Main Engine Cut Off - T+35: NASA Policy Grab Bag

Episode Date: January 12, 2017

While we don’t yet have hard details on which direction NASA programs are headed during the Trump administration, we have started to get some hints. The leadership of the Congressional subcommittees that NASA depends on will be largely unchanged, and Boeing and SpaceX were each promised 4 more Commercial Crew flights. I also talk a little bit about how the Air Force One and F-35 situations apply to NASA programs. This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 3 executive producers—@spacepat_o, Matt Giraitis, and one anonymous—and 26 other supporters on Patreon. Texas Remains Powerful Space Influence as House Appropriations, Senate Commerce Announce Subcommittee Chairs Culberson Promises NASA Resources It Needs Despite Tough Budget Year Mission Awards Secure Commercial Crew Transportation for Coming Years | NASA Results of Progress MS-04 Investigation - Main Engine Cut Off Progress MS-04 fails to reach orbit Aerojet Rocketdyne Announces Expansion at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi - Main Engine Cut Off Aerojet Rocketdyne Makes Case for AR1 - Main Engine Cut Off Email feedback to [e-mail] Follow @WeHaveMECO Subscribe on iTunes, Overcast, or elsewhere Subcribe to Main Engine Cut Off Weekly Support Main Engine Cut Off on Patreon

Hello and welcome to Main Engine Cutoff, I am Anthony Colangelo, here with a grab bag of sorts of political topics to discuss today. I haven't done one of these shows focused on the politics around NASA and different NASA programs for a while, because the election kind of swallowed everything up, and there wasn't a lot of detail to talk about yet. There was a lot of projections and predictions to be made and all of that stuff to argue about, about what a Trump administration would do, but we didn't have any real details to talk about, so I've stayed away from it ever since. And we still don't have a lot of information talk about, so I've stayed away from it ever since. And we still

don't have a lot of information on what the administration will do yet, but we have started to get bits and pieces of things out of the Congress side of the government about what is coming down the pipe here. And before we dive into this, I did want to mention, as always, if you have any thoughts on any of these topics, any feedback about what I'm saying here, any thoughts of your own that you want to add, feel free to email me, anthony at mainenginecutoff.com. And I may or may not read your notes out on the show here. I've had a lot of great discussions there with listeners out there. So if you've got any thoughts, send me an email and we might discuss more of this in future shows. So I wanted to start with sort of non-news almost in a way. The House and Senate

have announced who is chairing all the different subcommittees that will take place this year. And for NASA exploration and commercial programs in particular, which are the two things that I've talked about most on Main Engine Cutoff here, no news is good news in a way. Earth science is another matter that is going to play out differently and there's going to be different battles that are fought for that. But commercial programs, cargo and crew and exploration, uh, they, the, the no change in subcommittee chairs that matter for those things are good for NASA. who is from Texas, a representative from Texas, he is still going to be one of the chairs of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee, which oversees NASA and NOAA. And that is important because he has been a very, very, very, very strong supporter of the Europa missions that are planned for the 2020s from NASA. Europa Clipper, which is the lander, rover, orbiter, whatever, is going to actually come with that mission. He has been a

very strong supporter of it, and in some cases has been like the only supporter that's pushing really hard for this mission. He almost single-handedly got funding for this program in the early days, has continued to push it as a big priority, and has been credited with a lot of what happened with that mission in general, which has been written into law at this point, and right now is still, I don't think there's been anything that changes this yet, but it is still by law designated to fly on SLS in 2023 timeframe. Now, this is good if you care about the Europa mission, good if you care about SLS, but that is kind of an interesting thing at play there, because right now, with the way that all the laws are written and the appropriations are split up, we don't know yet what would happen to the Europa mission if SLS did get canceled or changed significantly. are changed significantly. We did some shows a little while back about these RFPs that are kind of going out to figure out what the future of the SLS program is and what the future of the

Orion program is. We don't yet know how the Europa mission would be divided from SLS if SLS were to get canceled. Would Europa be salvaged out of that and find a different launch vehicle to fly on, which might extend the timeframe a little bit of that mission, but different launch vehicle to fly on, which might extend the time frame a little bit of that mission, but it would survive into the future. Would it be canceled and thrown out along with SLS? We don't know how that would shake out. But with Culberson in place, if there were to be something happening on the SLS front, you could bet that he would work very hard to salvage that Europa mission and put it on another launch vehicle or, you know, just keep it safe somehow from total cancellation. He would push very, very hard for that. And he's still in

a position with a lot of power to make that case. So keep your eye on Culberson over the next year if you're interested in the Europa mission or if you're interested in SLS. I think he might be saying some interesting things that we'll want to be talking about on here and keeping an eye on. So Culberson of Texas, still on that subcommittee, and that is pretty important. Also from Texas, Ted Cruz. He is still one of the chairs of the Science, Space, and Competitiveness subcommittee. And he has been a very big supporter of NASA's exploration efforts and of commercial crew and cargo. He's been an extremely strong supporter of the commercial programs. Not so much on Earth science again,

but that is a larger fight that's going to happen. There are some reports that maybe it's not going to be as big of a fight as originally suspected, but maybe we'll do another show on that in the future. But as far as it concerns commercial programs and NASA's exploration roadmap, Ted Cruz is a big supporter that still has that position of power. Now, something I should mention, both of these guys are from Texas, and there are other representatives and senators that are from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, the places that you think of when you think about NASA policy. There is a certain factor of this that people from those districts are going to support NASA programs. So, you know, you can't be surprised

that John Culberson is a big supporter of, you know, flagship missions for NASA or anything like that. But there is a certain element of it that people that are strong supporters of NASA that also have a lot of influence and respect built up in Washington, that matters a lot. Barbara Mikulski retired earlier this year from Maryland. She was a very, very big supporter of Goddard and all these different NASA programs over the years, and built up a lot of credibility and respect within DC, and that mattered big time. Whoever comes into that position is still going to defend the same programs. They're going to defend the same missions mostly. But it does matter who that person is, you know, specifically if they've built up that big reputation over the years and a lot of respect over the years and gained, you know, they gained

more weight behind their word. So it's not so much that we can predict that representatives from Colorado will defend United Launch Alliance interests, and senators and representatives from California will defend SpaceX's. All of that stuff is pretty predictable. But what is important to notice is people that have been there a while, that have a lot of respect built up, that have a lot of weight behind what they say, those people are important. And if you care about programs that they support, having them stick around is a good thing for the longevity of any given program. So again, don't only look at what state these people come from, although that is very important to dissect

some of the spin that comes out of these statements and things like that. But it also matters who the person is, how long they've been around, who they can influence, whose ear they have within Washington or even outside in the industry. All that stuff goes into it. It's not a simple, a one-sided kind of thing with just the location mattering. There is other factors there that you should look at. And in these cases, Culberson and Ted Cruz, they have built up a little bit of that. Not as much as Barbara Mikuls. And in these cases, Culberson and Ted Cruz, they have built up a little bit of that. Not as much as Barbara Mikulski had in the past, but it does matter that they're still going to be sticking around, at least for this next year. I did want to mention something else on the commercial crew front. January 3rd,

right after the new year, NASA announced that Boeing and SpaceX were being awarded with four more flights each for commercial Crew. This got some attention because Commercial Crew does that. It draws attention from people that are interested in it. But this announcement really, to me, and I think to a lot of people out there, is mere political posturing. They're basically promising four more flights to each of them, but at this time, they're not giving them any more funding. They're not committing funding to those flights in the future. So the whole NASA press release really should have had a big asterisk that said, you know, we're giving you these four flights if we have the

funding and support for them in the future. Because right now, they're not getting any funding for this flight. They're not increasing funding to make sure they can hit those dates or whatever dates they are. It's really an empty announcement that in the future, as it stands right now, we are promising more flights to these providers. And, you know, without anything to back that up, without any ability to commit future funding to those flights, which is a matter that is fought in Congress, you know, it's really empty right now. And it's more of just a promise that is posturing for the upcoming year of congressional hearings and all of that stuff that needs to be worked out in, you know, in law. It's going to sound great this year when they go out there and they say

that we've got, you know, six flights booked for each commercial crew provider, the program's in great shape, we're moving forward, we got test flights coming up. But you know, if you put this in context, the most recent thing we've heard about is another six-month delay from commercial crew. So it's not like this order of more flights was predicated on some big milestone that we hit recently. This was kind of just almost a throwaway thing that gives them the ability to say that they have six flights booked with SpaceX or something like that. So, you know, while I am a big commercial crew supporter and someone who thinks that this program is good and has a good future, it's hard to see this as anything but empty posturing. And, you know, that said, I do think it's good posturing for the future. It's something that to you and I who are super invested in this program or following the

developments of this program, it's something that looks very empty. But when they get out there on the congressional floors later this year and say that they've got all these flights booked, that's going to sound really good and play really well to the audience that they are trying to play to, to maintain funding for commercial crew into the future. It takes a program that currently has a couple of demo flights and two missions booked with each provider to something that is much more expansive than that and would have bigger ramifications to cancellation if that's something that you're worried about.

And, you know, any of these given parties that care about it, be it NASA or people within Congress that care about these programs, you know. If you can put more weight behind the program and make cancellation less likely, however slim of a chance that has right now, that is a good thing for your future outlook. So just wanted to mention that this thing that got a lot of attention to you and I probably doesn't matter much, but it will have effects in the way it's discussed on the congressional floors later this year. Before I dive into the final topic for today, I did want to say thank you so much to all of you out there supporting Main Engine Cutoff on Patreon.

We have three executive producers for this episode, Matt, SpacePatO, and one other anonymous executive producer. They are in charge of producing this episode of Main Engine Cutoff, and I am very, very thankful for their support and all of the other supporters over on Patreon. If you want to help support the show, the blog, everything I do here, head over to patreon.com slash Miko and give as little as $1 a month. All of your support really, really helps me keep this thing going, keep it independent, and keep it, you know, live and fresh every week. So thank you again so much to all of those supporting Main Engine Cutoff on Patreon. Now, the last topic for the day is maybe more of a little bit of a rant than a topic in particular, but, you know, with all of the

Trump transition things that are happening, there's been a lot of talk about bigger government programs. You know, Trump has directed tweets directly at Boeing and Lockheed for Air Force One contracts and F-35. The F-35 has been under fire lately. I mean, it's been under fire for a while. It's always been a controversial program, but it's become a big topic within the Trump transition and talking with Lockheed about cutting costs and doing all sorts of different things. That's a topic for a different show entirely. But a lot of people are drawing parallels between these programs and SLS, Orion, and bigger NASA programs as something that may become a target of Trump's team as they transition into leadership. And I don't necessarily agree with that. I

understand the parallel that these are big government programs that to a lot of people look like generic pork and whatever other criticisms you want to levy at those programs. But SLS Orion are maybe not the best examples of that. Orion certainly has a case to be one of those programs. SLS, I'm not so sure. So let me walk through some of my thinking on this. There are areas of capability when it comes to SLS Orion that the market in general is not yet serving. Orion does not hold up to that as well as SLS does. So Orion, you know, as something that is a almost, you know, simply an ascent descent spacecraft, you know, there are commercial things in the works that are going to replace that. And to an outside observer,

the difference between Orion and Starliner and Dragon 2 doesn't look that big. And to you and I, we know the differences between these spacecraft, but to people out there looking in and making decisions around what gets funded and what does not get funded, Orion does seem a bit repetitive in a way. Granted, neither of the two spacecraft that I mentioned that are potential replacements for Orion have flown yet. But then again, Orion has done one flight, another one scheduled for a year, almost two years from now. And even that's in question. So Orion is not in the strongest position to say how vital it is to the future space economy or space industry or spaceflight in general. And it does have redundant capabilities

that can be found in the market within a year or two's time. And that's where SLS is very different. Now, I've talked about these topics in the past, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself a bit here, but I think it does matter a little bit to put in context with this different Trump stuff that's going on. SLS right now, when it does fly, is offering something different than the market is readily available to offer right now. Obviously, SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, they are working on heavier lift rockets that will be able to lift things in the class that SLS could do at its start. But as of right now, SLS is much closer to flying than any of those alternatives. in my view, until a competitor to it, a competitor meaning something that could match its capabilities, really starts to get metal bent in terms of, you know, proceeding towards flight. So SLS does have an advantage over the commercially available solutions out there, whereas Orion does

not. And that's the thing that I think is missing in that debate. Because the F-35 gets a lot of flack because it's an expensive program, you know, from an outside perspective. It looks like an expensive program that's replacing something that we already have and works just fine. Same goes for the new Air Force Ones. You know, they're old planes, but to outsiders' eyes, they work just fine. Why do we need to replace them? And when you apply that filter to SLS and Orion, it's clear that Orion fits that mold, but SLS does not quite fit that mold just yet. But there are other programs within NASA that also fit that mold more than SLS does. One I've harped on a lot in the past is the AR-1,

the Aerojet Rocketdyne engine that has been mandated by Congress with no real usage yet set for it in the world. In my view, the AR-1 is a program that was five to 10 years later than it should have been. It made sense five, 10 years ago when there wasn't as much activity in the American rocket engine segment of the industry. We've got SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others building and operating their own launch class engines. And the AR-1 is something that's congressionally mandated to replace a Russian-built engine that we've been relying on for years. So if that was something that came about 10 years ago, that would make a lot of sense. In the current market, does it make sense to maintain this program that is spending money to build a rocket engine that as of yet has no

specific use in mind. Vulcan is going to choose the BE-4 from Blue Origin in mere months, I would say. We can expect a test firing pretty soon from Blue Origin, and once that test fire happens, ULA will choose BE-4 as the main engine for Vulcan, canceling out the reason that the AR-1 would exist anyway. The AR-1 as well could, you know, a while ago could have been said to be replacing the RD-180 as a drop-in on the Atlas V, but the Atlas V is going to be phased out by the time Vulcan is flying anyway, and that's right around the same time that the AR-1 would be ready. So, you know, the use cases for the AR-1 start to look. So, you know, the use cases for the AR-1 start to look very slim, and it starts to look like one of those programs that is very expensive

to replace something that we already have going. And I think those fit the mold for a government program that would get cut under a Trump administration. You know, less so than a program like SLS, which, you could make the argument, is offering something very unique, at least for now and the next three to five years. So if you see what I'm saying, you need to filter these government programs that seem like targets to be cut from the federal funding. You need to filter it through. Is this replacing something that we have now and quote works just fine? Or is this something that is offering an advantage that is very tangible and has a reason for sticking around? We've talked about this in the past when we look at

the ITS and new Glenn and new Armstrong and all that stuff that's coming down the future. You have to look at what the competitive advantages are of all these programs, where they fit into the industry and the market as a whole. Orion and AR-1 are things that don't look to offer very much advantage over the other solutions and don't even offer much schedule advantage over the other solutions. If we were going to have an Orion capsule ready to fly every six months this year, if we were going to have the AR-1 ready to be flown this year, then it would have an advantage because it's here and now and ready to be used. But when you see these things on the same timeline as other things that are out there in the commercial market, like all of these SpaceX

and Blue Origin engines that we've got in production right now, and like Dragon 2, Starliner, things that are coming down in the next couple of years, the use cases for those programs start to fade away, and with it, the political support will evaporate. So for me, the SLS looks like something that's going to have political support, and I think Orion's going to have a tougher fight. Aero 1 is something that may, you know, slip through undetected because it's such a small budget uh in terms of everything that we're talking about with the u.s budget overall uh so i could you know see that slipping by no problem um what they do with it once it's built

i don't know i've i've speculated in the past about using it on a future version of antares there was some speculation a couple months ago about using it as the engine for the future advanced boosters of SLS. That obviously depends on SLS sticking around that long and being, you know, appropriated for that advanced booster. So there's a lot of cloudiness in the future of AR1. But, you know, these two programs in particular are something that I would be worried about. SLS seems like it will have more political support than the other two.

And, you know, to me, I would say Orion is closer to being on the chopping block, like we're seeing with the Air Force One and F-35 and all that kind of stuff than SLS is right now. But who knows with the environment that we're in? You know, there's so many different moving parts here that it's hard to make predictions that will hold up. So everything I'm saying here will probably be outdated in mere minutes on Twitter or something like that. So things are fast moving. We are getting some clarity as we move into the future, as we get closer to the inauguration of Donald Trump. We're going to find out a lot this next couple of months. There's going to start to be some discussions in Congress that we can pick up on and dissect

here. But we're still a ways away from really understanding how the next four years are going to go policy wise. But we will maintain our focus on that as it happens. So as always, if you have any thoughts on these topics, send them in to me, anthony at mainenginecutoff.com or on Twitter at wehavemiko. That'll be it for today. This is all I've got for you right now. I look forward to a SpaceX return to flight this upcoming weekend. We've got some uncharacteristically bad weather out in California

that delayed it from last week. So hopefully they're able to get it off this upcoming weekend and hopefully everything goes well. But until then, thank you very much for listening and I will talk to you next week.