Wolf Relents on Single Commercial Crew Downselect Demand
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) released a statement today saying he had reached an agreement with NASA that will allow the space agency to select at least two commercial crew providers this summer for the next round of the program.
Key details include:
- NASA will issue not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards
- Commercial crew fiscal year 2013 funding level will be at or near the Senate Appropriations Committee approved amount of $525 million (less than $830 million requested by Obama Administration)
- future program funding after the CCiCAP phase will require FAR-based certification and service contracts
- NASA will produce a new, “substantially complete” procurement strategy for FAR-based contracts prior to the awarding CCiCAP contracts
- The space agency will vet commercial crew participants’ financial health and viability before providing CCiCAP funds
- NASA will ensure “the government’s ‘first right of refusal’ to acquire property developed under or acquired as part of the commercial crew program at a price that reflects the taxpayers’ existing investment in its development.”
The agreement was reached through an exchange of letters between Wolf and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Wolf’s full statement with links to the letters is reproduced after the break.
WOLF STATEMENT ON FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL CREW PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. (June 5, 2012) – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, today released the following statement regarding his agreement with NASA on the future of the commercial crew program:
As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, I want to see America continue to be the world leader in exploration and spaceflight. Our country needs an exceptional program to return American astronauts to the moon, and ultimately beyond. Space is the ultimate ‘high ground’ for a nation and will play an increasingly critical role in our national security and economic growth in the 21st Century.
Given recent advances in space capabilities by foreign competitors, it is essential that the U.S. move quickly to restore its domestic crew access to the International Space Station (ISS) and focus on the successful completion of our unique exploration systems, including the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle. During this current “gap” in U.S. access to both low earth orbit and beyond, it is imperative that NASA focus its limited resources on these critical human spaceflight missions.
For these reasons, I have had serious concerns about NASA’s management of the commercial crew program over the last two years. That is why I included language in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2013 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill, H.R. 5326, to address these concerns and direct a new management paradigm for the program. I remain convinced that the approach outlined in the committee’s report is the most appropriate way forward for the program.
However, in an effort to prevent any disruption in the development of crew vehicles to return U.S. astronauts to ISS as quickly as possible, I have reached an understanding with NASA Administrator Bolden in an exchange of letters that will allow the upcoming Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) phase to proceed under a revised, more limited management roadmap and with an fiscal year 2013 funding level at or near the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved amount.
As part of this understanding, NASA and the committee have affirmed that the primary objective of the commercial crew program is achieving the fastest, safest and most cost-effective means of domestic access to the ISS, not the creation of a commercial crew industry.
Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards. This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.
NASA also has stated that, after the CCiCAP phase, future program funding will only come in the form of FAR-based certification and service contracts. Further, to help prevent a problematic logistical “choke point” at the beginning of the certification phase, NASA will also produce an important new procurement strategy for awarding these FAR-based contracts, which will be substantively complete prior to the awarding of CCiCAP funds.
Finally, NASA has specified that it will vet commercial crew participants’ financial health and viability before providing CCiCAP funds and ensure the government’s “first right of refusal” to acquire property developed under or acquired as part of the commercial crew program at a price that reflects the taxpayers’ existing investment in its development.
Should any of NASA’s plans and intentions change from what was agreed to in the exchange of letters, I will reevaluate the situation. I will continue to follow up with NASA to monitor the implementation of these understandings in fiscal year 2012 – both through committee actions and through appropriate outside oversight – and to ensure that these principles are reflected in any final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2013.
5 responses to “Wolf Relents on Single Commercial Crew Downselect Demand”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Effectively Wolf is saying give SpaceX and Boeing contracts for testing an integrated system and one other limited engineering design. But with limited funding, there needs to be LAS pad and assent testing as well os full on orbital flight the proposed budget will not provide full testing for both particularly with the high proce for a ULA launch.
Here is to further delaus in restoring US human spaceflight capability, save $300M on development of US capability to spend $400M on seats on Russian Soyuz.
I think that Spacex will get the 0.5 because they already have more than half a vehicle and so this represents a downselect from 4 to 3.
dr:
That’s a possibility. Another one would be:
Boeing/ULA for CST-100/Atlas V
SpaceX for Falcon 9/Dragon
Blue Origin or Sierra Nevada partial award
Boeing/ULA is probably the safe choice. Two most experienced companies, proven rocket, etc.
Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada could be funded as a backup because are also flying on Atlas V.
The deal is not a bad one in that it gives NASA flexibility. The main concern is that it still significantly cuts the FY 2013 request. I think that is penny wise pound foolish in that we just end up paying more to the Russians on the back end.
I wouldn’t consider the CST-100/Atlas V the safe choice. That stack is completely untested as a full-up system. The 412 configuration of the Atlas V has zero flights. The CST-100 has undergone a bit of drop testing. SNC seems to be approachinig a similar level of system maturity on their vehicle. The “safety” (risk to the government) of these two choices is about the same. Sure, Boeing has deeper pockets, but with the move towards more traditional contracting that becomes less of a factor because the contractor isn’t taking on the risk. It’s probably a cheaper proposition for NASA to backstop SNC’s cost overruns than Boeing’s.
The Falcon9/Dragon stack has two successful orbital flight tests as a complete system. This seems like the safe choice to me.
“NASA and the committee have affirmed that the primary objective of the commercial crew program is achieving the fastest, safest and most cost-effective means of domestic access to the ISS, not the creation of a commercial crew industry.”
Argh. If “safety” = “quality”, I’m only reminded of an inviolable economic law: “good, cheap, soon – pick any two.” The advantage of a commercial crew industry is flexibility: the choice of the two most wanted or needed, for a given manned mission, whether it’s governmental or privately sponsored. Instead, we’ll only get the two that a sharply curtailed CCiCAP leaves us, and it might not be the right two.
On top of this: the phony austerian rationale. The nation is in a literal economic depression. Cutting government spending now is stupid and self-defeating. I hated the Shuttle, but would have continued that program while *also* funding CCDev/CCiCAP fully.