: "You can't fund enough to get SLS to a 70 percent JCL and I don't want you to do that, I'm not asking for that, that would be unrealistic." He told Shelby he had enough money to be ready to launch in 2017, but also hedged by saying "in fiscal year 2018." Only the first three months of FY2018 are in calendar year 2017 (October-December). Bolden said that he is comfortable with not meeting a 70 percent JCL because SLS relies on mature technology.
SLS is being developed pursuant to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, a bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats in Congress on the one hand, and the Obama Administration on the other. SLS and its Orion spacecraft are intended to take astronauts beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). The 2017 version of SLS will be able to place 70 metric tons into LEO. Two enhanced versions are planned for the future capable of 105 tons and 130 tons. In some respects SLS/Orion replaces the Bush-era Constellation program; in others it is much the same -- developing a big rocket and a spacecraft to take people to Mars someday.
NASA plans to spend $12 billion on SLS and associated ground systems through the 2017 launch, GAO said, and "potentially billions more" for the future variants.
The first test flight is supposed to take place in 2017. The next flight would not be until 2021. That would be the first to carry a crew aboard an Orion spacecraft. Noting that NASA has not developed plans for SLS beyond that flight, GAO concluded that presents opportunities "to improve long term affordability through competition" to build other elements of the system, such as an improved upper stage.
In today's report, GAO recommends that NASA "develop an executable business case for SLS that matches resources to requirements, and provide to the Congress an assessment of the SLS elements that could be competitively procured for future SLS variants before finalizing acquisition plans for those variants." It adds that "NASA concurred" with the recommendations.
Rumors are circulating that Congress may try to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the government funded after September 30 before they leave for their August recess. Nothing has been decided yet, however.
The House is moving through the 12 regular FY2015 appropriations bills at a fairly fast clip, but none of them has passed the Senate. Hopes that three of the bills could be bundled together as a "minibus" and passed by the Senate died last month over a disagreement about the rules for considering amendments during floor debate. The three bills include two that fund space activities: Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS), of which NASA and NOAA are part, and Transportation-HUD bill, which funds the FAA and its Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The third bill is the Agriculture appropriations.
Congress will be in session this week and next. Then it will recess for the month of August. When they return, the House is scheduled to be in session for only 10 days in September and the first two days of October before recessing to campaign for the November elections. The Senate website does not show how many days it plans to be in session once it returns.
FY2014 ends on September 30. If funding bills -- individually or as a CR -- are not passed by then, the government would have to shut down the unfunded activities. Last year, most of the government was shut down for 16 days. Ninety-eight percent of NASA workers were furloughed.
The shutdown, led by Tea Party Republicans, was over Obamacare and government-wide funding levels. At the time, many Washington pundits argued that the Tea Party lost a lot of support because of the shutdown, but a year later that is not so clear. The Hill reports today that passing a CR before the August recess "could be a way to squelch any talk of a shutdown before it begins."
This week's list of upcoming space policy events starts with tonight -- Sunday, July 20, the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon. At 10:39 pm EDT, NASA TV will replay footage of the historic moment of hatch opening and other events. More commemorative Apollo 11 45th anniversary events are planned throughout the week, as listed below.
During the Week
Apollo 11 45th anniversary: Commemorative events continue tomorrow (Monday) when the Operations and Checkout building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) will be renamed in honor of Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong, who passed away in 2012. His Apollo 11 crewmates, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins, will participate in the ceremony, along with Armstrong's backup for the mission, Jim Lovell. The event begins at 10:15 am EDT. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and KSC Director Bob Cabana -- both former astronauts -- also will be there, along with a live video hookup with the two NASA astronauts who are aboard the International Space Station (ISS) right now, Steve Swanson and Reid Wiseman.
On Thursday, July 24, the anniversary of Apollo 11's return from the Moon, the House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee will have a live video hookup with Swanson and Wiseman at 11:00 am EDT followed by an event that showcases ISS research and features a panel discussion with three leaders in the ISS research field (12:00-2:00 pm EDT). Then, at 3:00 pm PACIFIC time (6:00 pm Eastern), NASA will hold a panel discussion at Comic-Con International in San Diego. That features Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin, Jim Green, the head of NASA's planetary science division, JPL's Bobak Ferdowsi, best known as the "Mohawk guy" from the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, and astronaut Mike Fincke. A media availability with the panel members follows the discussion.
Other Events: On Wednesday, the Marshall Institute will hold a panel discussion on the national security launch industrial base. Josh Hartman, who was one of the members of the "Mitchell panel" that recently reviewed options for dealing with the possibility that the supply of Russia's RD-180 rocket engines for the Atlas V rocket could be disrupted, will talk about "issues and opportunities," along with Scott Pace of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute. That's from 9:00-10:30 am EDT at the Army Navy Club in Washington, DC.
NASA's Ames Research Center in California is the venue for the "Exploration Science Forum" from July 21-23, and NewSpace 2014, the annual conference of the Space Frontier Foundation, begins on July 24 in San Jose, CA.
Lots of other events are on tap, as listed below based on what we know as of Sunday afternoon, July 20.
Sunday, July 20
Monday, July 21
Monday-Wednesday, July 21-23
Tuesday, July 22
Wednesday, July 23
Wednesday-Thursday, July 23-24
Thursday, July 24
Thursday-Saturday, July 24-26
The National Research Council (NRC) released a report today that makes no bones about its skepticism regarding the utility of 3-D printing in space at the present time, saying claims in the popular press are “exaggerated” and it is no “magic solution.”
Formally called “additive manufacturing,” this technology allows three-dimensional (3-D) parts to be built directly from computer files. It has been in use terrestrially since the 1980s and is becoming more wide-spread. Using it in space presents unique challenges, however. The vacuum, lack of gravity and intense thermal fluctuations are obstacles that must be overcome; they are important not only in completing the manufacturing process, but in the integrity of the final product, according to the NRC.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert D. Latiff (Ret.), who chaired the NRC committee, and his colleagues found that while 3-D printing “is a fairly mature technology for components that can be manufactured on the ground, its application in space is not feasible today, except for very limited and experimental purposes.”
“Many of the claims made in the popular press about this technology have been exaggerated,” Latiff said in a press release. Even in the longer term, it will be “one more tool in the toolbox” and “not a magic solution.”
That is not to say that the committee rejected the idea of in-space 3-D printing entirely. Indeed, the report begins by saying it has “the potential to positively affect human spaceflight operations by enabling the in-orbit manufacturing of replacement parts and tools,” thereby reducing logistics requirements for the International Space Station (ISS) and human trips beyond low Earth orbit. However, the “specific benefits and potential scope … remain undetermined, and there has been a substantial degree of exaggeration, even hype, about its capabilities in the short term.”
As for the longer term, “[w]hat can be accomplished in the far future depends on many factors, including decisions made today by NASA and the Air Force.” The study was sponsored by those two entities and offering them advice is the focus of the NRC report.
Many of the recommendations involve the two working together in this field. Indeed, the report’s first recommendation is that NASA and the Air Force jointly “research, identify, develop and gain consensus on standard qualification and certification methodologies for different applications,” and bring in other government agencies and industry as well. The committee also recommends a joint cost-benefit analysis of 3-D printing for building smaller, more reliable satellite systems or their key components.
Among the committee’s recommendations for NASA alone is that the agency sponsor a workshop to bring together experts in the field and improve communications internally and externally since input from multiple disciplines is required. It should also create an agency-wide technology roadmap and quickly identify experiments that it can develop and test aboard the ISS while that facility is still available. Under current plans, ISS will operate until 2024, just 10 more years.
The Air Force should also develop a roadmap, conduct a systems-analytic study of the operational utility of spacecraft and their components produced with 3-D printing, and “make every effort” to cooperate with NASA on technology development. That includes conducting its own research on the ISS, jointly sharing the costs and the results with NASA.
Both agencies should consider increased investments in education and training of materials scientists with this expertise and spacecraft designers and engineers with deep knowledge of the use and development of 3-D printing, the committee recommended.
Latiff is a materials scientist himself and spent part of his military career at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Later he was vice president, chief engineer, and technology officer for SAIC’s space and geospatial intelligence unit. He is a former chair of the NRC’s National Materials and Manufacturing Board (of which he is still a member) and of the NRC’s Air Force Studies Board. A full roster of committee members is provided in the report, which can be downloaded for free from the website of the National Academies Press.
It is impossible to know how the Malaysian airliner crash in Ukraine today (July 17) will affect U.S.-Russian relationships, but yesterday the Obama Administration imposed new sanctions on certain Russian economic sectors because of Russia’s actions in Ukraine up to that point. One Russian company that was sanctioned, NPO Mashinstroyennia, has a renowned history in Soviet space activities, but apparently is not involved in many space activities currently.
U.S.-Russian relationships have been on edge since Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula earlier this year. The Obama Administration has invoked a number of sanctions against Russian individuals and entities. Some NASA activities have been impacted, but the most high profile – such as the International Space Station (ISS) – were exempted. The deteriorating relationship has focused attention on U.S. dependence on Russia for taking astronauts to and from the ISS, for the RD-180 engines for United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rocket, and the for NK-33/AJ-26 engines for Orbital Sciences Corporation's Antares rocket, however.
Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued new sanctions. Among the Russian entities on the list is NPO MASHINOSTROYENIA – “NPO Mash” – an important player in Soviet space activities. Founded by Vladimir Chelomi, it developed the Almaz series of military space stations launched in the 1970s ( Salyut 2, 3 and 5 -- though Salyut 2 was a failure). It was not able to compete effectively with its rival, Energia, in space activities, but survives because of other lines of business.
Currently its primary business is cruise missiles according to Anatoly Zak, an expert on Soviet and Russian space activities and editor of RussianSpaceWeb.com. In an email, Zak said that NPO Mash is not involved in any of the three major cooperative space activities with the United States – the RD-180 or NK-33/AJ-26 rocket engines or the ISS.
Until now it appears that all of the U.S.-imposed sanctions based on the Ukraine situation have barely impacted U.S.-Russian space relationships. Three Russians, two Americans and one German are currently aboard the ISS.
What will happen in the wake of events today – where Ukrainian and some U.S. sources assert that a Russian surface-to-air missile operated by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine shot down Malaysia’s commercial airline flight 17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur – is unknowable.
Many commentators today are theorizing that there was no intention to destroy a commercial airliner and cite two previous incidents where military errors led to the loss of innocent lives on commercial airlines. In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines (KAL) 007, from New York to Seoul, because it said the airplane encroached on restricted airspace. In 1988, a U.S. Aegis cruiser destroyed Iran Air 655, a commercial flight from Tehran to Dubai, mistaking it for an attacking military jet. The death toll for KAL007 was 269; from Iran Air 655 was 290; and from today’s MH17 was 295.
On a day when the Obama Administration increased sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine, two Senate committees held a joint hearing that looked at how to cope with the possibility that Russia’s RD-180 rocket engines might no longer be available to power the U.S. Atlas V rocket. Atlas V is one of two workhorse rockets used to launch the nation’s national security satellites.
The hearing also addressed how to ensure that new companies – “new entrants” – like SpaceX can compete to launch national security satellites rather than using only the United Launch Alliance (ULA). The Air Force awarded a sole-source contract to ULA last year for 36 rocket cores for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. SpaceX later filed suit because it was not allowed to compete. The Justice Department and the Air Force subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Action is pending before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The joint hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) was co-chaired by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) from the Commerce committee and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) from SASC.
The hearing took place this morning (July 16), before the White House announced that it was imposing additional sanctions on Russia. The deterioration in U.S.-Russian relationships since Russia took control of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula this spring already resulted in U.S.-imposed sanctions. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees Russia’s aerospace sector, is among the individuals sanctioned. The additional sanctions announced today reportedly include some targeted at Russia’s defense sector, but details are not yet available on whether any are associated with the space program.
In response to the sanctions and other issues, Rogozin made remarks suggesting that Russia might prohibit use of RD-180s for U.S. national security launches. The United States is also dependent on Russia for Soyuz spacecraft to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and Rogozin tweeted that NASA should use a trampoline instead.
Coupled with the strained U.S.-Russian relationship overall, Congress and the Obama Administration are reconsidering U.S. dependence on a foreign supplier for rocket engines needed to place U.S. national security satellites into orbit. Today’s hearing focused primarily on that topic, but also on the question of how to ensure that companies like SpaceX can compete with ULA.
The hearing covered a lot of ground and only key points are summarized here, separated into the two broad issues that were addressed: what to do about replacing the RD-180 and Air Force certification of SpaceX. The expertise of the seven witnesses spanned a wide range, but none was from the companies that would build a new rocket engine or launch vehicle. They were:
Senators and witnesses recounted the many factors in the 1990s that led to the decision to use RD-180s for Atlas V:
Nelson pointed out that it was also U.S. policy at the time to develop a domestic rocket engine, but that effort disappeared. A co-production facility also was supposed to be built in the United States so RD-180s would be produced here, as well as in Russia, but that never happened either.
The Atlas V with its RD-180 engines has a perfect track record. Shelton acknowledged that it is now time for the United States to develop its own engine, but almost seemed regretful. He spoke of “dire” consequences if the supply of RD-180s is cut off before a new American engine is available -- launch delays of 12-20 months for many national security satellites and as much as 48 months for the heaviest ones, at a cost of $1.5 billion. He argued that the best outcome would be for the United States to keep buying RD-180s until a domestic engine is ready.
If geopolitical relationships worsen or Rogozin follows through on his threat to prohibit use of RD-180s for national security launches, there are no good short term options. Mitchell stressed that his panel concluded that shifting satellites from Atlas V to Delta IV and using new entrants like SpaceX cannot replace the Atlas V capability until 2017 or beyond. ULA has 15 RD-180s in storage according to Shelton, so if no more deliveries are made, decisions would have to be made on how to prioritize their use (the Atlas V is also used for NASA and NOAA launches).
Estevez and Shelton were asked several times how long it would take to develop a new U.S. engine and how much it would cost. While they said 5-8 years and $1-2 billion, the main point was that the Executive Branch is still looking at options and until decisions are made on the path forward, no reliable estimates can be provided. The only agreement within the Administration is that it is time to move away from foreign dependence. Some of the Senators expressed exasperation that it would take so long to build a domestic engine.
Chaplain, who has spent many years at GAO reviewing national security space programs, many of which have encountered large cost overruns, commented that her experience cautions against believing any of the numbers used today. She also stressed that they reflect only the cost for the engine, not for a new launch vehicle to use it or related ground facilities.
That latter point was emphasized repeatedly by Dumbacher. He warned the Senators that they need to look at the issue from a systems perspective. “You can’t swap out one engine for another” in a rocket, he said. A new launch vehicle will be needed as well as associated ground infrastructure.
While the hearing had a sense of urgency about it, Shelton also stressed that nothing has actually changed in the U.S. relationship with the Russian RD-180 supplier (Energomash). It is “business as usual” with the Russians, he said.
Estevez also cautioned that DOD wants to build a new engine in the most affordable way. A new rocket engine is a priority, he said, but there are other priorities as well.
At the end of the hearing, Nelson remarked that “We are only in this position today” because of Rogozin’s “sarcastic comments,” but they brought the issue of U.S. dependence on a foreign supplier “to a head.” The bottom line, Nelson stressed, is that the United States needs assured access to space.
Competition and Space X Certification
The United States has been dependent on Russia for RD-180 rocket engines for more than a decade, but that fact gained prominence only this spring after Russia’s actions in Crimea and a Senate hearing in March where SpaceX founder and chief designer Elon Musk raised it as a reason that his SpaceX Falcon should be allowed to compete against ULA for national security space launches.
U.S. national policy is that the government support two rocket families to launch national security satellites in case one suffers a failure that shuts it down for a lengthy period. Today those are ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV. Musk suggested it should be Delta IV and his Falcon rocket, since Atlas V is reliant on Russian engines while his is not.
A central piece of the debate is the Air Force's block-buy sole-source award to ULA over which SpaceX filed its lawsuit. The issue has exploded over the past several months, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) supporting SpaceX's position. At the hearing today, McCain sharply questioned Shelton, insinuating that Shelton is on ULA’s side and against SpaceX. He has become dogged in his determination to scrutinize the block-buy deal.
The Air Force contends that by buying so many rocket cores together, it saved $4.4 billion compared to its current approach of buying services one-at-a-time. McCain contended that it was not a matter of cost savings, but cost avoidance. He asked Chaplain, who has led many GAO studies investigating DOD’s acquisition of space launch services, to comment on that point. She replied that it was a savings in the price at the start of DOD-ULA negotiations versus where the contract ended up. She stressed that the Air Force followed GAO recommendations to obtain better cost and price data from ULA which put them in a better position to negotiate.
For his part, McCain reminded the panel about his investigation into what he believed were improprieties in DOD’s award of an aerial tanker lease to Boeing: “People went to jail and people got fired.” His message was clear. He is not convinced DOD’s sole-source contract to ULA was proper. “I don’t like this deal,” he declared.
The Air Force is in the process of certifying SpaceX to be able to win Air Force launch contracts. SpaceX currently launches cargo missions to the International Space Station (ISS) as well as for commercial customers. One oft-asked question is why SpaceX must go through an Air Force certification process when NASA entrusts its launches to the company.
NASA’s Lightfoot explained that the agency has different categories of missions – A, B, C and D – in decreasing order of their criticality. SpaceX is only allowed to launch Class D missions today – those of least criticality. NASA is currently determining whether to allow SpaceX to launch a higher priority mission (Jason-3, an ocean altimetry satellite).
Shelton said that, if all goes well, SpaceX will be certified by the end of the year. The Air Force will have spent $60-100 million on the SpaceX certification effort, he added. Shelton pointed out, however, that SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is technically unable to launch many national security missions. Atlas V has 10 configurations, he said, and SpaceX cannot launch seven of them. Thus accelerating SpaceX certification is not a solution to the RD-180 problem.
The Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved its version of the FY2015 defense appropriations bill this morning (July 15). It allocates $25 million to initiate a competitive program to build a new domestic rocket engine to replace Russia's RD-180, in sharp contrast to the House version of the bill, which added $220 million. The subcommittee also recommends $125 million for an additional competitive space launch.
Subcommittee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said the bill allocates $125 million "to accelerate full and open competition among any certified rocket providers," but SpaceX is the company he specifically cited. His enthusiasm is based on a hearing the subcommittee held in March. Recounting that at the hearing "folks from SpaceX said 'we're ready to compete'", Durbin said "Let's give them the chance." His hope is that competition will reduce launch costs, though he acknowledged that the United Launch Alliance (ULA), which essentially holds a monopoly on most national security space launches today, is "taking good steps to control costs."
Durbin said the March hearing also highlighted U.S. dependence on Russia's RD-180 rocket engine for one of the ULA launch vehicles -- Atlas V -- used for national security launches. "America's access to space should not depend on cooperation" with a country "that sadly has dreams of empire at the expense of its innocent neighbors," Durbin cautioned. Therefore the bill "accelerates investment" in a new competition to build a U.S. liquid rocket engine to replace the RD-180. "Both development and use are directed to be fully competitive so U.S. rocket companies can lead and have a fair shot at developing and using this new technology," Durbin stressed.
The amount that was added, however, was quite small in comparison to the House-passed version of the defense appropriations bill. That bill adds $220 million for a new rocket engine development program. The White House opposed the addition as "premature" while it continues to evaluate options that could lead to multiple awards that would "drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base, and reduce costs through competition." The Senate subcommittee allocated only $25 million. Its action appears to be more in line with the White House position.
The markup was short and sweet, as appropriations subcommittee markups are these days, with most controversial matters debated at full committee markup or on the floor. Full committee markup of this bill is scheduled for Thursday.
The only other Senator to address space issues during the markup was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Referring to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), who chairs the full Senate appropriations committee (as well as its Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee), Murkowski said "the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee knows that both Alaska and the Delmarva peninsula are home to private space launch facilities. We are seeing them play an increasing role ... in national security space launch and this bill recognizes their importance, I think, for the first time. I appreciate what you've done here."
The text of the bill is not yet publicly available, so it is not clear precisely what Murkowski is referring to since SpaceX, which figured so prominently in Durbin's comments, does not launch either from Alaska's Kodiak Launch Complex or from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on the coast of Virginia. (That part of the Virginia is on a peninsula that also includes parts of Delaware and Maryland, hence its nickname Delmarva -- Delaware, Maryland, Virginia.) Orbital Sciences Corp. launches its Minotaur and Antares rockets from Wallops. Orbital also launches Minotaur from Kodiak and Lockheed Martin used Kodiak for a launch of its Athena rocket in 2001 and plans to use it again for Athena now that it is reinstating that program. What the bill says or does about private space launch facilities, and whether it is only for Kodiak and Wallops or for any private space launch facilities (SpaceX is planning to build one in Texas) is not mentioned in the summary of the bill posted on the committee's website.
While “spying” is getting bad press lately, society has derived multiple benefits from intelligence-gathering technology developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), said speakers at a Friday briefing on Capitol Hill.
The event, hosted by the Space Foundation, featured Dr. Robert McDonald and Dr. James Outzen from the Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance within the NRO. McDonald and Outzen described the political context leading to the establishment of the agency in 1961 and gave examples of how approaches and technology developed by the agency have seeped out of the intelligence-gathering world and into daily life.
Outzen identified three events – the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, and the movement of the North Korean army into South Korea in 1950 -- as driving the shift in mindset that the United States “could not afford” to be surprised by the activities of its adversaries. It was formalized during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, who said at the time “no more Pearl Harbors.”
McDonald and Outzen grouped the NRO’s contributions to society into four areas: organizational, intelligence-related, technological and data-related. The organization of the NRO itself was “unique” and “innovative,” and so were the agency’s early leaders, they explained. Of note is Edwin Land who, in addition to creating the Polaroid instant camera, is credited with a phrase that characterized the goal of reconnaissance: “see it all, see it well, and see it now.”
Alluding to the NRO’s long history of success in answering intelligence questions – many of which could not be disclosed at the briefing – Outzen offered a couple of examples from the Cold War. The Soviets, said Outzen, were carrying out a “fabulous deception” about the extent of their offensive capabilities. Intelligence gathered by U-2 aircraft and later by the CORONA program, the first U.S. photo reconnaissance satellites, helped defray fears of “the missile gap” and inform U.S. decisions about how best to use resources during the Cold War. Outzen explained that intelligence gathered by NRO satellites has also contributed in areas as diverse as treaty verification and assessments during humanitarian and environmental crises, such as hurricanes Rita and Katrina in the United States.
By enabling the “massive collection of information,” McDonald reiterated that aerospace technologies have been “very critical” in answering intelligence questions. He explained the dramatic mechanical and technological improvements as early reconnaissance satellite programs evolved, as well as the development of the first military meteorological satellite to improve the efficiency of imaging satellites in cloudy and nighttime conditions. He and Outzen also pointed to advancements in photography – such as the development of digital photography -- as well as systems engineering and other improvements that supported reliable launch capability, as key contributions from NRO activities. McDonald commented on the “staggering” number of NRO launches in the height of the Cold War, with one or two successful launches almost every month.
The final area of contributions the speakers commented on was data. Thinking about intelligence questions as data problems – dependent on the ability to gather the right data at a fast rate – helped drive innovations in data acquisition, integration, and processing. While much of these data remain classified, some of the long-term records are helping answer questions in other fields. In response to a question about the role of historical data in environmental research, McDonald noted that imagery collected by the CORONA satellites has been declassified and is available through the National Archives and the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. He said that because these records allow researchers to examine conditions before NASA’s land remote sensing satellites began launching in 1972, they have been “invaluable” in environmental studies.
Lessons learned from NRO’s history and activities are captured in the National Reconnaissance Journal produced by the Center. Three issues have been published, in 2005, 2009 and 2012.