U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–800PDF 2011

NASA’S COMMERCIAL CREW 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011 

Serial No. 112–46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

Panel I 

Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager for Space Exploration, 

The Boeing Company, Houston, TX 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

Mr. Steve Lindsey, Director of Space Exploration, Sierra Nevada Space Systems, Louisville, CO 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 35 

Mr. Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technology Officer, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, CA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Mr. Charlie Precourt, Vice President, ATK Launch Systems Group, Brigham 

City, UT 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 50 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 52 

Dr. George Sowers, Vice President, United Launch Alliance, Englewood, CO 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 61 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63 

Panel II 

The Hon. Paul Martin, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 89 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 90 

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 94 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 95 
Page

IV 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager for Space Exploration, 

The Boeing Company, Houston, TX .................................................................... 114 

Mr. Steve Lindsey, Director of Space Exploration, Sierra Nevada Space Systems, Louisville, CO ............................................................................................. 119 

Mr. Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technology Officer, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, CA ........................................................................... 123 

Mr. Charlie Precourt, Vice President, ATK Launch Systems Group, Brigham 

City, UT ................................................................................................................ 131 

Dr. George Sowers, Vice President, United Launch Alliance, Englewood, CO .. 135 

The Hon. Paul Martin, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 139 

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................................................................................... 142 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Jerry Costello, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 152 

Letter submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 153 
(1) 

NASA’S COMMERCIAL CREW 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order, and I say good morning to everyone. 

Mrs. Johnson, before we get started with the meeting, I will go 

ahead and ask the witnesses to indulge us just for a few minutes 

to take care of some Committee business here. It is my understanding Ms. Johnson as the Ranking Member of the Full Committee has some housekeeping she would like the Committee to undertake regarding the Democrat Caucus Subcommittee Ranking 

Member assignments and rosters. The proposed modified roster is 

in front of each of you here. I am not sure if some of their members 

want to switch parties, or what this is about, but we will yield to 

you as much time as you would like to have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We just 

want to announce that we are taking applications for party switches to this side. 

But we do have a couple of Subcommittee vacancies to fill on the 

Democratic side, and so pursuant to the direction of the Democratic 

Caucus of the Committee, I move that the following Subcommittee 

assignments be made: Ms. Edwards of Maryland to serve as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; 

that Mr. Tonko of New York replace Ms. Edwards as Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; and 

that Mr. Clarke of Michigan be assigned to serve on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. And that ends our report and 

request. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

I now ask unanimous consent that the Committee adopt the revised roster in front of them reflecting these appointments as outlined by Ranking Member Johnson. Hearing no objection, the revised roster is adopted. 

Moving on, I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, 

‘‘NASA’s Commercial Crew Development Program: Accomplishments and Challenges.’’ That covers a long area there looking back 

and looking forward, and in front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures 

for today’s witnesses, and today’s hearing will include two panels, 

and I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I say to all, good morning, and thank you. I know it takes valuable time to travel here and to travel back and to prepare yourselves for this, and we write legislation based on things we hear 

from people like you because you know more about what you are 

doing than we know about what you are doing, and we want to be 

sure that we represent the greatest good for the greatest number 

as we legislate. So I say good morning to all of you, to NASA’s commercial crew group, and I would like to thank our witnesses for 

taking time from their very busy schedules to be with us, and we 

will try to keep everybody to the five minutes that we have allocated. I realize considerable effort goes into the drafting and writing of your statements, and I want you to know that your testimony, wisdom and experience is going to be invaluable to help us 

through the months ahead on issues that are related to NASA and 

its Commercial Crew Program. 

I would like to note for the Members of the Committee that one 

company, Blue Origin, has received $14.9 million in federal funds 
18 

under this program but declined to testify today. I don’t really 

know why they did. Fourteen point nine million, I would think I 

would want to come here and brag about it a little or explain something. But they are not here and they will have to explain that to 

the rest of the Committee when they want to. 

Today’s hearing is going to provide aerospace companies and 

NASA an opportunity to testify about progress being made toward 

the goal of establishing a purely commercial capability to fly humans to and from low Earth orbit, with an initial emphasis on 

ferrying NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. 

Some have described the Commercial Crew Program as a variation on the way NASA has traditionally managed our human 

spaceflight program, implying that not much will change in the relationship between the agency and aerospace companies in the acquisition and operation of space vehicles. I find this characterization to be a gross oversimplification that doesn’t fairly represent 

the degree of changes between the space launch industry and 

NASA, nor does it do anything to highlight the uncertainties of the 

business model going forward. 

I am not opposed to the new approach, but in the time remaining 

I want to focus my remarks on the business case, as that is an area 

that I would like to see discussed at greater length. 

If indeed industry can perform safely and profitably, and at substantially less cost, then I will be the first to congratulate them 

and NASA. My hesitance, though, is based on the very thin evidence provided to date by NASA that this new business model is 

well understood and that it can succeed. I have yet to be convinced 

that there is a sufficient commercial market that will sustain multiple private, for-profit commercial crew companies through the duration of America’s commitment to the International Space Station. 

I hope so. NASA seemingly takes the position of ‘‘build it and they 

will come,’’ and by starting these companies first, business will 

soon follow. From my perspective, the business case is not very 

compelling, at least for those companies intending on using NASA 

as an anchor customer. Assuming two commercial companies will 

be certified by the end of 2016, at two flights a year for four years 

based on NASA’s projections, government may need only eight 

flights. That is four flights per company, probably at a rate of one 

a year. The number may grow if the International Space Station 

is extended, but there is no guarantee. Four flights to recover some 

significant portion of sunk investment, coupled with the goal to 

price the service at a rate that doesn’t dwarf the cost now charged 

by Russia, suggests to me a perilous business proposition. 

I think that NASA owes Congress and the laudable companies 

that are before us today a much more thorough assessment of the 

situation ahead. These companies have invested millions of dollars 

and Congress has committed millions more. It is time for NASA to 

deliver credible plans and analysis so that we can move forward 

with more confidence. 

What I do not want to see happen is putting government in the 

position of stepping in to salvage one or more failing companies in 

order to preserve a national capability. Many of us are well aware 

of the debacle that confronted the Air Force with its EELV program, and this Committee is not prepared to let NASA repeat that 
19 

mistake. To paraphrase my friend and former Chairman of this 

Committee, Bart Gordon, I don’t want to find ourselves at some future time throwing additional sums in this program because the 

commercial launch companies are ‘‘too important to fail.’’ 

For all my seeming skepticism, I am willing to be convinced that 

I am wrong, and I hope I am wrong. I want the private markets 

to relieve NASA of the cost and burden of building a new launch 

system for low Earth orbit. But as I said a minute ago, NASA must 

do more to address these important questions, and it is our role as 

the Committee of jurisdiction to ensure that whatever path we ultimately take, government’s investment will be well understood and 

well spent. 

In a time of constrained budgets, we have to first protect our 

presence in space and keep the faith with the American people and 

our foreign partners. Logically, we cannot expend vast sums of 

money today going to Mars when our people can’t go to the grocery 

store. But we have to keep the dream alive by moving forward as 

we are able. That is why it is vitally important that we spend our 

limited NASA dollars wisely. 

I want to offer thanks again to our witnesses. I greatly admire 

the achievements of you and your companies. It is undeniable that 

aerospace has directly contributed to this country’s greatness and 

our preeminence in space, and all of us must work to ensure you 

have the missions and resources to continue that good work in the 

years ahead. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH HALL

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘NASA’s Commercial Crew 

Development Program: Accomplishments and Challenges.’’ I’d like to thank our 

many witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules to appear before our Committee. I realize considerable effort goes into the drafting and writing of statements, 

and I want you to know that your testimony, wisdom, and experience will be of invaluable help to our Committee and Congress as we deliberate in the months ahead 

on issues related to NASA and its Commercial Crew Program. I would like to note 

for the Members of the Committee that one company, Blue Origin, has received 

$14.9 million in Federal funds under this program but declined to testify today-and, 

I have declined to subpoena them. 

Today’s hearing will provide aerospace companies and NASA an opportunity to 

testify about progress being made toward the goal of establishing a purely commercial capability to fly humans to and from low Earth orbit, with an initial emphasis 

on ferrying NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. 

Some have described the Commercial Crew Program as a variation on the way 

NASA has traditionally managed our human space flight program, implying that 

not much will change in the relationship between the agency and aerospace companies in the acquisition and operation of space vehicles. I find this characterization 

to be a gross over-simplification that doesn’t fairly represent the degree of changes 

between the space launch industry and NASA, nor does it do anything to highlight 

the uncertainties of the business model going forward. 

I am not opposed to this new approach, but in the time remaining I want to focus 

my remarks on the business case, as that is an area that I would like to see discussed at greater length. If indeed industry can perform safely and profitably, and 

at substantially less cost, then I will be the first to congratulate them and NASA. 

My hesitance though, is based on the very thin evidence provided to date by NASA 

that this new business model is well understood and that it can succeed. I have yet 

to be convinced that there is a sufficient commercial market that will sustain multiple private, for-profit commercial crew companies through the duration of America’s commitment to the International Space Station. NASA seemingly takes the position of ‘build it and they will come’; that by starting these companies first, business will soon follow. 
20 

Some say the business case is not very compelling, at least for those companies 

intending on using NASA as an anchor customer. Assuming two commercial companies will be certified by the end of 2016, at two flights a year for four years based 

on NASA’s projections, government may need only eight flights. That’s four flights 

per company, probably at a rate of one a year. The number may grow if ISS is extended, but there’s no guarantee. Four flights to recover some significant portion of 

sunk investment, coupled with the goal to price the service at a rate that doesn’t 

dwarf the cost now charged by Russia, suggests to me a perilous business proposition. I think that NASA owes Congress and the laudable companies that are before 

us today a much more thorough assessment of the situation ahead. These companies 

have invested millions of dollars and Congress has committed millions more—it is 

time for NASA to deliver credible plans and analysis so that we can move forward 

with more confidence. 

What I do not want to see happen is putting government in the position of stepping in to salvage one or several failing companies in order to preserve a national 

capability. Many of us are well aware of the debacle that confronted the Air Force 

with its EELV program, and this committee is not prepared to let NASA repeat that 

mistake. To paraphrase my friend and former Chairman of this Committee, Bart 

Gordon, I don’t want to find ourselves at some future time throwing additional sums 

in this program because the commercial launch companies are ‘too important to fail.’ 

For all my seeming skepticism, I am willing to be convinced that I’m wrong, and 

I hope I’m wrong. I want the private markets to relieve NASA of the cost and burden of building a new launch system for low Earth orbit. But as I said a minute 

ago, NASA must do more to address these important questions, and it’s our role as 

the Committee of jurisdiction to ensure that whatever path we ultimately take, government’s investment will be well understood and well spent. 

In a time of constrained budgets, we must first protect our presence in space and 

keep the faith with the American people and our foreign partners. Logically, we cannot expend vast sums of money today going to Mars when our people can’t even go 

to the grocery store. But, we must keep the dream alive by moving forward as we 

are able. That is why it is vitally important that we spend our limited NASA dollars 

wisely. 

I want to offer thanks again to our witnesses. I greatly admire the achievements 

of you and your companies. It is undeniable that aerospace has directly contributed 

to this country’s greatness and our preeminence in space, and all of us must work 

to ensure you have the missions and resources to continue that good work in the 

years ahead. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member 

Mrs. Johnson for her five minutes, which could be 10. You have the 

time that you choose to use, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and good morning. I would like to join Chairman Hall in welcoming all of our witnesses this morning. The companies appearing before us are doing 

exciting work, and they are a great example of American industry’s 

capacity for innovation. Today’s hearing is a unique opportunity to 

hear from each of them, or each of you, about their accomplishments and aspirations and the challenges they face, and I look forward to the testimony. 

However, I want to be clear from the outset. I cannot let my enthusiasm for entrepreneurial innovation override my responsibility 

as a Member of Congress to take a clearheaded look at the issues 

associated with NASA’s commercial crew proposal. And it is clear 

that there are many issues that need to be addressed and questions 

that NASA still has not answered more than a year and a half 

after the initiative was first announced. In my opening remarks, I 

will focus on two of the issues that need our attention: priorities 

and risk. 

Let me first say a few words about the issue of priorities. Given 

the cuts that are being made and contemplated to NASA’s and our 

other federal agencies’ important missions as well as to essential 

services for the most vulnerable in our society, I have got to be con-
21 

vinced that the benefits of NASA’s commercial crew proposal outweigh the costs before I can be comfortable in supporting it. 

What are the benefits? As NASA and others have described 

them, they are several-fold. First, Commercial Crew would reduce, 

but not eliminate, dependence on Russia for International Space 

Station-related goods and services. NASA estimates that the cost 

to the U.S. government to purchase Russian crew transportation 

and rescue services would be about $450 million a year from 2016 

to 2020, or a total of about $1.8 billion for those four years. 

Second, NASA and others have argued that the commercial crew 

initiative will help create a new commercial crew space transportation industry with a wide range of public and private customers, 

thus lowering costs and allowing NASA to focus on deep space exploration. 

What are the costs of the initiative? Last week, NASA’s Deputy 

Administrator was quoted as saying that ‘‘we have an analysis that 

says we believe we would require $6 billion over five years’’ to develop the commercial crew systems. I have to take the Deputy Administrator at her word, as NASA still has not provided Congress 

with the basis for its commercial crew budget requests since the 

initiative was first announced almost two years ago, though I find 

it unsettling that the $6 billion estimate is almost $2 billion more 

than the amount actually book-kept for Commercial Crew in the 

NASA five-year budget plan that was submitted to Congress in 

February of this year. 

Now, that $6 billion is just to develop the systems. Perhaps we 

will hear otherwise today, but all of the information provided by 

NASA to date indicates that it believes that the U.S. commercial 

crew systems will be competitive with the Russian Soyuz in price 

per seat but not significantly cheaper. So, at this point it looks like 

NASA will still be paying roughly the same amount to commercial 

crew providers through 2020 that it would be to the Russians. 

So as a result, I and other Members will have to decide whether 

it is worth paying a $6 billion premium in taxpayer dollars in order 

to make a domestic ISS commercial crew capability available to replace the Russian system for a four-year period, assuming the U.S. 

commercial crew systems are certified operational by 2016. Now I 

would rather not pay money to the Russians either, but I will find 

it very hard to justify to my constituents spending an extra $6 billion to transport our astronauts to the ISS for a limited amount of 

time unless I can also credibly argue that doing so will open up a 

broad new competitive market in commercial crew transportation 

for American industry. Unfortunately, based on the information 

provided by NASA and others to date, I can’t make that argument. 

The only potential non-NASA markets of any significance identified by NASA for the foreseeable future are a small number of 

super-wealthy individuals seeking adventure trips, provided the 

price is right, and a small number of non-U.S. astronauts, provided 

their countries are willing to pay for their trips. I will be frank: I 

don’t think that the prospect of spending $6 billion in taxpayer dollars to enable either super-rich tourists or non-U.S. astronauts to 

fly into orbit is going to be seen as a worthwhile priority by very 

many of my constituents in the current fiscal environment, and I 
22 

have a feeling that many of my fellow Members will also find that 

to be the case. 

Let me close by saying a few words about risk. I am not talking 

about risk to our astronauts, because I have to believe that NASA 

will not put any of our astronauts on a commercial system until it 

is convinced that NASA’s safety standards have been met. Instead, 

what I am talking about is the risk to the U.S. government and the 

American taxpayer. That risk takes several forms. For example, 

there is the risk that the cost and schedule assumptions behind 

NASA’s plans will not prove valid. As it is, even if the President’s 

commercial crew budget request is approved in total, NASA’s latest 

acquisition roadmap projections indicate that any contract for commercial crew transportation services to the ISS won’t start until 

2017, which is almost two years later than originally estimated. 

NASA cautions that even that date could slip further depending on 

funding and the rate of progress made by the companies. Thus the 

likelihood that the commercial systems will be able to meet a significant portion of ISS crew transportation needs prior to 2020 is 

shrinking, and that is a risk to the viability of NASA’s proposal 

that I find worrisome. 

That risk is also one reason we mandated in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that NASA needs to put a credible government 

backup capacity—capability in place as soon as possible to support 

the ISS operations if needed. 

And finally, if a public-private partnership is to protect both the 

interests of the taxpayers and the companies, cost risks need to be 

shared. However, NASA officials indicate that, on average, 9 out of 

every 10 dollars spent to develop the commercial crew systems will 

be taxpayer money. In addition, unless we hear otherwise today, 

the would-be commercial providers have indicated that they expect 

the government to indemnify them in the event of an accident. 

That may or may not be good public policy, but unless there is sufficient private insurance coverage available to them to cover at 

least part of their potential accident liability, the reality is that the 

government may well be on the hook for the entire amount, at 

risk—or risk losing the company that it is relying on, we are relying on to get NASA’s crews to and from the ISS. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, none of the issues I have raised 

here should take away from the good work that the companies represented at this hearing are doing. I applaud their efforts and wish 

them well. I certainly plan to keep an open mind regarding NASA’s 

commercial crew initiative, and I hope that NASA will provide all 

of the information and analyses Congress will need to properly 

evaluate this initiative. 

However, as Members of Congress, we must be vigilant stewards 

of the taxpayers’ dollars, and we cannot let either enthusiasm nor 

hope blind us to that responsibility as we assess NASA’s proposals. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I would like to join Chairman Hall in welcoming all of our witnesses to this morning’s hearing. The companies appearing before us are doing exciting work, and they are a great example of American industry’s capacity for innovation. Today’s hearing is a unique opportunity to hear from each of them about 
23 

their accomplishments, their aspirations, and the challenges they face. I look forward to their testimony. 

However, I want to be clear from the outset. I cannot let my enthusiasm for entrepreneurial innovation override my responsibility as a Member of Congress to take 

a clearheaded look at the issues associated with NASA’s commercial crew proposal. 

And it’s clear that there are many issues that need to be addressed and questions 

that NASA still has not answered more than a year and a half after the initiative 

was first announced. In my opening remarks, I will focus on two of the issues that 

need our attention: priorities and risk. 

Let me first say a few words about the issue of priorities. Given the cuts that are 

being made and contemplated to NASA’s and our other federal agencies’ important 

missions—as well as to essential services for the most vulnerable in our society— 

I’ve got to be convinced that the benefits of NASA’s commercial crew proposal outweigh the costs before I can be comfortable supporting it. 

What are the benefits? As NASA and others have described them, they are severalfold. 

First, commercial crew would reduce—but not eliminate—dependence on Russia 

for International Space Station-related goods and services. NASA estimates that the 

cost to the U.S. government to purchase Russian crew transportation and rescue 

services would be about $450 million a year from 2016 to 2020, or a total of about 

$1.8 billion for those four years. 

Second, NASA and others have argued that the commercial crew initiative will 

help create a new commercial crew space transportation industry with a wide range 

of private and public customers, thus lowering costs and allowing NASA to focus on 

deep space exploration. 

What are the costs of the initiative? Last week, NASA’s Deputy Administrator 

was quoted as saying that ‘‘we have an analysis that says we believe we would require $6 billion over five years’’ to develop the commercial crew systems. 

I have to take the Deputy Administrator at her word, as NASA still has not provided Congress with the basis for its commercial crew budget requests since the initiative was first announced almost two years ago—though I find it unsettling that 

the $6 billion estimate is almost $2 billion more than the amount actually bookkept 

for commercial crew in the NASA five-year budget plan that was submitted to Congress in February of this year. Now that $6 billion is just to develop the systems. Perhaps we will hear otherwise 

today, but all of the information provided by NASA to date indicates that it believes 

that the U.S. commercial crew systems will be ‘‘competitive’’ with the Russian Soyuz 

in price per seat but not significantly cheaper. So, at this point it looks like NASA 

will still be paying roughly the same amount to commercial crew providers through 

2020 that it would be to the Russians. 

As a result, I and other Members will have to decide whether it is worth paying 

a $6 billion premium in taxpayer dollars in order to have a domestic ISS commercial 

crew capability available to replace the Russian system for a four-year period—assuming the U.S. commercial crew systems are certified operational by 2016. Now 

I would rather not pay money to the Russians either, but I will find it very hard 

to justify to my constituents spending an extra $6 billion to transport our astronauts 

to the ISS for a limited amount of time unless I can also credibly argue that doing 

so will open up a broad new competitive market in commercial crew transportation 

for American industry. 

Unfortunately, based on the information provided by NASA and others to date, 

I can’t make that argument. 

The only potential non-NASA markets of any significance identified by NASA for 

the foreseeable future are a small number of super-wealthy individuals seeking adventure trips—provided the price is right, and a small number of non-U.S. astronauts—provided their countries are willing to pay for their trips. 

I will be frank—I don’t think that the prospect of spending six billion taxpayer 

dollars to enable either super-rich tourists or non-U.S. astronauts to fly into orbit 

is going to be seen as a worthwhile priority by very many of my constituents in the 

current fiscal environment, and I have a feeling that many of my fellow Members 

will also find that to be the case. 

Let me close by saying a few words about risk. I’m not talking about risk to our 

astronauts, because I have to believe that NASA will not put any of our astronauts 

on a commercial system until it is convinced that NASA’s safety standards have 

been met. 

Instead, what I am talking about is the risk to the U.S. government and the 

American taxpayer. That risk takes several forms. For example, there is the risk 

that the cost and schedule assumptions behind NASA’s plans will not prove valid. 

As it is, even if the President’s commercial crew budget request is approved in total, 
24 

NASA’s latest acquisition roadmap projections indicate that any contract for commercial crew transportation services to the ISS won’t start until 2017, which is almost two years later than originally estimated. 

NASA cautions that even that date could slip further depending on funding and 

the rate of progress made by the companies. Thus the likelihood that the commercial systems will be able to meet a significant portion of ISS crew transportation 

needs prior to 2020 is shrinking, and that’s a risk to the viability of NASA’s proposal that I find worrisome. 

That risk is also one reason we mandated in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 

that NASA needs to put a credible government backup capability in place as soon 

as possible to support ISS operations if needed. 

Finally, if a public-private partnership is to protect both the interests of the taxpayers and the companies, cost risk needs to be shared. However, NASA officials 

indicate that, on average, nine out of every ten dollars spent to develop the commercial crew systems will be taxpayer dollars. In addition, unless we hear otherwise 

today, the would-be commercial providers have indicated that they expect the government to indemnify them in the event of an accident. 

That may or may not be good public policy, but unless there is sufficient private 

insurance coverage available to them to cover at least part of their potential accident liability, the reality is that the government may well be on the hook for the 

entire amount—or risk losing the company that it is relying on to get NASA’s crews 

to and from the ISS. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, none of the issues I have raised here should take 

away from the good work that the companies represented at this hearing are doing. 

I applaud their efforts and wish them well. I certainly plan to keep an open mind 

regarding NASA’s commercial crew initiative, and I hope that NASA will provide 

all of the information and analyses Congress will need to properly evaluate that initiative.However, as Members of Congress, we must be vigilant stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars, and we cannot let either enthusiasm or hope blind us to that responsibility as we assess NASA’s proposals.Thank you, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back, and I 

thank you for a statement well done and I thank you as my neighbor in Texas. 

If there are Members who want to submit additional separate 

opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at 

this point. 

Chairman HALL. And I say to the witnesses and those who are 

important to this transaction, don’t be dismayed by the empty 

chairs because we are at a critical time in this Congress and the 

world knows it and we all know it, and you as business leaders 

know it. Most of these men and women who are not here have 

other committee assignments and they are attending those, but all 

of this is of record. They will have it. It will be read and it will 

be here for people 200 years from now to read what this Committee 

said and what questions this group asked. So I will ask you to indulge with it. 

At this time I would like to introduce, first, our panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and 

General Manager for Space Exploration at the Boeing Company. 

Previously, Mr. Elbon led Boeing’s effort as a Prime Integration 

Contractor for the International Space Station. He has been the 

Boeing Program Manager for several NASA programs including 

Constellation and the checkout assembling and payload processing 

services contract at Kennedy Space Center, and we thank you, sir, 

for coming. 

Our second witness is Steve Lindsey, the Director of Space Exploration at Sierra Nevada Space Systems. Mr. Lindsey came to Sierra Nevada this year after a distinguished 24-year career in the 

United States Air Force. As a NASA astronaut, he has flown five 
25 

shuttle missions, his last two flights as commander including STS– 

133 that flew earlier this year, and we certainly welcome you. 

Our third witness is Mr. Elon Musk, Chief Executive Officer and 

Chief Technology Officer of Space Exploration Technologies, also 

known as SpaceX. Mr. Musk has many accomplishments. He is also 

the CEO and Product Architect of the electric car company Tesla 

Motors and the Nonexecutive Chairman of Solar City. Previously, 

Mr. Musk cofounded PayPal. We are very delighted to have you 

here. And because your Congressman has been very proud of your 

accomplishments, I am going to leave my last 2 minutes for him 

to say a few kind words about you. He has paid me good money 

to let him do this. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, there is a lot of good words to be said 

about each and every one of our panelists today. All of you are people that I admire. You are in keeping with the American tradition 

of enterprise and technology, perhaps going all the way back to the 

clipper ships when people wanted to do business and designed 

ships and sailed off to distant shores, and we had the best ships 

of any country in the world, but today you all reflect those type of 

values. 

Elon Musk, who I am going to say a few good words about now, 

Elon is a native South African who is now a proud American, and 

as you can see, as the Chairman just noted, he is involved in the 

development of electric cars as well as been involved in PayPal, 

which has enabled all of us to go into debt over the Internet. 

Chairman HALL. Your time is almost up. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, let me just note that we are watching all 

of your accomplishments and especially you, Mr. Musk. Thank you 

for the 1,500 employees that you represent and everyone on this 

panel represents people who are employed and people who are getting something done by furthering America’s tradition of enterprise 

and technology. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, and Mr. Flores is at another committee hearing at this time. He wanted to be here to help with the 

introduction. 

Our fourth witness on this first panel is Mr. Charlie Precourt, 

Vice President of Launch Systems Group of Alliant TechSystems, 

also known as ATK. Prior to joining ATK, Mr. Precourt also had 

a very distinguished 23-year career with the United States Air 

Force as an F–15 pilot and was a commander as a NASA astronaut, having flown on four shuttle missions including two as mission commander, and we are really delighted to have you here. 

Our final witness on the first panel is Dr. George Sowers, Vice 

President in Business Development and Advanced Programs for 

United Launch Alliance. Dr. Sowers has a 30-year history working 

with America’s most successful launch vehicles beginning with the 

Titan program and now with the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets. 

Welcome, Dr. Sowers. 

As our witnesses need to know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes, and after all the witness have spoken, Members of 

the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. We 

will try to stay with that five minutes if we can, but for the sacrifices you have made and for the input that you surely have and 

for the importance you are to this Committee, to this Congress and 
26 

to this Nation, if you go over five minutes, nothing is going to happen. We don’t have a hook or anything, but we do want you to fully 

explain your presence here and your hopes and desires and your 

history and your future. 

I recognize our first witness on the first panel, Mr. John Elbon 

of Boeing, to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN ELBON, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL MANAGER FOR SPACE EXPLORATION, THE BOEING 

COMPANY, HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Mr. ELBON. Good morning, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member 

Johnson, Members of the Committee. On behalf of the Boeing Company, I wish to convey my deepest gratitude for your continued 

support of human spaceflight. Your efforts have enabled a safe flyout of the space shuttle, completion of the International Space Station, and established a path forward for human exploration of 

space. Without your Committee’s support, none of these achievements would have been possible. It is an honor to be a participant 

with this distinguished panel to elaborate on Boeing’s development 

status to support reducing the gap in U.S. crewed access to the 

International Space Station. 

Mr. Chairman, if it is okay, I have got a video I would like to 

show to begin with. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. We want to see it. 

[Video playback.] 

Mr. ELBON. There are three cornerstones of NASA’s path forward 

for human spaceflight: utilization of the International Space Station, commercial crew for transportation to low Earth orbit and development of a capability for human exploration beyond low Earth 

orbit. By providing affordable crew transportation to the International Space Station, commercial crew will increase utilization of 

this on-orbit laboratory and free up funding and resources for 

NASA to focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Because of 

this relationship, commercial crew should not be viewed as a competitor with deep space exploration programs but instead as a complementary program that contributes to achieving NASA’s overall 

objectives. 

In selecting a design for commercial crew, Boeing adopted three 

overarching principles. We would focus on transporting crew to low 

Earth orbiting platforms only so the vehicle capabilities could be 

kept as simple as possible. We would use as much off-the-shelf 

proven technology as possible in order to reduce the development 

risk and improve cost and schedule certainty, and our design would 

be as uncomplicated as practical to improve reliability and safety 

and to enable low operations cost. To date in our program, we have 

completed several significant design milestones and development 

tests. 

Looking forward, prior to the completion of the second phase of 

commercial crew development in June of next year, we will mature 

the design of the complete integrated system, which includes the 

spacecraft, launch vehicle and ground systems through a preliminary design review, perform a parachute drop test from a helicopter ending with a touchdown on deployed airbags, integrate the 

emergency monitoring system of the Atlas V with the avionics of 
27 

the Crew Space Transportation system, CST–100, to demonstrate 

the required data communication in the event of a launch abort, 

and test-fire a new, lighter-weight version of the abort engine. 

Assuming we are selected by NASA for the next procurement 

phases and that adequate funding is available and we complete our 

critical design review, the 90 percent point in the design process by 

the spring of 2013 and perform an ascent test later that year. We 

also are planning on flying three flight tests, which will culminate 

with the launch of two Boeing test pilots in 2015, leading to the 

capability to fly to the International Space Station by late 2015. 

Human spaceflight is challenging and any program to develop a 

capability to transport humans in space must address these challenges. We have been transporting humans into earth orbit in capsules for nearly 50 years using design and technologies that are 

proven. We have reduced the technical challenges of the program 

to manageable levels. 

There are two significant challenges that remain from Boeing’s 

perspective, and they are programmatic in nature. The first is stable funding. If we are to achieve an operational capability by 2015, 

adequate funding levels must be provided over the next four years. 

The second is addressing liability risk associated with the potential for accidents that result in damage to property or in death or 

injury to crew members or passengers. Although the likelihood of 

these occurrences is extremely low, the losses would be tragic and 

the potential monetary consequences could be high. With limited 

performance history, it will be difficult for industry to insure 

against these monetary losses at reasonable rates. As such, in 

order to close the business case, it will be necessary for NASA, the 

FAA and Congress to work together to provide indemnification and 

liability limitations. 

With regards to the size of the potential market, it is clear that 

there is a commercial market for transportation to low Earth orbit. 

The depth of these markets is uncertain, though, and a responsible 

business case cannot be closed on the commercial business alone. 

Our business case assumes only NASA-purchased transportation to 

the International Space Station and treats revenue from private 

spaceflight participants and commercial transportation to Bigelow 

Space Complex is upside. 

The commercial crew market would not be as attractive as it is 

if NASA were the only potential customer, but at the same time 

to ensure a successful venture, we must be certain we can have a 

viable business based on NASA flights alone. This is important 

from the government’s perspective as well. It shouldn’t be necessary for the government to gamble on the development of a commercial market in order to ensure a viable business will be in place 

to meet its needs for transportation to the International Space Station. 

In closing, commercial-provided transportation to low Earth orbit 

is the right solution for enabling a complete and robust portfolio of 

NASA programs in science and human spaceflight. The risks in flying spacecraft to low Earth orbit are well understood. We have 

been completing successful low Earth orbit missions since John 

Glenn’s historic flight in 1962. It is time to leverage the efficiencies 

of a different model for the relationship between NASA and con-
28 

tractors for the part of space exploration where the risk levels warrant it. Commercial transportation to low Earth orbit supports 

lower cost utilization of the International Space Station and makes 

additional funding available for human exploration beyond low 

Earth orbit. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elbon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN ELBON, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

MANAGER FOR SPACE EXPLORATION, THE BOEING COMPANY, HOUSTON, TX 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. And once again, I will stress the 

importance of your offerings here and your service here. Heretofore 

back in September, we had Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and General Tom Stafford here all day. We kept them from early one morning until late at night, and anyone that says Neil Armstrong is not 

generous with his time or won’t sign things for people, he did all 

day that day for us. That was very important, and Buzz Aldrin 

would be here today but he had a schedule problem, but he has 

been before this Committee a lot of times. So we value you. You 

all are very, very important to the future of NASA and help us 

work out the problem that we are faced with. 

I now recognize Steve Lindsey to present his testimony, and 

thank you, John. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN LINDSEY, 

DIRECTOR OF SPACE EXPLORATION, SIERRA NEVADA 

SPACE SYSTEMS, LOUISVILLE, COLORADO 

Colonel LINDSEY. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member 

Johnson and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to 

present Sierra Nevada’s perspective on the Commercial Crew Program. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a complete written statement that I would ask to be made part of the record. 

I have only recently joined Sierra Nevada after serving for 24 

years in the United States Air Force and 16 years in NASA, where 

I had the opportunity to fly on five space shuttle missions including 

commanding the final flight of Discovery this past February. What 

I would like to address this morning is who Sierra Nevada is and 

what we are doing as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Development Program. Sierra Nevada Corporation is a proven systems integrator, electronic systems and space systems provider with a reputation for rapid, innovative and agile technology solutions. We employ a highly talented staff of over 2,200 people, mostly engineers, 

scientists or technical personnel serving in six business areas 

across 20 states. Our strong financial track record and stable leadership structure are key elements in the successful yearly execution of hundreds of government aerospace contracts. 

We are currently in our sixth year of the development of a 

human-rated lifting body spaceflight, and you can see the model 

here in front of me, called the Dream Chaser. The Heritage Dream 

Chaser design evolved from the NASA Langley Research Center’s 

HL–20 spaceflight, which was originally designed as a lifeboat for 

the International Space Station. Langley performed more than 

1,200 wind tunnel tests and performed thousands of piloted simulations in its decade-long investment refining their design. Sierra Nevada started with Langley’s ten years of research and has invested 

an additional six years of capital, engineering, time and effort to 

develop a very sophisticated, reusable space plane that can satisfy 

NASA’s low Earth orbit needs. 

Sierra Nevada has assembled a world-class team of spaceflightexperienced partners to execute the Dream Chaser program including Boeing, United Launch Alliance, Aerojet and nine other U.S. 

companies. In addition, we have formed a unique industry-to-government partnership where we are funding seven NASA centers to 

provide expert assistance in designing and developing our 
34 

spaceflight. This superb team of experienced space companies and 

NASA centers employing aerospace workers across 13 states and 

growing allows us to rapidly develop our space system to provide 

a cost-effective and safe way to transport people to and from low 

Earth orbit. 

Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser program has been a part of 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program for the past four years. During 

CCDev1, we completed all technical and performance milestones on 

time and under budget, going well beyond the original contract and 

completing several additional unfunded milestones. We have completed the first four milestones of CCDev2 on time and on budget 

with the fifth to be completed tomorrow. 

While every human-rated spaceflight in our Nation’s history has 

in fact been built by a commercial company, there are some subtle 

differences between today’s program and previous ones. Under the 

current program, the contractual mechanisms are the Space Act 

agreement, a fixed-price, pay-for-performance, milestone-based program. If we don’t stay on schedule or meet our milestones, then we 

aren’t paid. Companies are expected to contribute financially to the 

program and in fact Sierra Nevada has invested heavily in the 

Dream Chaser. This contracting mechanism is a cost-effective way 

for the government to retire technology development risk in mature 

and integrated design. In the next phase of the program, Sierra 

Nevada understands the government’s need for greater oversight 

and looks forward to working with NASA under a tailored FARbased contract. 

The interaction between NASA and Sierra Nevada has evolved 

into a very unique partnership. NASA provides us spacecraft requirements which we have to meet or NASA simply won’t contract 

for our services. To accomplish both the oversight and insight function, NASA has embedded a partner integration team of spaceflight 

experts directly into our company to provide a true inside view of 

our day-to-day operations. They participate in every aspect of our 

program, providing complete government insight into our design, 

development and testing. This approach is very effective, requiring 

less oversight due to the extraordinary level of insight. 

Mr. Chairman, to conclude my remarks, I would like to talk a little bit about safety. While at NASA, I had the privilege to serve 

as Chief of the Astronaut Office for over three years overseeing the 

final servicing mission of the Hubble and the completion of the 

International Space Station. As Chief, my number one responsibility was the safety of my crews, and under my watch, we successfully executed 14 space shuttle missions and 10 space station missions, each time bringing our crews home safely. I made the difficult decision just a few months ago to leave 30-plus years of government service to come to Sierra Nevada. Why? Because I believe 

that access to space is vital to our national interests and I want 

to do everything in my power to get our Nation back into low Earth 

orbit as soon as possible. Let me assure all of you that under my 

watch, we will never, ever sacrifice safety for any reason. With our 

industry partners and NASA’s guidance, we will do the job right. 

The space station is waiting and the clock is ticking. I strongly encourage this Committee and the Congress to fully support and fund 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. 
35 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my views 

this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Lindsey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. STEVE LINDSEY, DIRECTOR OF SPACE EXPLORATION, 

SIERRA NEVADA SPACE SYSTEMS, LOUISVILLE, CO 

Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to present Sierra Nevada’s perspective on the Commercial Crew Program. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) 

Before addressing the questions you asked in your invitation letter directly, I’d 

like to provide you with a brief description of Sierra Nevada Corporation to indirectly answer how the depth and breadth of our company provide us with the capabilities necessary to develop a human-rated spacecraft for our Nation. Sierra Nevada 

Corporation (SNC) is a proven systems integrator, electronic systems and space systems provider with a reputation for rapid, innovative, and agile technology solutions. As a 100% U.S., privately held, woman-owned and operated business, SNC 

has been under the current ownership since 1993. It employs a highly talented staff 

of over 2,200 people, mostly engineers, scientists, or technical personnel. Our seven 

business areas have operations in 20 states. SNC has a very solid financial foundation and an uninterrupted profitable growth history with no long-term debt. SNC’s 

strong financial track record and stable leadership structure are a key element in 

the successful yearly execution of hundreds of government contracts. SNC holds one 

of the highest possible Dunn & Bradstreet rating scores. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation is currently in our sixth year of development of a 

human-rated spacecraft called the Dream Chaser Space System. The SNC team has 

invested a substantial amount of capital, engineering, time and effort to develop the 

technologies that support our Dream Chaser spacecraft. These technologies and expertise include hybrid propulsion systems, complex composite structures, airframe 

design, spacecraft components, adapter rings, navigation and control, life support, 

and integrated system design and testing capabilities. This previous work and our 

continuing NASA partnership will significantly lower development time and risk, 

and will help to ensure program success. 

SNC has also assembled a world-class team of spaceflight experienced partners 

to execute the Dream Chaser Space System program. Boeing Experimental Systems 

Group has great expertise in lifting body spacecraft including analysis, avionics, 

Guidance, Navigation, and Control software, and flight control. Their recent X–37 

spacecraft experience fits perfectly with our Dream Chaser development and risk reduction activities. United Launch Alliance (ULA) has been on our team for more 

than five years. jointly collaborating on an integrated launch vehicle that rapidly 

brings a safe, reliable, and cost-effective commercial Crew Transportation System to 

the Low Earth Orbit market. ULA is assisting SNC with integrated aerodynamics 

and risk retirement. Aerojet, a propulsion leader, is developing the main Reaction 

Control System. Draper Lab, with unparalleled GN&C experience, is leading orbital 

Guidance Navigation &Control development. NASA’s Langley Research Center adds 

expertise in HL–20 analysis and modeling, while NASA’s Dryden Flight Research 

Center adds flight test expertise for our extensive flight test program. In fact, we 

are using the expertise from seven NASA Centers to ensure we are building the best 

spacecraft possible. AdamWorks is assisting SNC in structural fabrication using our 

combined composite manufacturing capabilities. The University of Colorado is applying young minds to conduct displays and controls layout and evaluations and refine 

the integrated system Human Rating Plan, with assistance from Special Aerospace 

Services. United Space Alliance is using their extensive Space Shuttle experience to 

provide operations and software development support. SNC and Virgin Galactic are 

working together to plan for global marketing, sales, and commercial operation of 

the orbital Dream Chaser. In addition to coordinating and managing the team, SNC 

manages all internal systems, propulsion, structure, Launch Vehicle integration, 

and systems engineering. This superb team of experienced space companies allows 

us to use heritage hardware and software to rapidly develop our space system and 

provide a cost effective and safe way to transport people to and from low Earth 

orbit. 
36 

Dream Chaser Space System 

Our primary Dream Chaser Space System goals are to safely, reliably, and cost 

effectively transport crew to the International Space Station and return to a hard 

surface runway. The heritage Dream Chaser design evolved from the NASA Langley 

Research Center’s HL–20, which was originally derived from the Russian BOR–4 orbital test vehicle that flew 4 orbital flights. Langley performed more than 1,200 

wind tunnel tests, wrote 60 journal papers and NASA contractor reports, and performed thousands of piloted simulations in its decade-long investment refining HL– 

20 aerodynamics, performance, and controls. To take advantage of the orbital flight 

and wind tunnel heritage, SNC retained the HL–20 design center of gravity limits 

and outer mold line, but made significant upgrades in composite structures so as 

to take advantage of modern construction techniques and materials and we incorporated a new safer, more operable, flexible propulsion capability. Bottomline, SNC 

consolidated the fragmented HL–20 aerodynamic data, filled in the database gaps 

with significant additional analysis, and have designed a very sophisticated reusable 

space plane that can satisfy NASA’s low Earth orbit needs. 

The Dream Chaser vehicle features a reusable, piloted lifting body design capable 

of transporting two to seven persons and pressurized cargo. Dream Chaser orbital 

missions are launched on an extremely reliable Atlas V 402 booster rocket and return to land on a conventional runway. The baseline launch site is Kennedy Space 

Center and the baseline landing site is the Shuttle Landing Facility. But, The 

Dream Chaser is designed to be able to reach and land on any 10,000 foot hard surface runway for any nominal or abort landing. The DC is almost entirely reusable, 

with exception of some propulsion system components and the chemical batteries. 

Post-flight Dream Chaser spacecraft refurbishment and launch processing will occur 

at the Kennedy Space Center prior to re-flight certification. 

The Dream Chaser spacecraft has the capability for launch pad abort and intact 

ascent aborts from any point on its trajectory to hard surface runways. The Dream 

Chaser spacecraft’s > 1,100 nautical mile cross-range capability is significantly better than the typical capsule cross range. Every-orbit deorbit to runway landing capability exists for emergencies and there is sufficient cross range to accommodate multiple daily Continental U.S. runway landing opportunities. Low 1.5 g entry loads are 

considerably less than those experienced by capsules during reentry which allows 

Dream Chaser to have large down-mass capability for g-sensitive science experiments and touchdown shock is far lower than capsule loads which can be as high 

as 15 g’s for water landing (e.g., Apollo 12 and 15). These reduced loads lessen the 

possibility that a vehicle will require post-mission repair for re-flight. Runway landings avoid expensive ship-based recovery and salt water exposure. 

We selected the reliable Atlas V launch vehicle specifically for its heritage, demonstrated reliability, ability to human rate, and compatibility with the DC spacecraft. This Nation has launched multi-billion dollar national assets on the Atlas due 

to its reliability. The Atlas has demonstrated 98 consecutive successes since 1993, 

including a 100% mission success record for all Atlas II, III, and V flights, with all 

spacecraft reaching proper orbit. 

After nominal orbital insertion, Dream Chaser is reconfigured for orbital operations to support crew Flight Day 2 rendezvous and docking. Orbit adjust is performed using the SNC-developed on-board hybrid rocket motors and reaction control 

system. The hybrid motors are improved versions of the successful SNC developed 

SpaceShipOne rocket motors. This technology is also being used on the 

SpaceShipTwo program resulting in extensive flight heritage and experience before 

our first orbital flight. The DC is designed for 3.5 days of on-orbit loiter without ISS 

docking. The DC is designed to dock to the NASA Docking System (NDS) located 

at appropriate ISS docking locations. 

The DC provides assured crew return capability while docked to the ISS. DC can 

remain docked to ISS for extended periods (up to 210 days, assuming the DC shares 

ISS cabin atmosphere while docked and receives ISS power transfer to support battery trickle charge). 

Dream Chaser Space System Accomplishments to Date 

The following milestones were completed from December 2009 to September 2010 

during the Commercial Crew Development Program, Phase 1 contract (CCDev1): 

Milestone 1: Program Implementation Plan Delivered. This included management planning for design, development, testing, and evaluation supplier engagement, risks and anticipated mitigations. 

Milestone 2: Space Vehicle Manufacturing Review of Aeroshell Tooling. This included manufacturing the aeroshell tooling, a review of the aeroshell design, 
37 

manufacturing plans, and readiness to begin fabrication of the Dream Chaser’s 

aeroshell. 

Milestone 3: Space Vehicle Prime Motor Manufacture and Multiple Restart 

Firings. This milestone include manufacture of and ground based motor firings 

of a single hybrid motor with 3 restartable firings for a minimum duration of 

5 seconds for each firing, including one firing in a vacuum condition. 

Milestone 4: Space Vehicle Primary Structure Testing. In this milestone the 

Dream Chaser’s primary structure was designed, fabricated, assembled, and tested to support landing gear and hybrid motor thrust loads. 

All milestones were completed on time and under budget. 

In addition to these milestones, The Dream Chaser spacecraft went through extensive aerodynamic, thermal protection system, guidance, navigation, and control 

system analysis. We completed development of our desktop simulator, completed extensive systems engineering, developed a risk management plan, a human rating 

plan, and significant program documentation to support further Dream Chaser development. 

Since we finished our four milestones under budget during CCDev1 and because 

of our commitment to the success of this program, we added multiple unfunded 

milestones. We designed, developed, and successfully flight tested a scale model of 

the Dream Chaser spacecraft, dropped from over 14,000 feet at the NASA Dryden 

Flight Research Center. This flight test signaled the beginning of the atmospheric 

test program for the Dream Chaser vehicle. We also developed our first simulator 

to begin engineering development simulations, and built several mockups to use for 

engineering development. 

We are currently six months into the CCDev Phase 2 contract (CCDev2). The following milestones have been completed (or are about to be) in the CCDev2 program: 

Milestone 1: System Requirements Review. Presented a briefing and plan of the 

overall system requirements for the Dream Chaser Space System. 

Milestone 2: Canted Airfoil Fin Selection. Complete wind tunnel tests and Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis on candidate airfoil fin outer mold line and 

select final fin shape to ensure proper aerodynamic performance of fins. 

Milestone 3: Cockpit Based Flight Simulator. Complete fabrication and assembly 

of cockpit structure, install simulator designs and controls, and conduct a Simulator Readiness Review to verify readiness for engineering and pilot evaluations. 

Milestone 4: Vehicle Avionics Integration Laboratory (VAIL). Design, manufacture, and integrate the VAIL to support testing, verification, and validation of 

Dream Chaser avionics and software. 

Once again, all completed milestones were finished on schedule and under budget, 

with remaining funds being re-invested to accomplish additional work to accelerate 

our program. 

Remaining Milestones in CCDev2 and road to Critical Design Review 

Milestone 5: System Definition Review. Conduct Dream Chaser System Definition Review, which completes the first design cycle of the Dream Chaser Space 

System architecture and design. This milestone will be completed on Oct 27, 

2011—on schedule. 

Milestone 6: Flight Control Integration Laboratory. Design, manufacture, and integrate the flight control integration laboratory to begin developmental engineering tests of flight control actuators and surfaces. Complete test hardware such 

that it is ready to support Engineering Test Article flight control tests. This 

milestone will be completed on Nov 17, 2011—on schedule. 

Milestone 7: Engineering Test Article (ETA) Structure Delivery. Complete assembly and deliver the ETA primary structure for start of systems integration and 

installation of secondary structures. Scheduled for completion in Dec. 2011. 

Milestone 8: Separation System Test. Complete design and construction of the 

prototype Dream Chaser separation system and demonstrate activation to validate concept and verify performance of the separation system. Scheduled for 

completion in Feb. 2012. 

Milestone 9: Preliminary Design Review. Conduct Preliminary Design Review of 

the Dream Chaser Space System. This review will complete the second design 

cycle of Dream Chaser Space System. Scheduled for completion in May 2012. 
38 

Milestone 10: Captive Carry Interface and ETA Landing Gear Drop Tests. Complete fabrication of the ETA captive carry prototype mechanism and perform release test to verify performance of system to ensure readiness for captive carry. 

Perform drop test of ETA landing gear to evaluate landing gear dynamic limit 

loads and landing load attenuation capability to ensure adequate performance of 

landing gear. Scheduled for completion in Jan. 2012. 

Milestone 11: ETA Captive Carry Flight Test Readiness Review. Complete Captive Carry Flight Test Readiness Review to verify ETA readiness for captive 

carry testing. Scheduled for completion in March 2012. 

Milestone 12: ETA Captive Carry Flight Test. Conduct ETA captive carry flight 

test on carrier aircraft to characterize integrated vehicle performance. Schedule 

for completion in April 2012 

Milestone 13: ETA Free Flight Test. Conduct unpiloted ETA Free Flight Test 

from carrier aircraft to characterize handling qualities and approach and landing. Scheduled for completion in July 2012. 

At the completion of the Preliminary Design Review in May of 2012, the Dream 

Chaser team will begin Design Cycle 3, which will culminate in our CDR (Critical 

Design review) in the mid to late 2013 timeframe. During this design cycle, all systems will be matured through design, analysis, building of flight-like hardware and 

extensive testing—culminating in subsystem CDRs to support the overall system 

CDR. We will build a Structural Test Article for further loads testing, and continue 

test flights, both unpiloted and piloted in the Engineering Test Article. Additionally, 

we will build our Suborbital Vehicle and complete powered flight tests to validate 

and verify Guidance, Navigation, and Control in the low supersonic region. The Suborbital Vehicle flight test program will conclude with a Pad Abort test to runway 

landing. 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program: Procurement Strategy Challenges 

A common question often asked about NASA’s commercial crew program is ‘‘How 

can commercial companies build and provide spacecraft for crew transportation in 

and out of low earth orbit?’’ The answer to this question is that commercial companies have been doing this for the past 50 years. Every single United States humanrated spacecraft has been built by a commercial company. Companies such as 

McDonnell Aircraft Company, prime contractor of the Mercury capsule, to Rockwell 

International, builder of the Space Shuttle orbiter, to current companies like Sierra 

Nevada which are today developing new crewed spacecraft. Other spacecraft developed in the future for beyond earth orbit missions will also be built by commercial 

companies. 

So what’s different about what we are doing when compared to previous humanrated spacecraft programs? There are two primary differences—the procurement 

mechanism, and how NASA and our companies interact. Under the current Commercial Crew Development program, the contractual mechanism is the Space Act 

Agreement—a fixed price, pay for performance, milestone based program. Space Act 

Agreements are easy to implement, easy to change, and easy to terminate. If companies don’t stay on schedule or milestones aren’t met, then companies aren’t paid. 

Companies are also expected to contribute financially to the program. Losses to the 

government for a non-performing company can by minimized through the use of 

milestone-based payments, and cost overruns are simply not possible. The next 

phase of the Commercial Crew Program is planned to be a FAR based contract that 

will retain many of the good things about SAAs, including fixed-price and milestonebased payments. These types of contracting mechanisms are a cost effective way for 

the government to retire technology development risk and mature an integrated design. 

Interaction between NASA and Sierra Nevada on our Space Act Agreements has 

evolved into a very unique partnership. Typical government interaction with commercial companies building spacecraft involves providing guidance, receiving insight 

into our design, and having oversight over our requirements. Guidance has been 

provided to us by NASA in the form of spacecraft system requirements and specifications, just as in traditional contracting approaches. We are required, in the end, 

to meet those requirements and specifications or NASA simply won’t contract for 

our services. To accomplish the insight function, NASA has embedded a ‘Partner Integration Team’ of human spaceflight experts directly into our company to provide 

a true inside view of our day-to-day operations. They share offices with us and attend all of our meetings, allowing complete government insight into the development 

work we are doing. This has the dual advantage of removing many of the burdensome day-to-day reporting requirements, while at the same time providing our team 
39 

with valuable government advisors and consultants as we work together to build a 

new spacecraft. 

Insight versus Oversight 

In the next phase of the Commercial Crew Development Program, the proposed 

contracting mechanism is a firm fixed price Federal Acquisition Regulations-based 

contract. While the complexities of this type of contract will be much greater than 

the current Space Act Agreement milestone-based contract, the insight and oversight model shouldn’t change significantly for Sierra Nevada. During the current 

CCDev2 contract, we have allowed complete NASA insight into our day to day operations. NASA technical experts are embedded within all of our design, development, 

and test teams—providing both expert advice to us as well as critical insight to 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. This approach has proved to be very effective— 

requiring less oversight due to the extraordinary level of insight. 

The challenge with this next phase of the program will be to balance oversight 

versus insight. For example, NASA should provide oversight and direction in all 

cases where they see a need to improve the safety of a spacecraft being developed 

for their use. However, that does not mean that every technical change suggested 

by the government should be accepted. If a change makes the design ‘better’ but 

doesn’t impact safety, then the commercial company must have the leeway to accept 

or reject the change, based on technical, cost, and/or schedule considerations. This 

is where the partnership between NASA and a commercial company that is truly 

responsible for the technical design of a crewed spacecraft can make a huge difference—keeping costs and schedule under control while at the same time developing the safest spacecraft possible for the defined mission. 

The future Low Earth Orbit commercial market 

The SNC business case is strong. We have performed multiple internal and external market research studies during our six-year Dream Chaser program. We are developing multiple potential markets for our Crew Transportation System, many of 

which are best serviced by a lifting body such as ours. These markets are human 

transportation, critical cargo transportation, orbital servicing, and orbital sensor 

and testbed operations. Five primary client groups include: NASA and other civil 

agencies, commercial space corporations, military agencies, international markets, 

and tourism. NASA and crew transportation to ISS will be the anchor tenant for 

Dream Chaser, but after an early start-up period will not be the major revenue provider. SNC, through its expanding operations expects to place hundreds of satellites 

in orbit during the next few years and will become its own servicing client. All of 

our markets are expected to grow substantially and are not limited in time. SNC 

will develop a number of Dream Chaser vehicles from the same platform, similar 

to an airplane platform like the 747 or C–130, with each variant optimized for the 

specific mission. Virgin Galactic recognizes the market for the DC and they have 

joined our team to begin marketing and sales of orbital human transportation services. 

A key advantage of the Dream Chaser is the ability to land on a runway, allowing 

for many viable orbital and suborbital missions to be accomplished. The spacecraft 

has substantial pressurized cargo down-mass capability with low g reentry and runway landing at many landing sites. It can be adapted from a full seven-person crew 

to two crew members with increased cargo capacity to fully autonomous operations. 

It is also scarred for potential future servicing Extra Vehicular Activity capability 

and robotic manipulator use. Our low stress runway landings will allow us to carry 

the greatest range of passengers, and provide researchers with the best possible 

path for maintaining the integrity of their experiments through a low-g return and 

quick access to science samples. Our non-toxic propellants and runway landing capability allow us to land at domestic and international locations without special 

services. We are currently refining our business model to capture variables such as 

market share, seat price, and launch vehicle price while considering parameters 

such as turnaround time and fleet size. This will allow evaluating the sensitivity 

to market and technical factors. 

We have a dedicated business development team who sell SNC space services and 

products around the world. This team has relationships with future customers who 

we periodically brief on our Dream Chaser progress, receiving in return information 

on their needs and future missions. Our relationship with Virgin Galactic will allow 

utilization of its existing marketing infrastructure for the SpaceShipTwo program 

to rapidly develop critical non-NASA global markets for the Dream Chaser Space 

System. 
40 

Chairman HALL. And we thank you. And five words, on time and 

under budget, are things we listen for. Thank you very much. 

I recognize Mr. Elon Musk for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ELON MUSK, 

CEO AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 

HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MUSK. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

The American endeavor in space is uniquely inspirational, and 

human spaceflight is one of the great achievements of humankind. 

Although NASA only sent a handful of people to the moon, in a 

sense we all went there vicariously. We shared in the invention 

and profound achievement. Those are the things that make life 

worth living. 

The goal of SpaceX and our more than 1,500 employees is to advance the course of space so that many more may experience the 

great adventure of space exploration. I have to say, it is actually 

not, as some may assume, to maximize profit. That is why I have 

retained a majority ownership of the company to ensure that the 

idealistic goals of SpaceX remain true. 

We are very proud of our partnership with NASA, with whom we 

share the success that we have achieved to date. SpaceX would not 

have been able to get started without the work of NASA nor would 

we have been able to achieve the point we have achieved today 

without the great help of NASA. They are a partner in the truest 

sense. 

Soon we will see Dragon become the first commercial spacecraft 

in history to deliver cargo to the space station, and that may come 

as soon as January of next year. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may show a small video? 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

[Video playback.] 

Mr. MUSK. This is not a simulation. That is the view that an astronaut would have on our spacecraft. 

I would like to focus on three areas: safety, affordability and of 

course our partnership with NASA as it relates to commercial crew. 

Safety is paramount. Safety is always first. There is no more important responsibility than transporting the heroes of America’s astronaut corps into space. For many years, Mr. Chairman, you have 

rightfully championed the development of launch abort capabilities 

for astronauts in the event of a launch failure. This is of critical 

importance. In fact, to that end, our efforts on CCDev2 today have 

focused very heavily on launch abort capabilities. In fact, later this 

year we intend to demonstrate a launch abort engine, which I 

think will be quite exciting. 

Our focus on safety is reflected throughout the vehicle in both 

the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon’s basic designs. Because 

our goal from day one has been to carry astronauts, every design 

choice is made with crew in mind. In fact, Dragon is fully equipped 

to handle crew habitation today since astronauts will board Dragon 
41 

while it is berthed with the space station for our cargo resupply 

missions. 

Our upcoming cargo missions will provide significant flight experience on the Falcon 9 and Dragon systems so the first time that 

astronauts fly will not be the first time that the vehicles fly. In 

fact, they will have flown perhaps as many as a dozen times before 

astronauts first step foot on our spacecraft. We expect the launch 

vehicle to fly even more often as we have over 35 missions under 

contract for our Falcon 9 launch vehicle. 

With respect to the CCDev2 program itself, we are leveraging 

our partnership with NASA to accelerate development of our integrated launch abort system that flies with Dragon throughout its 

mission and will for the first time provide launch abort capability 

all the way to orbit. This has not been the case with prior systems. 

NASA in fact recently approved our preliminary design review of 

our launch abort system components, so we have made some good 

progress in this direction. 

We believe we are on track to carry astronauts to the space station in approximately three years. Of course, that does depend to 

some degree on the funding that is allocated to commercial crew, 

but we remain committed to the public statement that I have been 

making for a while, which is that within three years we will be 

able to carry astronauts to the space station and do so safely. 

It is good that NASA’s effort for the third phase of commercial 

crew development will be firm fixed price and milestone-based. It 

is much better for the government to define the standards and the 

ultimate goal than to actually do the design itself. If you ask engineers to figure out a good solution, tell them the goal rather than 

the method, and I think that is a very good direction in that respect. I hope the final RP4 commercial crew will indeed reflect the 

best aspects of the public-private approach that has been employed 

under COTS and CRS to date. 

Second to safety and reliability as a competitive commercial company, affordability is obviously extremely important. This has been 

raised by Ranking Member Johnson as well as Chairman Hall and 

many others. Because we have produced by doing both cargo and 

crew with a vehicle that is substantially similar, we are able to leverage the costs and divide the costs over a larger number of missions. Instead of it perhaps being over two missions per year, it is 

actually going to be over six or even eight missions per year. This 

allows for a dramatic reduction in costs while maintaining high reliability. And of course, because our launch vehicle is being used 

to fly many commercial satellites as well, there is an even greater 

allocation of cost. Of the roughly $3 billion that SpaceX has been 

awarded to date in contracts, only about half is from NASA, so 

there is significant support from the private sector. In fact, to this 

point it is over 50 percent in terms of revenue. So this I think 

proves that space exploration can be achieved affordably. 

We look forward to continuing our partnership with NASA to 

quickly end our reliance on Russia for human spaceflight and fully 

realize the scientific potential of the space station. Harnessing the 

power of American free enterprise, which I think is one of the most 

powerful forces on earth, is the way to achieve these goals on budget and on time. Thank you. 
42 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Musk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. ELON MUSK, CEO AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., HAWTHORNE, CA 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee, 

On behalf of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and our more than 1,500 

employees across the United States, thank you for the opportunity to participate in 

today’s hearing. 

I also want to thank you and the members of the Committee for your continued 

support of NASA and America’s space exploration programs. The goals of this agency, unlike nearly any other, are focused on advancing the state of human knowledge 

and human achievement. Even as we face tough fiscal challenges as a Nation, 

NASA and the cause of space exploration deserve support, particularly through efficient investments and public-private partnerships that provide best value for the 

taxpayer. 

America’s endeavors in space are truly inspirational. I deeply believe that human 

spaceflight is one of the great achievements of humankind. Although NASA only 

sent a handful of people to the moon, it felt like we all went. We vicariously shared 

in the adventure and achievement. My goal, and the goal of SpaceX, is to help create the technology so that more can share in that great adventure. 

With your support and NASA’s invaluable partnership through the Commercial 

Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, SpaceX made history last year as 

the first commercial company to successfully recover a spacecraft from Earth orbit. 

The inaugural flight of the SpaceX Dragon confirmed what we have always believed—the responsiveness and ingenuity of the private sector, combined with the 

U.S. government’s investment and technical support, can deliver an American 

spaceflight program that is safe, achievable, sustainable and affordable. 

SpaceX is honored to continue our partnership with NASA as we work together 

to develop commercial crew capabilities. Our goal is to develop the safest, most reliable and affordable crew transportation system to low Earth orbit and, ultimately, 

beyond. Indeed, carrying humans into space has been a cornerstone of SpaceX’s vehicle designs from the day the company was founded. There is no more critical and 

precious responsibility than having the opportunity and privilege to transport the 

true heroes of America’s astronaut corps into space and, in the event of a mishap 

or failure, providing them with an effective, life-saving abort capability. This awesome responsibility informs and shapes SpaceX’s every design, decision and operation. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States needs safe and affordable domestic systems for 

transporting American astronauts into space. Most pressing is the need to restore 

our ability to carry crew to the International Space Station (ISS) for which the country has spent so much effort, sweat and national treasure. The ISS’s research and 

scientific potential is constrained by the current inability to achieve a full complement of astronauts on board. Sole reliance on the Russian Soyuz is not a remedy. 

With our NASA colleagues, SpaceX is working hard to deliver a solution. I am 

pleased to provide the Committee with an update on SpaceX’s human spaceflight 

advances to date and challenges ahead as we progress toward the capability to 

transport human beings into space aboard the Falcon launch vehicles and Dragon 

spacecraft. 

I. Commercial Cargo Efforts Leading to Crew Carriage 

In 2006, SpaceX partnered with NASA under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. The COTS program was the first of its kind for 

NASA: a ‘‘pay for performance’’ partnership between the government and private 

business to rapidly design and prototype critical technologies. NASA structured the 

COTS program as a collaborative venture with commercial space companies—sharing the risks, costs and rewards of developing new space transportation capabilities. 

That ‘‘experiment’’ resulted in the first U.S. launch vehicle developed since Saturn 

with engine out reliability. As demonstration of its reliability, this launcher flew 

successfully for its first two missions. This reliable launcher is also the only U.S. 

launch vehicle that is competitive in the international marketplace and will help 

bring launch dominance back to the U.S. This experiment also resulted in a reusable spacecraft that will service our critical national asset—the ISS. 

One of the central tenets of the COTS program is that public-private partnerships 

leverage private capital to supplement government dollars, yielding products and 

services more cost-effectively and more rapidly. In pursuing its mission to create 

‘‘new commercial space transportation systems and demonstrate capabilities to pro-
43 

1 NASA COTS video, www.nasa.gov 

2 NASA independently verified SpaceX’s total development costs of both the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 at approximately $390 million in the aggregate ($300 million for Falcon 9; $90 million 

for Falcon 1). NASA, Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle NAFCOM Cost Estimates, August 2011. 

vide cost-effective transportation services to orbit,’’ NASA’s COTS office granted its 

partners ‘‘latitude to freely innovate and optimize their launch vehicle and spacecraft designs and operations.’’ 1

That latitude fostered SpaceX’s ability to focus on safe, simple, proven designs 

that are cost-effective. As a result, SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 rocket for a fraction of the cost NASA would have paid under a traditional acquisition model. 

NASA’s internal studies using the NASA–Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) concluded that it would have cost NASA $1.7B to $4B to develop the Falcon 9 rocket. 

By contrast, in partnership with NASA’s COTS program, SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 for approximately $300M. 2 It bears noting that the Falcon 9’s development 

included designing, building and testing SpaceX’s Merlin engine, the first new allAmerican hydrocarbon engine for an orbital booster in forty years. 

Likewise, SpaceX developed the Dragon spacecraft—a free-flying, reusable spacecraft—from a clean sheet of paper to the first demonstration flight in just over four 

years for about $300 million. 

a. SpaceX’s COTS Flight Success and Upcoming Launch 

In June of last year, SpaceX performed a successful demonstration launch of the 

Falcon 9 on its maiden voyage. Then, on December 8, 2010, SpaceX successfully 

launched the Falcon 9 with the Dragon spacecraft, becoming the first commercial 

company in history to launch, reenter and successfully recover a spacecraft from 

Earth orbit. SpaceX’s COTS demonstration mission blasted off from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral. The Falcon 9 lofted the Dragon to orbit where it twice 

circled the Earth and then reentered the Earth’s atmosphere, splashing down safely 

in the Pacific Ocean. Until late last year, launching, orbiting, reentering and recovering a spacecraft was a feat previously performed by only six nations or government agencies: the United States, Russia, China, Japan, India and the European 

Space Agency. NASA’s expert advice and mentorship throughout the development 

process helped SpaceX build upon 50 years of U.S. space achievements to reach this 

goal. 

In preparation for the next COTS demonstration mission, which is set to occur 

in the next few months, the Dragon spacecraft design has been upgraded to meet 

all requirements for ferrying cargo to and from the ISS, including the proximity operations sensors to guide the vehicle safely near the ISS. This mission will be an 

extended mission to the ISS, lasting more than three weeks. Consequently, two 

solar array wings have been added to the Dragon trunk to enable positive power 

generation throughout the flight. Additionally, a redundant active thermal control 

system loop has been installed in the Dragon trunk to reject excess heat into space; 

protect the spacecraft from excessively hot or cold temperatures; and provide an environment inside the spacecraft that is acceptable for cargo and for the ISS crew 

when berthed to station. 

In accordance with our COTS milestones, a series of tests have been conducted 

on the fully integrated Dragon spacecraft, including a 12-day thermal vacuum test 

during which, the entire avionics system was exercised while flowing telemetry 24/ 

7. (No notable issues were uncovered and the thermal data matched model predictions closely.) 

Dragon’s proximity sensors are critical for the ISS approach and have been put 

through extensive performance testing in open loop and closed loop simulation using 

flight hardware and software. Significant testing emphasis has also been placed on 

the new Dragon mechanisms, which have all completed qualification testing. These 

mechanisms include the forward hatch, solar arrays, guidance, navigation and controls (GNC) bay door that exposes the Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture (FRGF) 

and a claw that provides electrical and data connections between the capsule and 

trunk. 

Several joint SpaceX–NASA tests have been completed, including the Passive 

Common Berthing Mechanism (PCBM) testing and cabin acoustic noise verification. 

Most recently, the vehicle completed radiation testing of all avionics components 

and an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) test in keeping with NASA requirements. 

We are rapidly progressing toward the next COTS demonstration flight and are 

still engaged with NASA to finalize vehicle verifications and the mission plan. This 

next COTS mission represents a huge milestone not only for SpaceX, but also for 

NASA, the U.S. space program and American free enterprise. When the astronauts 
44 

stationed on the ISS open the hatch and enter the Dragon spacecraft for the first 

time, it will mark the beginning of a new era in space travel. 

b. Commonality between Cargo Falcon 9/Dragon and Crew Falcon 9/ 

Dragon 

SpaceX conceived the Falcon 9 and Dragon with crew carriage in mind and undertook designs from inception to meet human certification requirements, including increased structural factors of safety, triple-redundant avionics, trajectories with acceleration limits within human safety limits, and many others. Because SpaceX 

planned for the current cargo Dragon to evolve into a crew version, many of the 

Dragon’s systems are identical in the cargo and crew versions. In fact, Dragon was 

designed to meet NASA’s human engineering safety requirements in SSP 50808 because the cargo Dragon will fly in close proximity to the ISS, berth with the ISS 

and support on-orbit crew habitation during cargo transfer operations. 

Designed to be as safe as possible from a clean sheet in 2005, the Dragon crew 

transportation system takes advantage of 21st century technology advances and lessons learned throughout the history of human spaceflight. The Dragon spacecraft 

is comprised of three main elements: the Nosecone, which protects the vessel and 

the docking adaptor during ascent; the Spacecraft, which houses the crew and/or 

pressurized cargo as well as the service section containing avionics, the Reaction 

Control System (RCS), parachutes and other support infrastructure; and the Trunk, 

which provides for the stowage of unpressurized cargo and will support Dragon’s 

solar arrays and thermal radiators. 

As a result of the commonality between the cargo and crew versions of Dragon, 

many of the critical components of the Dragon crew transportation system are already operational and flight-proven. Other systems for crew accommodation require 

some development, but the only major development is for the launch abort system. 

This commonality enables SpaceX to plan for crew demonstration flights in 2014, 

with a rapid transition to operational capability. 

c. Lessons Learned from the COTS Program Model 

The NASA–SpaceX COTS partnership has successfully enabled and promoted genuine innovation while maintaining safety and reliability standards. The COTS program helped guide the development of Dragon and Falcon 9 to pass a set of specific 

requirements and verifications required for any ISS visiting vehicle, but left the design and aspects of analysis and testing largely to the contractor. This allowed for 

rapid prototyping and design iterations in which components could be designed, 

tested, modified and retested, often times in a matter of hours. And NASA could 

be confident in the final design because all design and test data were available for 

review. Also critical for innovation was the fact that decisions about ‘‘how to meet 

the requirements’’ were generally left to the contractor. Rather the critical metric 

was that the requirement was clearly met. I note here that specificity as to how to 

meet requirements is inherently prescriptive and often results in less innovation. 

Safety and reliability standards have been maintained through insight into the 

entire system design and insight and oversight into safety critical systems. Systems 

that interface with the ISS are thoroughly reviewed by independent contractors, 

NASA employees providing regular and ongoing support, formal NASA panels and 

other subject matter experts. These safety-critical systems are also subject to strict 

requirements and verifications that ensure they will function as intended. 

Overall, this teaming approach with NASA has proven invaluable. NASA has a 

wide array of resources and deep technical expertise that was generally made available in a partnership approach. Testing facilities, analyses, subject matter experts 

and a host of other contributions helped solve difficult technical problems, improve 

the safety and robustness of vehicle and help advance innovative approaches. 

II. Commercial Crew Development Efforts: CCDev2 and Flight by 2014 

The goal of SpaceX’s crew transportation system is to safely and reliably transport 

up to seven crew members from our launch pad on Cape Canaveral to the ISS, dwell 

on the ISS for up to 210 days and return the same number of crew safely to Earth. 

A two-stage, liquid oxygen and kerosene launch vehicle, the Falcon 9 possesses robust reliability features. The nine SpaceX Merlin engines that power Falcon 9’s first 

stage provide engine-out reliability from liftoff—a feature not offered by the Russian 

Soyuz—and the engine’s turbopumps run at lower pressure, making them more resistant to failure from foreign object debris (FOD) ingestion. The Dragon offers improved avionics redundancy and failure tolerance compared to Soyuz’s single gyroscope and accelerometer. 

SpaceX selected the Dragon design so that it would be naturally stable entering 

the earth’s atmosphere, thereby maximizing the chances of a safe return to Earth 
45 

even in the event of the vehicle’s control systems’ total failure. Other features vital 

to the cargo Dragon’s ability to safely reenter Earth’s atmosphere, such as the 

PICA–X heat shield, are already integrated into the Dragon capsule and will gain 

significant flight heritage during the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) missions. 

In the coming years, SpaceX will collect significant data and experience on the 

Falcon 9 and Dragon system from upcoming COTS and future CRS missions. Specifically, the Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 launch vehicle are currently scheduled 

to fly together at least eight more times before a crew demonstration in 2014. The 

Falcon 9 itself is scheduled to launch a total of 14 missions prior to the first Dragon 

crew mission. The commonality between the cargo and crew versions of Dragon allows for significant end-to-end flight heritage and operational experience to be 

gained on critical functions—including launch, navigation and control, thermal protection, thermal control, power generation and distribution, avionics, software, entry 

guidance and recovery—well before the first crew flight. The avionics hardware is 

highly scalable, allowing SpaceX to significantly leverage the architecture tested 

and proven on cargo missions for use on crew missions. 

Crew transport launch operations are similar to our cargo transportation launch 

operations inasmuch as they will take advantage of the safety, reliability and availability benefits of the ‘‘aircraft-like’’ operations of the Falcon 9. For example, fullstage static fire tests, similar to an aircraft ground run-up, are performed prior to 

each launch. During terminal countdown, the Falcon 9 throttles up to full power before being released for liftoff, allowing anomalies during engine startup to be safely 

mitigated. The Falcon 9 can support multiple full-thrust static fires and engine 

aborts without need for refurbishment, allowing for true ‘‘test-like-you-fly’’ operations. Additionally, Falcon 9 avionics support hardware-in-the-loop testing to prove 

out flight software in the actual flight hardware configuration. 

a. CCDev 2: the Criticality of Launch Abort Systems 

Under NASA’s Commercial Crew Development II (CCDev 2) program, SpaceX has 

opted to focus on accelerating the development of an efficient, life-saving launch 

abort system (LAS). SpaceX’s crew Dragon includes an integrated LAS, which we 

believe will yield numerous safety and performance benefits. The Dragon’s LAS is 

carried through orbit and reentry, with the abort systems available for use throughout the time the Dragon is boosted into space. Carrying the abort system all the 

way into orbit also eliminates the jettison of the abort system as a required event 

for the safe completion of a nominal mission. 

SpaceX is further addressing launch vehicle malfunction detection and initiation 

of automated aborts as well as developing the necessary LAS engine hardware to 

implement such a design. This development will culminate in a series of engine 

tests to demonstrate safety, reliability, maximum thrust, minimum thrust, throttling capability, throttling rate and specific impulse. 

The Dragon LAS is a vehicle-integrated, side-mounted engine system selected for 

its safety, reliability and performance after a system-level analysis conducted by 

SpaceX. Eight abort engines (known as SuperDracos because they are modified 

versions of Dragon’s existing Draco thrusters) are located around the periphery of 

the Dragon service section and fed by hypergolic propellant stored in the spacecraft 

propellant tanks. SuperDracos will carry the spacecraft away from the booster and 

are capable of separating the Dragon crew spacecraft from a failing booster while 

on the pad all the way through nominal on-orbit separation of Dragon from the second stage. 

The LAS will be enabled after crew ingress and securing on the pad and will be 

disabled on orbit after Dragon separation from the second stage. The launch vehicle 

malfunction detection system for automatic abort will monitor the Falcon 9 and 

Dragon for engine failures, flight control failure, failure of the booster propellant 

tank and failure of the booster’s primary structure, among other signatures. 

Abort responses will be determined by failure(s) detected and the phase of flight, 

in order to maximize survivability. For example, a significantly off-nominal change 

in tank pressure while the vehicle is on the pad may result in an instantaneous 

high-acceleration abort, while a performance-related failure of the second-stage engine during ascent may result in a delayed abort until ideal entry conditions are 

met, a pre-abort shutdown of the second-stage engine and a low-acceleration abort 

profile. 

Ultimately, this technology, research, design and intellectual effort are about one 

thing: protecting human life. No one has summed it up better than Garrett 

Reisman, former astronaut and one of the heads of development for the Dragon LAS 

at SpaceX, who said, ‘‘We are not going to design a vehicle that I wouldn’t strap 

myself or my friends into.’’ 
46 

b. CCDev 2: Successes To Date and Approach Going Forward 

To date, SpaceX has successfully completed four of the ten milestones in our CCDev2 Space Act Agreement (SAA) for a total of $40M of the $75M under SpaceX’s 

CCDev2 agreement. The first three milestones included a detailed program plan roll 

out, LAS propulsion Conceptual Design Review, Design Status Review and LAS 

Components Preliminary Design Review (PDR). In successfully meeting those milestones on schedule and on budget, SpaceX provided NASA with comprehensive Falcon 9/Dragon crew systems concept design insight including cabin layout, seat design, space suit design, life support system design, abort scenarios, concepts for the 

launch abort system, ground systems, abort trajectories, aerodynamics of ascent and 

entry and mass margins. The Design Status Review provided an opportunity for 

SpaceX to work with both NASA and industry teammates as partners and make desired crew systems design concept changes after peer review and feedback on the 

system-level designs and concepts. 

With regards to the LAS components PDR, our most recently completed milestone, SpaceX engineers demonstrated to NASA’s satisfaction that the maturity of 

the LAS propulsion components design is appropriate to support proceeding with detailed design, fabrication, assembly, integration and test of LAS propulsion components test articles. We also provided evidence that the LAS propulsion design meets 

all system requirements with acceptable risk and can be developed within schedule. 

Going forward, milestones will include abort engine fabrication and testing and 

further maturation of the vehicle system design and concept of operations. In addition, design and construction of a test facility for the launch abort engine is underway at the SpaceX rocket test facility in McGregor, Texas. The remaining hardware 

milestones will culminate in all key launch abort system propulsion components undergoing initial fluid and environmental development testing. Here, the 

SuperDracos will be hot-fire tested for a full duration. We will also demonstrate 

throttle capability, which is essential for abort maneuvers. 

With respect to the crew systems design efforts, SpaceX will incorporate feedback 

from NASA and industry partners, present safety and mission assurance studies 

and provide a draft of the Vehicle Certification Plan (the path forward for getting 

crew flights certified by NASA). SpaceX is also investing in two self-funded milestones for crew cabin development with engineering prototypes of the cabin layout 

including seats where NASA astronaut trials will provide feedback on cockpit design. 

c. CCDev 2: Designing Crew Accommodations for the Dragon 

In parallel with the design and development work on the launch abort system engine and components, SpaceX is working on the design of other systems necessary 

to carry astronauts in the Dragon spacecraft. These systems include seats, 

spacesuits, an environmental control and life support system, displays and controls 

and ground systems. 

SpaceX is designing the Dragon to carry seven crewmembers seated in two rows. 

The seats will be conformal and a mechanical force accommodation system will 

cushion any off-nominal landing impacts to assure crew safety. The crew will wear 

spacesuits to protect them from any rapid cabin depressurization emergency event. 

The suits will be rated for operation at vacuum and provide communication and 

cooling systems. 

The Dragon environmental control and life support systems will provide the crew 

with fresh air ventilation, remove carbon dioxide and control humidity and cabin 

pressure. Fire detection and suppression systems will protect the crew in the event 

of an emergency. Accommodations will be provided for food preparation and waste 

disposal. 

During the span of the CCDev2 SAA, SpaceX is completing preliminary designs 

on modifications to our launch pad and mission control center to be ready to fly astronauts. The launch pad will have a new tower and access arm to allow crew to 

enter the Dragon and egress quickly in the event of a launch pad emergency. Mission control will have a new console position for a flight surgeon for human missions. 

In addition to these crew vehicle systems, the operation of the vehicle for nominal, 

contingency and emergency situations is being outlined for all phases of flight. A 

crew cabin mock-up is being constructed to allow NASA astronauts to evaluate crew 

accommodations and other human factors considerations. We are conducting preliminary designs for crew display and manual control hardware. The detailed operation of the launch abort system is also being characterized by defining abort modes, 

triggering events and abort trajectories. Finally, the safety and mission assurance 

analyses are being evaluated with the goal of ensuring that the Dragon and Falcon 

9 vehicle will achieve a level of safety better than any human spacecraft ever flown. 
47 

This work on crew accommodations, along with the design and development of the 

launch abort system, as part of NASA’s CCDev2 program will result in a preliminary design of all the upgrades necessary to convert the cargo Dragon spacecraft 

and Falcon 9 into a certified crew transportation system. 

d. Critical Design Review-level Development 

Each flight of the Falcon 9 and cargo Dragon to the ISS brings us one step closer 

to flying astronauts to the ISS. Each of these flights will demonstrate many of the 

common elements between the cargo vehicle and the crew vehicle. Ultimately, the 

Falcon 9 will be one hundred percent common as between the cargo and crew vehicles. Therefore, though there is much work ahead, SpaceX already is beyond a Critical Design Review (CDR) equivalent level of maturity—and even into the production phase—with respect to many aspects of the vehicle system. This includes the 

main propulsion systems, structures, thermal protection systems (including the 

Dragon heat shield), power generation systems, altitude control, on-orbit propulsion 

systems, thermal control systems and GNC systems. 

Crew-related modifications that have yet to reach a CDR-equivalent level of maturity include the remaining work on the launch abort system. The most significant 

remaining milestones will be full-scale pad abort and max-drag abort flight tests. 

In addition, crew displays and controls, a voice communication system, cabin layout 

and seats, space suits, environmental control and life support systems, launch pad 

and control center modifications, final approach guidance and control and the docking system will need to be matured to a CDR-equivalent level. The most significant 

remaining technical milestones for these systems will be human-in-the-loop testing 

of the environmental control and life support systems and spacesuits as well as static and dynamic testing of the seats and other mechanisms. 

Beyond the launch abort system and crew accommodations, SpaceX’s efforts to 

transport crews aboard Dragon also require additional ground facilities and crew 

training equipment. These would support flight crew training for nominal, off-nominal and emergency conditions. Full-scale spacecraft mock-ups may be required for 

training. Launch Control and Mission Control teams will be certified as planned for 

other Falcon 9 and Dragon missions, including joint operations training with NASA 

Mission Control Center—Houston (MCC–H). The launch pad will also be modified 

to include gantry access for nominal ingress/egress and emergency egress of crew 

and pad support team. 

e. SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon vs. Russian Soyuz 

The Russian Soyuz is an unquestionably capable vehicle with significant flight 

heritage. Indeed, SpaceX has benefited from lessons learned from Soyuz operations 

and predecessor spacecraft. That said, we do not intend to duplicate the capabilities 

of Soyuz, but to improve upon them. Critically, the Dragon will have the capability 

to transport up to seven crew members to the ISS—four more astronauts than 

Soyuz. Further, the Dragon has the capability to carry additional unpressurized 

cargo to the ISS as well as the capability to return cargo from the ISS—areas in 

which the Soyuz is highly limited. 

Additionally, the Dragon and Falcon 9 offer several safety improvements relative 

to the Soyuz, including: 

• modern electronic control systems and computers; 

• improved redundancy in the automatic control system; 

• simpler and safer egress from the vehicle during an emergency on the launch 

pad; 

• improved data displays for ascent and entry; 

• capability for the crew to initiate an abort during the launch phase of the mission; 

• capability for the crew to initiate the deploy of the landing parachutes; 

• first stage engine out capability; and 

• NASA insight into design, testing and production (NASA has limited insight to 

the Soyuz rocket design as well as limited access to the production facilities for 

the spacecraft and the rocket). 

One of the largest safety distinctions between the Falcon 9 and Dragon system 

over the Soyuz transport system is the reduction in separation events—failure of 

separation events is one of the most common events leading to mission failures of 

space systems. The Soyuz launcher and spacecraft must release four side-mounted 

booster modules, the second stage, the third stage, the launch escape tower, fairing, 

propulsion module and habitation module prior to the point where the crew can 

enter safely in the Soyuz descent module. For the Dragon and Falcon 9, there are 

only four separation events which must occur prior to the Dragon’s entry: separation 
48 

of the first stage, second stage, external cargo module or trunk and for a nominal 

mission separation of the nose fairing. 

III. Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract Proposal 

NASA’s recently issued draft request for proposals (DRFP) for the Commercial 

Crew Integrated Design Contract (CCIDC) has incorporated key features critical to 

facilitate successful commercial partnerships. SpaceX appreciates the fact that the 

contract will be firm fixed-price and milestone-based; includes cost sharing with 

fixed government investment; and waives cost and pricing data requirements inherent in certain Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract formulations. 

SpaceX has offered NASA several suggestions to improve the DRFP and the subsequent contract implementation. Those suggestions focus on resolving certain key 

technical issues prior to contract award; focusing NASA approval authority with respect to design, development and test activities; placing a greater emphasis on development and test activities; and defining an insight plan that creates a teaming 

relationship between NASA and the contractor. 

The DRFP indicates that several documents, including any proposed alternative 

technical standards, the integrated system baseline review (ISBR) and integrated 

critical design review (ICDR) plans, and the project management plan, are to be provided as drafts or initial documents at the time the proposal is submitted. All of 

these documents will have significant cost and schedule impacts and the technical 

standards will also drive the design of the vehicle. However, the final versions of 

these documents will not be approved until after the contract is signed. This timing 

makes it difficult to know exactly what commitments a contractor is making in its 

bid response. This concern can be easily addressed by having these key documents 

agreed to prior to signing the CCIDC contract. 

SpaceX has found that the COTS and CRS public-private partnership approach 

with NASA combines and capitalizes on the strengths of both partners. The requirements in this DRFP have the potential to mitigate the proven benefits of this approach by exponentially increasing NASA’s involvement in design, development and 

testing. 

SpaceX has also suggested that insight personnel be teammates. According to the 

DRFP, the NASA insight team is to be given full access to the contractor’s activities 

while being specifically precluded from providing any NASA resources (services, 

technical expertise, or access to Government property) to the contractor. As a result, 

the insight team is tasked to ‘‘audit and report’’ and thus becomes a second oversight team. Instead of an ‘‘audit and report’’ model, given successes witnessed under 

the interactions to date on the COTS and CRS programs, we propose that we work 

together as partners to a larger degree. 

IV. The Commercial Space Market 

At present, SpaceX has over forty flights on manifest, representing approximately 

$3.5 billion in revenues from the U.S. government, commercial and international 

business customers. NASA missions represent approximately 40 percent of those 

flights. Our ability to compete successfully in the domestic and international commercial market demonstrates the long-term viability of our business model and allows us to keep our costs to the U.S. taxpayer low. 

SpaceX currently has the lowest launch prices in the world and, as noted by a 

Chinese government official earlier this year, even the Chinese do not believe they 

can beat them. Although our prices shatter the historical cost models of governmentled developments, they are not arbitrary or premised on capturing a dominant share 

of the market, nor are they ‘‘teaser’’ rates meant to lure in an eager market only 

to be increased later. SpaceX’s prices are based on known costs and a demonstrated 

track record and exemplify the potential of America’s commercial space industry. 

Critically, as the provider of an end-to-end solution for crewed missions, with our 

own manufacturing of the launcher and the spacecraft, and with the provision of 

all launch and recovery operations, SpaceX is uniquely positioned relative to competitors with respect to the impact of sales of commercial crew missions on the overall business. Each NASA purchase of our crewed capabilities complements our 

booster sales and production because the Falcon 9 will be the same for satellite carriage, cargo carriage, and ultimately crew carriage. Moreover, the commonality of 

features between our cargo Dragon and crewed Dragon likewise speaks to the economies of scale that we can achieve with spacecraft production and operations, maximizing efficiencies and driving down costs for the consumer. This is a key 

differentiator as between SpaceX and others when considering the commercial 

human spaceflight market. 
49 

3 NASA. Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems Pursuant to Section 403 

of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–267), p.12, April 27, 2011. 4 Ibid. 

However, as to the commercial human spaceflight market alone (taking into account the concept above that this market ties directly to the other well-known markets), NASA is the primary market driver for launching human beings into space. 

NASA is currently purchasing those services on the commercial market from Russia, 

the only currently available supplier. As a Nation, we are paying too a high price 

for those services—currently $56M per seat—due to the lack of competition and supply. 

There is ample evidence of a demand for spaceflight beyond NASA, though it has 

yet to emerge as a substantial operational secondary market. In the past decade, 

seven individuals bought eight very expensive tickets to fly to the ISS on a Russian 

Soyuz. That may not seem like much, but even as prices dramatically increased 

since Dennis Tito first flew back in 2001, every seat available for sale has been sold. 

No tickets have been sold for the past two years because Russia is providing one 

hundred percent of their Soyuz capacity to serve the ISS partnerships. This evidence ratifies our view that offering seats for half or a third of the Soyuz price will 

expand the human spaceflight market. Moreover, alternative low-earth destinations 

such as the Bigelow space modules provide another strong market opportunity. 

Non-spacefaring nations are also interested in space access. Between 1978 and 

2010, ninety-six astronauts from thirty-one nations without indigenous spaceflight 

capabilities traveled into orbit. 3 According to NASA’s Commercial Market Assessment, there is a desire among other countries ‘‘to send astronauts into space to perform scientific research, acquire technical knowledge, and increase national prestige.’’ 4

Further market potential also exists in the United States. The ISS is America’s 

national laboratory in space and like all laboratories its productivity depends on 

how many scientists can visit the lab, conduct their experiments and return to their 

public or private enterprises. NASA currently bases astronauts at the ISS for six 

months. That limitation is based on how many Soyuz capsules are produced each 

year, how long the Soyuz is rated to last on orbit and the high price of Soyuz seats. 

The ISS can actually support seven crew members once we have a better crew 

rescue capability. Commercial crew will deliver that capability. Should the U.S. 

space industry lower the cost to between $20 and $30 million per seat, it will be 

possible for research scientists to visit the ISS for shorter periods of time, conduct 

dedicated research and return to Earth. Less costly, more regular access to ISS will 

enable more scientists to do more research in the same amount of time, with the 

same amount of dollars. 

Overall, SpaceX’s business model is based on a diverse customer base that spans 

multiple markets. We have increased the U.S. share of the commercial space launch 

market since we started competing for and winning launches in 2008. For the first 

time in more than three decades, America last year began taking back international 

market-share in commercial satellite launch. Whereas in 1980, one-hundred percent 

of commercial launches took place from within the United States; last year, it was 

less than twelve percent. NASA’s and SpaceX’s efforts and investments are bringing 

critical launch revenue back to the U.S. and will bring thousands of jobs with it. 

This remarkable turn-around was sparked by the investment NASA made in 

SpaceX in 2006 as part of COTS. By leveraging private funding with federal investment, controlling our costs and developing a diverse customer base, we are able to 

offer competitive pricing to our commercial and government customers. Safe, reliable and affordable transportation of cargo and astronauts to low Earth orbit by an 

American company will keep jobs in the United States; eliminate reliance on Russia 

to support the ISS; and providing significant taxpayer savings that instead can be 

invested in what NASA does best: pursuing the next frontier. 

Mr. Chairman, I am honored by your invitation to provide testimony today. 

Through continued public-private partnerships like the one that helped develop the 

Falcon 9 and Dragon system, commercial companies will transform the way we access space. Together, government and the private sector can simultaneously increase 

the reliability, safety and frequency of space travel, while greatly reducing the costs. 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Development Program has the potential to be the most 

fiscally responsible means to rapidly advance American human spaceflight. To date, 

it has protected taxpayer dollars with fixed-price, pay-for-performance contracts. It 

has forced companies to compete on safety, reliability, capability and cost. And it 

leverages private investment—making taxpayer dollars go further. 

Chairman HALL. Sir, I thank you. 
50 

I now recognize our fourth witness on the panel, Mr. Charlie 

Precourt of ATK. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES PRECOURT, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS GROUP, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH 

Colonel PRECOURT. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson 

and Members of the Committee, thank you so much for allowing 

me to present our plans at ATK for commercial crew and our Liberty launch vehicle. 

Liberty is a launch vehicle capable of lifting any of the crewed 

spacecraft that are currently under consideration with margin to 

the ISS orbit. We believe that Liberty is an innovative way to support the ISS because it leverages significant prior investments in 

NASA shuttle and Constellation programs as well as the European 

space agency’s RN–5 launcher. 

To give you an easier reference as to what makes up Liberty, I 

have a short video that lays out the system. Mr. Chairman, if you 

would allow me, I would share that video. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the recoupment of upfront investments is a significant factor for us, so we have chosen to use 

and leverage significant elements from both the space shuttle, as 

you see here, the booster forms the first stage of Liberty and the 

work that went into Constellation to provide the five-segment 

booster is going to be leveraged here as well. From Ariane, we 

chose the core element of that vehicle, which is a liquid hydrogen/ 

liquid oxygen stage which matches very nicely in terms of performance and suitability to create the Liberty vehicle concept. The design, as I mentioned, can carry any of the spaceflight currently 

under consideration with margin. The vehicle has 44,500 pounds of 

performance to the space station’s orbit. 

The first-stage propulsion system benefits from many, many 

years of flight on the space shuttle, where we realized 221 successful flight operations, and the Constellation program was further 

evolved with improvements in materials, processing and increased 

safety. In the current configuration that you see here, this was the 

development motor test of the five-segment motor. It produces 3.7 

million pounds of thrust. The upper stage is derived from the 

Ariane 5 vehicle, which is used by the European space agency to 

launch the cargo module, the ATV, to the ISS for the Europeans’ 

contribution. Here is that stage being assembled in its vertical assembly building. It uses the Vulcain-2 engine, 46 consecutive successful flights. The Ariane-5 enjoys the lowest premiums for insurance of any launcher on the planet for commercial satellite operations. 

Launch operations likewise will leverage activities at the Kennedy Space Center facilities that are already in place, again, minimizing the upfront investment for major elements. As a matter of 

fact, from a business case standpoint, the ongoing remaining investment has to do with the integration of the two elements so that 

they can fly together. We have made significant progress on the 

Liberty program over the past year and a half and are continuing 

under an unfunded Space Act agreement with NASA. Liberty was 

first proposed at a firm fixed price for NASA under their CCDev2 

solicitation, and although NASA ultimately chose in that competi-
51 

tion to fund only the spacecraft providers, we are very pleased and 

honored that NASA rated Liberty very high in both business and 

technical merits. Only two of the 18 proposals submitted were 

rated better. 

The Liberty focuses foremost on achieving the maximum possible 

levels of safety for our astronauts. We believe Liberty is the safest, 

most cost-effective launch vehicle design available and is fully compliant with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. One such recommendation was to lower the complexity of the launch vehicle and reduce the number of failure 

points. Liberty draws its safety rating from a simple design with 

an absolute minimum number of moving parts. A Valador study 

earlier this year showed that Liberty was more than 10 times safer 

than shuttle and even safer than the Ares I design because it uses 

established stages. The integrated vehicle today has passed its systems design review and is approaching preliminary design review. 

We are approximately one year to critical design review given adequate funding. 

Challenges going forward include adequate funding as an adequate funding profile is required. In the case of Liberty, because it 

leverages flight-proven elements, much of the development is complete and the amount of necessary government funding is in fact 

quite modest. The infusion of outside capital is available to Liberty 

but awaits customer endorsement of the value proposition that Liberty presents. As a result, working on an unfunded Space Act 

agreement has slowed our milestone plans towards Liberty’s first 

flight test. 

Additionally, I offer a thought about strategy from an acquisition 

standpoint in the government-private industry partnerships. When 

NASA chose to fund only spaceflight in CCDev2, it placed a higher 

burden on the launch vehicle providers, and from a human rating 

standpoint, launcher development is more challenging than the 

spaceflight development because the preponderance of risk to the 

crew during launch, which must be mitigated, emanates from the 

launch vehicle. Therefore, we believe and suggest that in NASA’s 

acquisition strategy, it would benefit significantly from a greater 

investment on the launcher side of the equation than has been 

made to date. The August failure of the Russian Soyuz launcher attempting to deliver progress cargo to the ISS serves to underscore 

this point. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and commend the Committee for your attention to safety in fielding the next-generation 

system. In the NASA Authorization Act, you asked that the certification requirements be at least equivalent to the requirements of 

crew transportation currently in use as well as adherent to any relevant recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation 

Board. As a former astronaut and Chief of the Astronaut Office 

who personally selected the crew of Columbia, I believe we are capable today of an order of magnitude improvement in spaceflight 

safety, and I am also confident that striving continuously to 

achieve the maximum possible levels of crew safety in our human 

spaceflight systems will pay the biggest dividends in the long run. 

I truly appreciate the opportunity to introduce our Liberty system to you today. The system is available in the near term with 
52 

a test flight possible within three years. Liberty offers a great opportunity to foster the next level of cooperation between Europe 

and the United States while reinstating and sustaining our access 

to the ISS. I believe that Liberty is a cost-effective solution posed 

to ensure America’s commercial crew program is safe, robust and 

enduring. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Precourt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLIE PRECOURT, VICE PRESIDENT, ATK LAUNCH

SYSTEMS GROUP, BRIGHAM CITY, UT 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Chairman HALL. And we thank you. 

I now recognize our, it says here final witness. I don’t like the 

word ‘‘final’’ at my age. I will just say we will recognize the fifth 

witness of the first panel, Dr. George Sowers, to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE SOWERS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 

Dr. SOWERS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA’S 

Commercial Crew Program. My name is George Sowers and I am 

the Vice President of United Launch Alliance. I don’t have a video 

but I have spent my career designing, developing, building and 

launching rockets and was the Chief System Engineer for the Atlas 

V development. 

The formation of the United Launch Alliance in 2006 brought together the launch industry’s two most experienced and successful 

launch vehicle teams and two of its most dependable launch vehicles families, the Atlas and the Delta. Our history spans over 1,300 

successful space launches including the launch of John Glenn, the 

first American to orbit the earth. 

Since formation, we have conducted 54 launches, almost one a 

month, with 100 percent mission success. We are entrusted with 

delivering the Nation’s most critical payloads to support the war 

fighter, the intelligence community and national decision makers. 

Within the last year, we successfully completed the most ambitious 

launch campaign in the history of the National Reconnaissance Office, putting up five nearly priceless satellites in seven months. We 

are currently in the midst of an unprecedented launch campaign of 

five NASA science missions in six months. So far we have successfully launched the Aquarius spacecraft, the Juno spacecraft to Jupiter, and the Grail spacecraft to the moon. Within the next week, 

we will launch the NPOESS Preparatory Project and we will finish 

up the year with the launch of NASA’s Mars Science Lab, an SUVsized rover powered by a nuclear battery that may discover the 

first signs of life on that planet. 

United Launch Alliance strongly supports Congress’s and 

NASA’s efforts to develop a commercial crew capability. In my 

mind, there are three main reasons for the Nation to invest in commercial crew and together they form a compelling argument. 

First, the Nation needs this capability. Now that the shuttle is 

retired, our Nation is wholly dependent on the Russians to transport our own crews to and from the ISS. Currently, the government 

of Russia is NASA’s sixth largest contractor receiving over $350 

million per year. The recent Soyuz failure reminds us that the very 

existence of the ISS is now in jeopardy and that we are reliant on 

a single, fragile lifeline that we have little insight into or control 

over. 

Second, the private sector has the expertise to provide safe and 

affordable crew transportation. The private sector can bring efficiencies and development and operations spurred by competition 

unobtainable in a government-owned and -operated system. In 

ULA’s case, NASA can take advantage of the investments we have 
62 

already made, the rockets that are already flying in synergy with 

other users of our rockets like the DOD and NASA science. 

The third reason is to stimulate and to promote commercial 

human spaceflight. As an example, my good friend, Bob Bigelow, 

is a visionary with a dream of a fleet of private space stations, but 

Bob needs a safe and affordable transportation system. NASA is in 

a unique position to create a transportation system that can address the Nation’s needs while also providing opportunities for 

American entrepreneurs like Bob. NASA shouldn’t count on this 

new market but will benefit substantially if it does develop. 

Through NASA’s investments in the Commercial Crew Development Program, the private sector is making great progress in developing a crew delivery capability. United Launch Alliance is 

proud to have been chosen by three of the four CCDev contractors, 

Sierra Nevada, Blue Origin and Boeing, to provide launch services 

using the Atlas V launch system. The Atlas program as a whole 

has a record of 98 consecutive successes, the best in the world. The 

Atlas V has launched 27 times with 100 percent mission success. 

It is the only rocket in its class certified by NASA to launch category 3 missions such as Juno and the Mars Science Lab, and it 

is the only rocket in the world certified to launch nuclear payloads. 

The next step for Atlas is to launch humans. If NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is to be successful, every effort must be undertaken to ensure the highest possible level of safety and reliability. 

Under an unfunded Space Act agreement with NASA, we are conducting a comprehensive assessment of the Atlas design against 

NASA’s stringent human certification requirements. This entails a 

part-by-part, system-by-system review of the design, analysis and 

test pedigree of the Atlas. 

We are also making excellent progress on the relatively few 

modifications required to accommodate human launch. These include the development of the emergency detection system that will 

provide a signal to the spacecraft to abort if a launch vehicle failure is imminent. 

Looking to the future, we believe NASA’s recently announced 

plans for the Commercial Crew Integrated Development Contract 

strikes the right balance between a commercial approach to delivering innovation and affordability and the appropriate level of certification and oversight necessary to ensure safety. The importance 

of insight and rigorous certification has been highlighted by the recent Soyuz failure. For new, unproven vehicles, this rigor is mandatory in addition to establishing a track record of demonstrated and 

repeatable success. With adequate funding, Atlas could be ready to 

support test flights in 2014 and operational flights in 2015. 

In conclusion, we strongly believe NASA’s commercial crew program is vital to extend our Nation’s leadership in human 

spaceflight. American industry represented by the companies here 

today has the expertise and experience to create safe and affordable crew access to the ISS and potentially stimulate an entire new 

economic sector. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sowers follows:] 
63 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE SOWERS, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED LAUNCH

ALLIANCE, ENGLEWOOD, CO 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear today to discuss NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. My name is George 

Sowers and I am the Vice President of Business Development and Advanced Programs for United Launch Alliance. I was educated as a physicist but have spent my 

career designing, developing, building and launching rockets. I was the chief systems engineer for the development of the Atlas V rocket. 

Introduction 

My company, the United Launch Alliance, LLC was formed in 2006. ULA’s heritage reaches back 50 years to the beginnings of the space age and human spaceflight. 

The formation of ULA brought together the launch industry’s two most experienced 

and successful launch vehicle teams and two of its most dependable launch vehicle 

families, the Atlas and the Delta. Our history spans over 1300 successful space 

launches including historic achievements as a part of the nation’s first two human 

spaceflight programs, Mercury and Gemini. At the height of the space race, it was 

an Atlas rocket that launched John Glenn into orbit and America into a proud space 

future. Since then, we’ve delivered payloads with unprecedented reliability and unparalleled performance—helping America become the world’s leading space-faring 

nation. 

Our current customers are the Department of Defense, the National Reconnaissance Office, NASA, and commercial satellite system providers. ULA was formed to 

provide the highest reliability launch services to these customers while lowering cost 

through the consolidation of infrastructure. 

Since its formation nearly five years ago, ULA has conducted 54 launches, almost 

one a month, with 100% mission success. ULA is entrusted with safely delivering 

the nation’s most critical missions to support the warfighter, the intelligence community and national decision makers. Within the last year, we successfully completed the most ambitious launch campaign in the history of the National Reconnaissance Office, putting up five nearly priceless, irreplaceable satellites in seven 

months. ULA has proven it can reliably deliver critical missions safely and on 

schedule. Schedule reliability is also critical for many missions and each of the 

dozen missions performed by ULA in the last year has occurred within a day or two 

of its planned launch date. 

The evidence of ULA’s success is literally on orbit. Every GPS satellite, every missile warning satellite, nearly every intelligence collection satellite, weather satellite, 

and military communications satellite and nearly every major NASA science mission 

has been launched-successfully-on a ULA or ULA heritage product. As a result, 

America has been able to push the frontiers of innovation and discovery; has the 

most capable spy satellites in the world; has the best satellite navigation system 

ever imagined; and has more rovers on, and more spacecraft orbiting distant planets 

than anyone else. 

We are currently in the midst of an unprecedented launch campaign for NASA’s 

science program. So far, ULA has successfully completed three of five planned missions, including the launch of the Juno spacecraft to the planet Jupiter in August 

and the launch of the Grail spacecraft to the moon in September. Our next launch 

in the campaign occurs within the next week with the launch of the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), a precursor to the next generation weather satellite. We’ll 

finish up the year with the launch of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory, an SUV 

sized rover powered by a nuclear battery that may discover the first signs of life 

on another planet. 

ULA’s rockets are the most reliable in the world and we’re routinely tasked with 

launching the most challenging missions imaginable. Five years ago, the fastest object ever created by man, the Pluto New Horizons spacecraft, was launched on an 

Atlas. Two years ago, we worked with NASA to guide a Centaur upperstage into 

the moon, proving that there was indeed water hidden in its deep craters. The missions performed by the Delta IV heavy, the nation’s most capable launch vehicle, 

are incredibly complex, but classified. We are currently working with NASA to potentially use the Delta IV heavy to launch the Orion spacecraft on its first uncrewed 

test flight. 

Why Commercial Crew? 

I’d like to start by commending this committee for having the foresight and vision 

in its 2008 NASA Authorization Act to help spur a commercial crew capability for 

the International Space Station, and its subsequent support in the 2010 NASA Au-
64 

thorization bill. Nearly 50 years after Glenn’s first flight, these efforts are helping 

unleash a new space race-this time it’s an all-American space race to help us further 

unlock the boundless possibilities of the space frontier. 

ULA strongly supports both Congress’ and NASA’s efforts to develop a commercial 

capability to meet U.S. obligations to deliver crew to and from the International 

Space Station. In my mind, there are three main reasons for the nation to invest 

in commercial crew and together they form a compelling argument. 

First, the nation needs this vital capability. Now that the shuttle is retired, our 

nation is wholly dependent on the Russians to transport our own crews to and from 

the ISS. Currently, the Government of Russia is NASA’s sixth largest contractor, 

receiving over $350M per year. Not only does this represent thousands of high tech 

jobs sent overseas, but it’s ceding our leadership as a space-faring nation. Furthermore, the Russian Soyuz vehicle now represents the only means to send crew to the 

station. The recent failure of that normally reliable craft reminds us that the very 

existence of the ISS is now in jeopardy, and that we are reliant on a single fragile 

lifeline that we have little insight into or control over. 

We should have an urgency to get a commercial service up and operating as 

quickly as possible to close the Human Spaceflight ‘‘Gap.’’ I have no doubt that the 

U.S. aerospace industry (represented by the companies here today) is up to the task. 

We have the ingenuity and the inventiveness necessary to meet this national imperative. 

The second reason the U.S. Government should invest in commercial crew is that 

the private sector has the expertise to provide crew transportation safely and can 

provide the best value to the taxpayer. The companies competing for the commercial 

crew service include those with decades of experience in NASA’s human spaceflight 

program, such as Boeing. Newer companies bring fresh ideas and the entrepreneurial spirit like Sierra Nevada, Blue Origin and SpaceX. The private sector already possesses the world’s most reliable rocket with the Atlas V. 

Affordability is maximized by several factors. Specifically, the private sector can 

bring efficiencies in development and operations, spurred by competition, 

unobtainable in a government owned and operated system. In ULA’s case, the government can take advantage of the billions we and the Air Force have already invested and the synergy and cost sharing with other users of those rockets like the 

DOD, NRO, NASA science and commercial companies. 

The third reason the U.S. Government should invest in commercial crew is to 

stimulate and promote commercial human spaceflight-a policy consistently supported by numerous Congresses and Administrations, including in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and the most recent National Space Policy. We believe this 

is the right policy and that free and competitive markets create the most efficient 

conditions for promoting economic development. 

As an example, my good friend Bob Bigelow is a visionary with a dream of a fleet 

of private space stations. His customer base will be countries that want a space program but cannot buy or beg time on the ISS. But Bob needs a safe and affordable 

transportation system to orbit. NASA is in a unique position to create a transportation system that can address the nation’s needs for access to ISS, while also providing an opportunity to unleash the power of the U.S. entrepreneur in Low Earth 

Orbit. 

We don’t know if ideas like Bob Bigelow’s are viable. There is extremely high uncertainty in this market and NASA shouldn’t build its program assuming it materializes. But if a market does emerge, everyone will benefit: new jobs will be created 

and the Government’s prices will go even lower, across both the civil and military 

sectors. 

ULA support to Commercial Crew 

Through NASA’s investments in the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, the private industry is making great progress in developing a crew delivery 

capability. ULA is proud to have been chosen by three of the four CCDev contractors 

(Sierra-Nevada, Blue Origin and Boeing) to provide launch services using the Atlas 

V launch system. We and our customers believe the Atlas V is the right launch vehicle to help establish commercial human spaceflight. From its roots as the launch 

vehicle for the manned Mercury program in the 1960s, each new generation of the 

Atlas system has demonstrated advancements in reliability and performance. The 

Atlas program has a record of 98 consecutive successes, best in the world. Today’s 

Atlas V is the culmination of decades of improvements and lessons learned. The 

Atlas V has launched 27 times with 100% success. A list of those launches is included in Table 1. It is the only rocket certified by NASA to launch Category 3 missions, a category reserved for NASA’s most important science missions, like Juno 
65 

and the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory. It is the only rocket in the world certified to launch nuclear payloads to orbit, and it’s entrusted to launch many of our 

nation’s most critical national security missions. 

The next step for Atlas is to launch humans. If NASA’s commercial crew program 

is to be successful, every effort must be undertaken to ensure the highest possible 

level of safety and reliability. A key element of this is the rigorous process of human 

system certification. Under a Space Act Agreement with NASA, we are conducting 

a comprehensive assessment of the Atlas design against NASA’s stringent human 

certification requirements. This entails a part-by-part, system-by-system review of 

the design, analysis and test pedigree of the Atlas. We are also performing a detailed analysis of the hazards faced by the crew and their mitigation as well as a 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the launch of crew. My expectation is that the 

Atlas will fare very well. This is because of the rigor and attention to detail we applied during the original design and development process as well as the flight demonstrated performance of the system through 27 successful missions. 

We are also making excellent progress on the relatively few modifications to the 

Atlas required to accommodate human launch. These include the development of the 

emergency detection system (EDS), a health monitoring system that will provide a 

signal to the spacecraft to abort if a launch vehicle failure is imminent. A prototype 

of this system was demonstrated last year in our high fidelity systems integration 

lab, correctly detecting a wide range of potential failures and sending the abort signal in time to ensure a safe abort. We are progressing on the design of the modifications required at the launch pad to accommodate getting crew into and out of the 

spacecraft. And we’re working with several spacecraft providers on the details to integrate their systems to the Atlas. 

Looking to the future, we believe NASA’s recently announced plans for the Commercial Crew Integrated Development Contract (CCIDC) strikes the right balance 

between a commercial approach delivering innovation and affordability and the appropriate level of certification and oversight necessary to ensure safety. The importance of insight and rigorous certification criteria has been highlighted by the recent 

Soyuz failure. For new, unproven vehicles, you need the rigor even more, in addition 

to establishing a track record of demonstrated and repeatable success. 

With adequate funding, Atlas could be ready to support test flights in 2014 and 

operational flights in 2015. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we strongly believe NASA’s commercial crew program is vital to 

maintain our nation’s leadership in human spaceflight. The U.S. private sector has 

the expertise and experience to create safe and affordable crew access to the ISS 

and potentially stimulate an entire new economic sector with thousands of high tech 

jobs. Affordability is greatly enhanced by the use of Atlas which leverages synergy 

with the DOD, NRO, NASA Science and other users. With adequate funding, we can 

be ready to launch crew within three to four years. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 
66 
67 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you, and I thank all of you for your 

testimony. Reminding Members that Committee rules limit questions to five minutes. We will try to stay as close to that five minutes as we can, and the Chair at this point will open the round of 

questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, some of us remain very 

concerned that the promise of commercial markets could put the 

government in the position of supporting or bailing out companies 

in order to preserve a national capability, and I hope we are wrong 

in this fear, and I hope we will hear more from NASA on the next 

panel. But my questions to all the companies on this panel are, and 

these are to each of you and probably I will start with Mr. Elbon 

of Boeing, what are the non-NASA commercial crew markets that 

you intend to serve and what is your company’s business case if 

there are no customers other than NASA? 

Mr. ELBON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my 

testimony, we are basing our business case, structuring our business case so that it can close if all we do is transport NASA crew 

to the space station. 

Chairman HALL. And in your statement, does your company have 

the financial backing to see this development program to a conclusion? That is very important. I would like for you to give us all the 

explanation you can on that. 

Mr. ELBON. Okay, sir. 

Chairman HALL. Quickly. 

Mr. ELBON. Okay. So Boeing has a history of executing several 

X Prize programs for the government. Often it takes company investment to complete those but we have a track record of moving 

into fixed price kinds of contracting and then completing those contracts. That will be no different for commercial crew. We of course 

are laying in a very good program plan, one that we believe can 

be executed for the funding that we propose and that will be available. But our track record of executing on those I think speaks for 

itself. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Mr. Lindsey? 

Colonel LINDSEY. Yes. For our business case in terms of closing, 

we too think we can close, even if NASA is our only business. I 

think that the challenge will be getting there in a timely fashion 

based on the funding that we have, but that is what we are proposing. 

But let me expand a little bit on the market beyond NASA because that is the question you asked, sir, and the areas that we 

think that we have another markets is in cargo transportation, potentially orbital servicing with our vehicle because of its unique capabilities and additional ability to maneuver in orbit, potentially 

orbit sensor and test bid operations, and we talk about other businesses, other business areas besides NASA. We think there may be 

other civil agencies involved. There is some tourism involved, potentially military agencies, DOD. 

One thing I wanted to expand on was international markets. The 

Russians in their flying participants or tourists on the Soyuz actually flew a crew member from both South Korea and Malaysia, so 

we think there is potential that other nations would want to fly 

into space. Right now, the International Space Station partnership 
68 

is limited to the founding partners and the crew slots on the space 

station are based on your contribution to the development and the 

building of the space station. But in the future we think there is 

a possibility that you could open up the International Space Station 

to additional international partners with additional capabilities. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Mr. Musk. 

Mr. MUSK. So I will address that in a couple of ways. With respect to the launch vehicle, as I mentioned earlier, we have other 

35 launches under contract. In fact, for the last few years SpaceX 

has won more launch contracts than any other company in the 

world, in fact, any other country in the world. So I believe that the 

costs associated with the launch vehicle, the rocket part, is well 

taken care of. 

Then with respect to the spacecraft, we are slated already to provide more cargo servicing missions to the space station than any 

other organization. And since our cargo and crew vehicle are essentially the same, it means that the cost of crew is divided over all 

of those missions and so it results in a great deal of efficiency and 

a great deal of reliability. 

And then thirdly, I will put it in the Congressional Record, I will 

personally guarantee this. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Precourt. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Mr. Chairman, as a launch vehicle provider, 

we don’t have a lot of the same challenges that the crewed spacecraft do from a business case standpoint. We are addressing a 

number of opportunities that customers could leverage Liberty. We 

are gearing it toward commercial crew because that is the most difficult design part of a launch vehicle. Once it has that capability, 

it can serve other customers. I would like to point out NASA’s NLS, 

NASA Launch Services, system that has been in place very successfully for many years, launches deep space probes, payloads, 

science platforms. Those are missions of interest that Liberty could 

certainly service as well as other missions for other government 

agencies in the satellite and payload interest areas, leveraging the 

capabilities and performance of a vehicle designed for crew. Crew 

and cargo, other science missions and other government agency 

payloads really give you the leverage you need there, and we would 

be designing a common interface that could handle multiple users 

of the launch vehicle. 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you. 

Dr. Sowers. 

Dr. SOWERS. Yes. We are a little bit different than some of the 

other companies up here. Our investment is already substantially 

made. Our rockets are flying today. The Atlas V that has been chosen by Boeing, Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin has already had 27 

successful flights. We have an ongoing business of roughly six to 

eight missions per year consisting of DOD, National Reconnaissance Office, NASA science and commercial customers, and commercial crew would be merely adding one to two missions a year 

into that already robust manifest and so our business case does not 

count on other customers. We have been working with Bob Bigelow 

for a number of years and so we are optimistic about a new market 

but also my company lived through the EELV experience where we 

made assumptions about a commercial market that didn’t mate-
69 

rialize and so that scar tissue is very fresh and tender in our 

memories. 

Chairman HALL. And we thank you, and my time has expired by 

almost a minute. 

At this time I recognize Mrs. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I have listened very attentively and I am very excited about this possibility. What I would 

like each of you to comment on is whether or not you think Congress is justified in making this initiative at this time, and what 

realistically do you expect of the U.S. government? And thirdly, 

where are your potential markets for now? I want to make sure I 

make efficent use of my time, if you will start, Mr. Elbon. 

Mr. ELBON. I think it is very important that commercial crew exists as part of an enabling system to provide low-cost transportation to ISS, affordable transportation, in such a manner that 

there is funding left over in NASA’s budget so that we can invest 

in capabilities for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. So I think 

that investment is prudent at this time. 

You asked about other markets, I believe. We believe there are— 

as others have said, there are certainly—it has been demonstrated 

that there are individuals that would pay to fly to station but there 

is also, through the opportunities that Mr. Bigelow is putting in 

place, other countries in the world that would like to have their 

own space program, can’t afford the infrastructure associated with 

that and so that business model I think has a really good opportunity of maturing and becoming an additionally commerce in low 

Earth orbit that can be served by commercial crew transportation. 

Chairman HALL. Go ahead, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I was waiting for Mr. Lindsey. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Yes, Congresswoman. The reason I think we 

need to be back in the business of commercial crew, I think—as I 

mentioned in my remarks, low Earth orbit access to me is a vital 

interest to this country. When we retired the shuttle, we are in a 

gap period where we don’t have that access and we are relying on 

the Russians and spending, as you mentioned earlier, $450 million 

a year paying the Russians to provide that service. I think it is 

very important that we get back into that business and establish 

our preeminence in space. So that is probably my primary reason. 

That is why I am doing what I am doing and why I think it is really important. 

In terms of the markets that you asked us about, as John mentioned, there are some commercial individuals that could afford to 

do that. I think our bigger market, though, is potentially with other 

governments, going to the International Space Station. We know 

for a fact that there is interest in doing that for other nations, not 

just International Space Station partners, and there is, we think, 

there is interest in doing other sorts of mission with our vehicle 

like satellite servicing and things like that like we have done in the 

past with space shuttle. 

Mr. MUSK. As I mentioned, with respect to the rockets, those 

costs, those are a given. So then with respect to the cargo version 

of the spacecraft, those costs are also given because we are already 

doing that for NASA, so we have a high certainty associated with 

those so it is really what is incremental to carry crew, and we an-
70 

ticipate that that is perhaps no more than about a 20 percent increment to carry crew, primarily related to the launch escape system and improved life support systems. And in fact, again, I am 

willing to go on record and say that at a launch rate of four crewed 

flights per year, we are willing to commit in current-year dollars 

to $140 million per fight with a seven-astronaut contingent so that 

would mean $20 million per astronaut and compares very favorably 

with what we are currently paying the Russians, which is $63 million per astronaut. So you have it on record. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congresswoman, I think the investment, as 

you asked, is necessary and urgent. We are many years behind replacing the shuttle capability. I would also add that your opening 

remarks were spot on. There are a number of questions that I 

would vouch for the fact that we in industry are poised and ready 

with a very capable workforce to go execute this job. Between the 

Congress and NASA, the Administration and industry, we are 

poised and capable, more than capable but a lot of strategy and acquisition and the methods to get to the goal line need to be laid 

out so that we can perform very well under the right conditions, 

so I think you have asked all the right questions. 

Dr. SOWERS. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think our investment 

in commercial crew is justified, first of all, to protect the investment that we have made in the International Space Station. Right 

now the Soyuz is the only means of transportation to the ISS, and 

we have seen just recently that as reliable as the Soyuz has been 

historically, anyone can have a bad day, and if we have a bad day, 

then there is no access to the ISS, much less American-provided access to the ISS. 

Secondly, in terms of markets we do think there is potential for 

additional markets for this capability. If that is true, then it will 

generate a tremendous number of jobs right here in the United 

States servicing these other markets. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. You were exactly five 

minutes. That is just perfection. 

I ask the gentleman from California to take his five minutes. Mr. 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just note before I ask my questions that I have been surprised by a number of things in my 24 years here in Congress, but 

one of the things that I have been surprised the most about is the 

hostility that seems to be expressed towards depending on and 

helping promote commercial space alternatives to just government 

approaches to things like transportation, and this has been much 

to my dismay that all of the worst elements of decision making, for 

example, of what I call space pork and just focusing on one’s own 

district and what government spending can be directed to one’s district seems to be having a major effect on a decision that is so important to America’s future as to how we will proceed into space, 

and I consider this to be a historic moment for our country and for 

this anti-commercial space alternative attitude that I see. I think 

it could have very grave consequences. We had, for example, the 

post office early on did have a fleet of airplanes, and we decided, 

it was decided by our country, that it would be better to contract 
71 

out airmail rather than having the government run a fleet of airplanes, and I think that decision went a long way in helping make 

sure that America was the number one aviation power on this 

planet, and I would have to say that had we had the other approach, perhaps we would have had a much more bureaucratic development of our aviation capabilities, and certainly we wouldn’t 

have thought that having the government run airliners that only 

the government can run, what would that have done to America’s 

competitive position in the world on some of the most important 

technological developments of the last century. 

With that said, we have got some problems within the government in terms of approaching commercial, and I am not sure if it 

is based on hostility to commercialism or it is just a belief that we 

ought to have more government controls over everything, but there 

is a fight now between these two approaches of these contracts that 

the Federal Government is approaching with these private sector 

companies. Apparently, we have in the past—what we have and 

also with other types of situation, we have a Federal Acquisition 

Regulation which is FAR, which is a more traditional way of contracting with companies but we have instituted with the development of this commercial alternative, at least for the development 

stage, a system based on the Space Act agreements, and I would 

just ask very quickly for a comment from each one of you, and it 

has to be quick because I only have a couple minutes left. Is this 

vitally important that we move forward with an approach that was 

dictated by the Space Act agreement which of course I understand 

brings down the amount of bureaucratic costs to each one of your 

projects? What does that mean to your projects and your approach 

to space, the FAR versus Space Act agreement approach? Just a little bit from each one. 

Mr. ELBON. Thank you, Congressman. Two quick comments or 

responses to your question. The first is, I think it is very important 

that we differentiate the kind of model that we are using for something like transportation to low Earth orbit that we have been 

doing for 50 years in capsules, it is understood, the challenges are 

understood, versus exploration beyond low Earth orbit that is a 

new thing, very much not understood, more complex, more challenging, so the level of NASA involvement in those two programs, 

the dependence on contractors in those two programs needs to be 

very different, in my view. 

The second thing you asked was about a FAR versus SAA. I 

would say that from our perspective, this can be done with either 

of those instruments as long as the right environment is being put 

in place. Boeing will execute this with the same processes and procedures for design, for parts traceability, for configuration management, for all those kinds of things, not because the contract drives 

us to do that, we do these things in government programs and commercial programs like commercial airplanes because it is necessary 

to do those kind of things to develop a safe and reliable vehicle that 

can provide good transportation. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Yes, Congressman. Up to this point, we have 

been executing under the Space Act agreements in the last couple 

of phases, and it has worked very well for us. We have been able 

to move very, very quickly, co-invest our own money, and basically 
72 

retire a lot of technology risk, and that is how it has really helped 

us out. Eventually as a program develops, you have to reach a 

point where you want to go a firm fixed price and you want to have 

some chance of meeting cost and schedule. That is really important 

to everybody. The advantage of the Space Act agreement, it gets 

you to the point where you can go to a FAR-based contract and succeed, and that is kind of where we are now and so the question is, 

when is the right time to transition, and right now, NASA is suggesting that the next phase is the right time to transition. Either 

way, our company will execute, but again, the Space Act agreements enabled us to move quickly and we think we can execute 

under FAR-based as well. 

Mr. MUSK. The COTS approach has been, I think, very effective. 

To the degree that it can be extended, that is desirable. If it can’t, 

then as we transition to FAR-based contracts, it is important that 

if the prices are fixed, that the terms are fixed and that they are 

based on clear hardware-based milestones. The challenge that will 

come with the FAR contract is if the prices are fixed but the terms 

are not, if the terms change over time. I think that is just common 

sense. But I am increasingly optimistic that it can be made to work 

under the right sort of FAR-based contract. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, I would echo the comments 

from my colleagues here. I think just trying to decide based on FAR 

versus SAA kind of misses the point. We need to have a mechanism that enables performance and accountability, and we can perform under firm, fixed prices, John mentioned with low Earth orbit, 

and our understanding of it. I think it comes down to setting the 

organizational construct within the agreements and we can make 

that happen. I think NASA is stepping up in that way. They have 

taken the advantage of the FAR’s ability to be streamlined and enable us to perform in a streamlined fashion. 

Dr. SOWERS. Congressman, ULA is comfortable operating under 

a wide range of different contracting environments. We are comfortable with the SAA. In fact, the entire development of the EELV 

program was done under the OTA, the Other Transaction Authority, of the FAR which is like a Space Act. We are also very comfortable under the FAR acquisition approach but the one caution 

is that the requirements in the contract need to be understood very 

well up front, and especially in this case, the human rating requirements. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I 

would like to submit for the record at this point an article in Space 

News by Mike Gold, who works for the Bigelow company, who is 

expressing his view on the regulatory requirements of the FAR approach versus the Space Act agreements approach. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection, it will be put in the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II:] 

Chairman HALL. And I think it ought to be stated in the record too that NASA has put around $320 million in already, and most 

of the recipients are in this room and they are planning $4 to $6 

billion that these folks will be competing for, and we are trying to 

make that a level competition. We just need to be sure that whoever bids can do more than sign a contract, and that the fears that 
73 

you all are here to allay, and I thank you for your comments. I 

don’t totally agree with them but I always admire you for making 

them. 

Next, Mr. Clarke from Michigan. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This question is for anybody who chooses to address it, but in 

particular for Mr. Musk. Essentially, how can the technologies developed for the Commercial Crew Program create jobs outside of 

the space industry, especially jobs in the automotive industry? The 

reason why I ask that primarily is because of the region that I represent, which is Detroit and includes metro Detroit. Now, the city 

that I was born and raised in, it has been affected by many tough 

economic forces that is creating a lot of blight in the city, so as a 

result, we just have acres and acres of vacant, abandoned land but 

it also has the infrastructure that you need—the roads, the water 

lines, the sewers. Also, on the positive side, we have the best manufacturing know-how around and the best trained workforce, and 

the best engineers in the country in metropolitan Detroit. Typically, when U.S. auto manufacturers sell more U.S.-made automobiles to folks that live in the United States, that creates jobs not 

only for Detroit but for our entire country, and in particular, Mr. 

Musk, you referenced the power of innovation resulting from the 

free enterprise system, you know, your career in business, you are 

a personal example of that success and growth. And in particular, 

I received information that your suppliers made around $2 almost 

$3 million in supplier purchases in Michigan. 

So essentially it is this. This technology that you are working on, 

can it be leveraged to create jobs outside of the space industry to 

help revitalize certain areas in this country like metropolitan Detroit? I believe the answer is yes, but if you could help illustrate 

that for the record, any of you, that would be appreciated. 

Mr. MUSK. I actually have quite a bit of knowledge of and respect 

for the automotive industry, and in fact, if you think about the 

amazing things that the automotive industry does, they create 

these man-rated devices called cars which are supposed to last for 

ten years and provide incredible safety over that period of time, 

and yet cost only a few tens of thousands of dollars. That is actually amazing, when you think about it. So I have really been pushing SpaceX to use more and more automotive suppliers because the 

quality is actually so good. And in fact, for our Merlin engine, I will 

give you one example, we use a company called Experimental, 

which does the engine jackets, outer engine jackets on our engines 

and does an amazing job, and we are actually hiring people from 

the automotive industry to bring more of that expertise and crosspollinate into the space industry and bring the decades of expertise 

and trillions of dollars that have been spent on automotive and 

apply that effectively to that space industry. I very much agree 

with your point. 

Dr. SOWERS. I have got one example from my company. We are 

currently working with a company in Michigan in the Detroit area 

called Rausch to take piston engine technology from the automotive 

industry and apply it to rocket engines. Traditionally, rocket engines have been turbo pump-based but we are doing some research 

right now that says that piston pumps could be superior to turbo 
74 

pumps for certain applications and the precision machining capability that we found at this company is just absolutely amazing and 

so we are actually looking to bring automotive technology back into 

the aerospace industry. 

Mr. ELBON. I will just add, Congressman, that through the history of space, investments in space exploration have spun off incredible industries in the United States. As an example, the telecommunication industry, the computer industry, those all were 

spawned by technologies developed in space. It is often difficult to 

predict what the next technologies will be but there is certainly a 

proven track record of that investment returning a dividend. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, I would add that one of the 

things we share in common is the manufacturing of high-tech 

equipment, and the automotive industry has a lot of cross-pollination. We have in our company several who have come from the 

automotive industry to help us with manufacturing lean processes 

that really increase the performance and cost value of the product, 

and likewise it has gone back the other way and that continues I 

think as we cross-pollinate and we share technologies that excite 

and enable improvement in both industries. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you. Just with the brief time I have, representing metropolitan Detroit and also now newly appointed as a 

Member of the Science and Aeronautics Subcommittee, which I 

think is an extraordinary tie-in, we can show how investing in 

space technology can mean growth for jobs and a stronger U.S. 

economy over time, so I look forward to that type of partnership. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Hultgren of Illinois. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. I really appreciate the amazing work that you have 

done and continue to do. I am very excited about the future. 

I have a couple of questions. Mr. Musk, I wonder if I could start 

and ask you a question quickly. Vertical integration is something 

certainly that is new to the space industry. I wonder if you could 

speak to how much you currently outsource to other U.S. subcontractors and how much you plan in the future to do that, and 

as a percentage of government program dollars, what is that percentage and how much trickles back to other smaller companies 

across the United States of the work that you are doing at SpaceX? 

Mr. MUSK. So at SpaceX, we make all the major components of 

the vehicle in-house so the engine, air frame, avionics and launch 

operation. However, feeding into that are a vast number of smaller 

suppliers. Now, we have to do the major components internally in 

order to achieve a revolutionary improvement in the cost of space 

transportation because to the degree that we inherited the legacy 

components, we would inherit the legacy limitations and costs. But 

we have several hundred suppliers throughout the country and I 

mentioned some in the automotive industry. By value, if you look 

at our expenditures on a weekly basis, about half of the money is 

spent internally and about half is spent externally. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. 

I wonder for all of you, if you could address, the name of NASA’s 

Commercial Crew Program implies a significant amount of private 
75 

investment and not simply government funding. We have talked 

about that a lot today and really that discussion, of how important 

it is. I wondered if briefly each of you could discuss just how much 

private investment is going into your company’s commercial crew 

program beyond the government funding from NASA and the Department of Defense, and if you are not willing to say an amount 

due to proprietary concerns, I wonder if you could give a range or 

percentage. 

Mr. ELBON. Congressman, I would characterize that our program 

includes the preponderance of the investment from the government. I think this is important for a couple of reasons. In order to 

keep the services prices low, it is important that there not be a significant investment that requires a return on that. I think it is also 

important that the government can be assured that a product and 

a service will be delivered and that the government won’t make an 

investment that doesn’t realize that because the company couldn’t 

follow through with the investment that it was required to make. 

Colonel LINDSEY. And Congressman, for us, we are a private 

company, so one thing that is unique about us is that because we 

are a private company, we invest a significant amount of money 

into R&D each year into various business areas. For this program, 

we are passionate about it, our owners are passionate about it, and 

our percentage right now we are running is somewhere around 40 

percent is what we are investing. 

Mr. MUSK. Well, if you looked at, say, our expenditures through 

the end of last year, our total expenditures of SpaceX time including every check we have written, we are about $800 million, and 

approximately 300 of that came from the government, so 500 private. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. Thank you. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, in the case of Liberty, our concept, as I mentioned, was to leverage developed and flying elements 

so it has required a large amount of the startup cost and also the 

amount of cost you have to recoup through pricing and operations. 

So we have an integration cost to go to make these two elements 

fly together. We are leveraging huge investment from both European Space Agency and NASA on previous systems, so we have a 

little bit different problem in terms of business case, but we are 

poised to have greater than 50 percent of that remaining cost for 

development come from outside investment. And as I mentioned, it 

also does require a head nod from our customers that there is a 

commitment to the design and enabling the investors to climb onboard. 

Dr. SOWERS. So from United Launch Alliance perspective, the 

rockets we are planning to use for commercial crew for Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and Blue Origin were substantially developed under 

commercial funds; about 80 percent of the cost of the ELB development was commercial. Going forward, the investments to human 

rate are quite modest and we are currently funding our participation in the Commercial Crew Program with ULA internal funds. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. I just have a few seconds left, but if 

I can ask you each quickly just a two-sentence answer of just terminology. I wondered if you could each describe your definition of 

what ‘‘commercial’’ means. 
76 

Mr. ELBON. In the environment that we are in, I think ‘‘commercial’’ means that we are working towards developing markets in addition to NASA. I think that we are doing this as a company with 

reduced government involvement as compared to programs that we 

have done in the past and that we are doing this in at least a fixedprice environment where the financial risk for performance is on 

the companies that are participating. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Sir, for us I would define ‘‘commercial’’ much as 

John did in terms of we have other markets we are looking at and 

we are co-investing and participating. Probably the most significant 

difference between what—now and what we have done in the past 

is when we are done with this and when we go contract for services 

to orbit, instead of the government actually owning the entire vehicle and operating it, they will actually pay for services where we 

own the vehicle and operate it jointly with them. 

Mr. MUSK. Yeah, I think you are going to hear much the same 

answer, but essentially, ‘‘commercial’’ would mean that the commercial companies are deciding on the design but NASA is deciding 

on the objective. These are the standards and the objectives that 

need to be achieved, but then the solution to those standards and 

objectives is arrived at backed by the commercial company. And 

then secondly—that in terms of the funding that goes into making 

it happen—that there is a substantial portion of our funding that 

comes from entities other than the government. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, I might offer a little different 

perspective based on a number of proposed programs that we have 

for different customers. We have everything from the range of a 

small rocket motor that serves the Pegasus launching for Orion all 

the way up through the space shuttle and in between. We have 

Minuteman missiles and the Trident missiles for the government. 

And in the purest sense, ‘‘commercial’’ means that we as the company would invest in the development completely, and then it 

would be based on a return on a number of sales of that product, 

whether it be a government or another buyer would purchase 

enough that we could recoup that investment. We do some of those 

in proposing and we do others that are purely cost-plus where the 

government takes on the risk. 

I think in this particular environment, we are trying to get towards the place where the businesses can invest and there is 

enough there, but in the case of what we are doing here today, I 

don’t know that there is enough market to draw that. So we are 

moving in a direction where I believe the advantage will be getting 

some of the benefits of outside investment while delivering on a 

valuable product. And I think it is laudable to try to get to a place 

where we are streamlined in the interface between the government 

and the contractors. 

Dr. SOWERS. I think in the context of the Commercial Crew Program, it means that the government is purchasing a service from 

a private company using a commercial contract. And in that sense, 

all of NASA’s science missions are performed that way, as well as 

all of our military space launches and intelligence community’s 

space launches are done that way with the government purchasing 

a service from a private company. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Again, thank you all. 
77 

Chairman, I have gone over. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you for yielding back. And it might have 

been more in keeping with our thrust if we had the Virgin Galactic 

people here. Ms. Johnson and I were just talking about them. I 

don’t know what Galactic means but I think their space port out 

there that they, for suborbital flights, it might be of interest to the 

gentleman’s questions there. And it would be of interest to everybody here. We will look into that later. 

Mr. Tonko of New York, you have five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Good morning, gentleman, and thank you for your testimony. 

Let me direct this to you—each of you. If a commercial launch 

vehicle experiences a serious anomaly or failure, what should 

NASA require of the companies before they are allowed to resume 

flights carrying NASA astronauts? 

Mr. ELBON. I would assume as we go forward that we will follow 

processes and approaches like we have used for Space Shuttle, 

Space Station, other programs that have carried crew into orbit. If 

there is an incident, it is very important to stand down, understand 

what that incident is, resolve that incident, and fix whatever needs 

to be fixed before we proceed. So we will need to do things like that 

as we move forward. 

Colonel LINDSEY. From my perspective, exactly the same thing— 

a full investigation needs to happen. I think the entities involved, 

be it the government or other folks involved, need full insight into 

what happened, what is going on, full investigation, study, basically nail the problem—or pound the problem down flat is a must 

as we have done in the past when we had anomalies. And we eventually need something called a Flight Readiness Review that everybody has to agree, including with the same opinions exposed before 

we are ready to go back to flight and follow a very disciplined 

pass—path much like NASA has done in the past. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Musk? 

Mr. MUSK. I agree with those comments. NASA is fundamentally 

the customer and the customer decides what they want to do next 

so——— 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Precourt? 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, its root cause and then corrective action. And getting to the root cause is somewhat technically 

challenging at times and it requires a degree of openness and collaboration across both sides of the interface between the customer 

and getting to really, truly understanding what that root cause is 

such that the corrective action can be appropriately designed to it. 

Mr. TONKO. Dr. Sowers? 

Dr. SOWERS. NASA already has a working model of what you are 

talking about for the science missions that they purchase commercially, and they have a very rigorous certification process, that has 

different levels, depending on the importance of the payload. And 

once you are certified, if there is an anomaly, then there is a process of going back through the anomaly investigation, corrective action, and then there is a recertification that has to occur back to 

those same standards of rigor. 

Mr. TONKO. In the case of those circumstances, who should bear 

the cost? 
78 

Mr. ELBON. That will be something that we will need to focus on 

and work as we go forward and develop the services contract. 

Clearly, if that risk is on the provider, the cost of service will need 

to be a higher amount in order to cover that risk. If the government decides to carry that risk, the price of the service could be 

lowered. So I think it is a cost-risk trade that will be made as we 

go forward and work on the services contract. Clearly, the provider 

community needs to step up and bear its share of that risk. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Yeah, I agree. I think it will be a cost-risk 

trade, but ultimately, just like in design, it is our responsibility to 

design it adequately and test it adequately before we go flying. It 

is part of the root cause investigation when you have an anomaly. 

We will have to get at the root cause and that will be part of the 

determination, I think, as what caused the problem. And as a result of that, then, will probably determine who bears the most cost 

in this case. 

Mr. MUSK. Yeah, I think it is a shared cost situation. I think 

there are parallels here in aviation, automotive, and—yeah, so it 

is going to be a shared cost so——— 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, I think the Ranking Minority 

Member stated it very well with the indemnity question. I think 

that, as John mentioned, the services contract would be laid out 

such that it is clear to a certain degree. There are some very low 

probability events with very extremely high costs that we as companies probably would not be able to cover, and that is where the 

indemnification comes in is at what level does that occur and how 

would it be handled. When we fly off a range, there is a presumption of certification with the Air Force, and some of those costs— 

certainly for government missions—are borne beyond a certain liability level that protects us all. 

Dr. SOWERS. I think I agree with my colleagues up here. Everyone up here has every incentive to make sure all of our missions 

are successful. The viability of our companies depends on being 

successful. The question of liability I think is one that we need to 

work on in the future. On commercial space missions right now, 

there is the Commercial Space Launch Act, which does provide 

some indemnification of third parties off of government ranges. 

Mr. TONKO. Finally, Mr. Chair, if I might, are there any assurances—other assurances that you can offer the Members that there 

would be no additional hidden cost to taxpayers in the event of failure or anomaly? 

Mr. ELBON. I would offer that that will be specified in the contracts that we have and it will be up to us to honor those contracts. 

There are lots of contracts the Boeing Company has with the government, and it is very important for us to execute on those and 

honor those if we are going to continue as a responsible company 

doing business with the government. So we will be highly motivated to do that. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Part of the philosophy of this whole Commercial Crew Program is to be a firm, fixed price pay for services, no 

hidden costs, know exactly what we are getting into, so I think as 

mentioned by my colleagues, we need to nail down the indemnification and how we are going to do that before we proceed and have 

that as part of the contract. And then we will know so there won’t 
79 

be any surprises. But I think it is really important we nail that 

down before we proceed forward with services contracts. 

Mr. MUSK. I think it is tempting to think of space as somehow 

fundamentally different from other modes of transport, but I think 

it is not. It is a new mode of transport, or a newer mode of transport, but I think there are many parallels with other modes of 

transport. And NASA, for instance, purchases air tickets on airlines. And in a sense, that is extending that model to space flight. 

It works very well with airliners. So I don’t think that this is something that should be a very fundamental concern because of parallels to other industries. 

Colonel PRECOURT. I would just echo from John and Steve that 

setting out the right ground rules in the contract for services is 

really the way to address that—I completely agree with that—and 

being as detailed as you can up front so it is well understood and 

managed. We are all here to serve the customer and if we don’t, 

then we won’t be a producer for them for long——— 

Dr. SOWERS. Yeah, I agree. As we get further down the road with 

it, all those details will be worked out and at that point there will 

be no hidden costs. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

We all have other questions. In fact, I would like to ask about 

NASA oversight, what they think is necessary for the safety of passengers and the crew, but each of us will have the right to write 

to you and give you a reasonable amount of time to answer those 

questions. And we are trying to be as thorough as we can and let 

everybody ask all the questions they can while we have you here. 

That is how important you are to us. 

Mo Brooks, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NASA is pursuing a commercial approach to crew transportation 

to the International Space Station. While the word ‘‘commercial’’ 

has been used, I am not really sure how it is used and how this 

approach actually exists when put against the traditional definition 

of commercial. And I would like to get a better understanding of 

the business approaches that we might be using when we use this 

word ‘‘commercial.’’ And I do it in this context: 

It does not seem to me that there is really a commercial market 

in the normal sense that you might have with airline flights or you 

might have with food or anything else where you have a large base 

of people out there that want to demand consumption of whatever 

good or service that might be produced. In fact, if I were to look 

at it in terms of private sector, non-NASA crew transportation, it 

would appear to me that the market is somewhere between minimal and nonexistent. You might read about the random private 

person who will pay money to go up in space using a Russian aircraft—excuse me—spacecraft, but that seems to be the extent of it. 

And if that is the case that there is not truly a private sector 

commercial market that space launch companies can pursue, then 

I am very much concerned that we might be running into a case 

of inverse economies of scale. With economies of scale, generally 

speaking, the more you produce of something, economies of scale 

come into place and that product or service, whatever it is that you 
80 

are producing, the price goes down again because of economies of 

scale. And when I say inverse economies of scale, I am talking 

about where we have a limited market, if it is limited just to 

NASA, and we keep creating more and more companies competing 

for that constant slice of the pie, then in fact we are going to have 

increasing cost per launch rather than decreasing cost per launch. 

With that concern on the record, please, if each of you would, describe for me what actions are you taking to fully explore the nonNASA crew transportation market or search for customers in the 

private sectors; and second, what would be the impact to your 

NASA pricing if you fail to capture these commercial opportunities 

in the private sector? And I am limiting it to human spaceflight. 

So with that, if all of you could respond and assist as best you can 

with helping us better understand the impact of this plethora of 

companies pursuing what appears to be a rather constant human 

spaceflight market. 

Mr. ELBON. Thank you, Congressman. I will start by agreeing 

with your assessment of the market. I think that there definitely 

is potential for a commercial market. It is in my view, not well defined, the depth of it is difficult to estimate, and so developing a 

business case that depends on it is a difficult thing. So we have 

chosen to develop a system that will be affordable if the only transportation that we do is government transportation to ISS, that the 

investment, et cetera, will allow us to do that at a reasonable basis. 

In parallel, though, we are also working hard to develop a commercial market independent of that. We have teamed with Space 

Adventures, who is the company that brokered the flights you mentioned to International Space Station on the Russian rockets, and 

also with Bigelow Aerospace to help provide a reliable transportation system so that Bigelow’s business model serving countries 

who can’t afford their own space program but would like to send 

astronauts to the space station. 

So I think the fundamental thing is to develop a capability based 

on the transportation to space station, but at the same time, work 

really hard to cultivate this adjacent commercial market, and then 

as that matures, the cost for the NASA transportation will go 

down. 

Mr. BROOKS. That was a part of my question. Have you or anybody else been able to ascertain any private sector market for 

human spaceflight, and if so, can you give us a judgment as to how 

many you anticipate on the private sector you could take into space 

on an annual basis within five or ten years? 

Mr. ELBON. We traveled with Mr. Bigelow to Farnborough about 

a year and a half ago now and met with several of his potential 

clients. As I mentioned, there are sovereign entities, countries that 

would like to have their own space program, and we met with six 

of those, and I can tell you from that conversation that if there is 

a Bigelow Space Complex that exists and that is dependent on reliable transportation that those countries are willing to sign up now 

to do that. So I think the potential is there for a significant number 

of flights to low Earth orbit, but as I said, we aren’t basing our 

business model on that because we don’t want to not be able to execute the primary business of taking U.S. crew to space station and 

have that be dependent on this commercial market maturing. 
81 

Colonel LINDSEY. Yes, Congressman, we also are basing our business model on the core business, which is taking U.S. astronauts 

back and forth to the International Space Station, but we have 

been doing a lot of work looking at other markets. We think there 

are significant markets out there or we wouldn’t be doing this investing of our own company’s money in it. We think that foreign 

governments, other countries have already flown with the Russians 

and there are a lot of them out there that would like to join, I 

think, the international partnership that we have with the space 

station that is not there. 

One thing I would like to point out is that the current ops concepts for how we operate the International Space Station is really 

based on our ability to launch and land and get resupply up to 

space station. And I would suggest to you that if that paradigm 

changes in the future, if we are successful, that ops concept will 

change as well just as aircraft have evolved over time and ended 

up doing missions you never expected them to start doing. 

So I think there is a market there. I think the more we fly up 

in space, the cheaper the launch costs get. There is an economy of 

scale there. And so for all these reasons, we think there is a market—a significant market well beyond just the core of transporting 

astronauts to the space station. 

Mr. MUSK. I think your concern about inverse economies is a 

good one, I think it applies only to a portion of the cost per flight. 

If you look at the cost per flight for transporting astronauts to the 

space station, at least in the case of SpaceX, about 40 percent of 

that is the rocket, about 40 percent of that is the non-manned elements of the spacecraft, and then maybe 20 percent incrementally 

is the human element. For the—for rockets, we already have twothirds of our launches with commercial entities. So NASA has 

about one-third of our missions; two-thirds go to launching commercial and communications and broadcast satellites and that kind 

of thing. 

For the spacecraft, driving the spacecraft, we already will be 

doing roughly four, perhaps going up to six missions per year for 

cargo transport to the space station. And it is the same basic spacecraft that is used for human elements. So it is really just that remaining 20 percent where there is potentially a concern of inverse 

economies of scale. 

However, I would like to make another prediction which is that 

in ten years there will be more commercial flights—manned flights 

to space than there will be government. I am quite confident of 

that. But we need to have constantly improving technology. The 

cost needs to get lower because there are only a few people that 

can afford to spend $20 or $30 million just to go to space. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, thanks for your question. I 

agree with your assessment of the market, and as a launch vehicle 

provider, we are looking at broader markets for other users besides 

crew through a common interface with multiple payloads, whether 

it be crew cargo, science, other satellite missions, et cetera. And so 

we need to be able to leverage a market that is broad like that to 

make this work. 

I would like to add to that, though, that what I would hope 

would emerge from this commercial approach for NASA is a better 
82 

outcome in terms of cost affordability for a highly reliable product. 

And what we learned with Constellation and with Shuttle and 

other programs is that it comes down to how you organize with 

your people as to how much it is going to cost in the long term, 

both on the government’s side and the contractor’s side. And we at 

ATK have streamlined to the degree about 50 percent of our 

overheads in the last two years with essentially the same production capabilities, and that is due to the way we organize both internally and with the interface to the customer. We were able to do 

that because we have customer interfaces of a broad nature, all the 

way from pure commercial where we invested in the product and 

delivered it from our own internal monies and had a market that 

pulled on it to return that investment all the way to the full costplus that you are familiar with. 

So in doing so, we talk a lot about, okay, so in theoretical terms, 

how do you get to a point which is optimum from a customer-contractor interface so that there is not too much oversight and not too 

little? And we began to look at it in quantifiable means and measure, and there have been a number of reports on this, but you can 

look a lot of my programs, and they range in two ratios that are 

of interest. One is what we call the contractors’ workforce in support to touch labor ratio. Those ratios range in industry from anywhere from one-half of a person for every person producing a product to over three people that are doing support work for the touch 

labor people. 

Then you look at that total labor ratio of the industry to the government, and the programs range from one industry—sorry, one 

government person for every four in the industry in the contract 

all the way to 20 industry for each government member on the contract. And so we need to use those metrics to try to drive ourselves 

to an optimum position, and I would hope that as we strive in this 

commercial crew process, we can get to those. I have seen in a lot 

of our commercial programs that the safety records remain very, 

very high even though those ratios of labor across the interfaces 

are much lower. 

Dr. SOWERS. Congressman, United Launch Alliance is not planning to develop new rockets to support commercial crew. We are 

going to use the rockets that are currently flying NASA science and 

military payloads all built in Decatur, Alabama. From a marketsized standpoint, I agree with the rest of the panel up here that 

the commercial market is highly uncertain, but I think there are 

promising business plans like Bob Bigelow’s and the traffic models 

I have seen from Mr. Bigelow’s business plan are truly stunning. 

They could get the industry into a launch rate that we have never 

experienced before, doubling or tripling the demand that we currently see out there. So the promise is very high; the uncertainty 

is also very high. 

Mr. BROOKS. I thank the gentlemen for your insight. And Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for allowing these witnesses to go way beyond my allotted time. 

Chairman HALL. Your time really has expired. Thank you. But 

good questions and good answers. Thank you. 

Now, I recognize Mrs. Lofgren, gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
83 

This is I think a very important hearing because really I think 

the gentleman from Alabama’s question is a good one. I have been 

enthusiastically supporting this effort, but the question is whether 

we are helping a transition or whether this is it. And there is no 

way to know that at this point except that the payoff is so enormous that we have to take some risks sometimes. And that is I 

think what we are doing at this point. I think it is a risk worth 

taking. 

But I—one of the things I would like to know—I mean we need 

to have a safe product. And I am interested if you can each tell me 

what is the most challenging aspect of meeting NASA’s safety requirements that you are facing today? 

Mr. ELBON. So we are accustomed to NASA’s safety requirements, having worked on Shuttle and Station most recently, but 

Apollo, Gemini, Mercury before that. It is kind of ingrained in what 

we do, so things like safety reviews, design reviews, traceability, 

configuration management, all of those processes are baked into 

our system. 

And as I mentioned earlier, we have learned over the years that 

it is not a function of whether it is a government program or commercial program that you use those processes; we have learned 

that in order to have a safe, reliable transportation system, you 

must follow processes like that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Um-hum. 

Mr. ELBON. And so the same kinds of things that we have done 

in the past on Shuttle, Space Station, and other programs will be 

implemented in our Commercial Crew Program. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Yes, Congresswoman, as far as the most challenging single safety aspect, we don’t really have one technical 

issue that is the most challenging. We also follow a process. The 

process is very disciplined. It is very known. Having flown on Shuttle, I really appreciate the safety process because it kept me safe, 

and that is exactly the same kind of process we are implementing 

in our design and our development in terms of safety reviews, putting the SNNA processes together, tracking all those, identifying 

all of our hazards, identifying our failure tolerance and establishing 

that. 

The challenging part is doing all of it—the verification and validation of that. And our approach to those have been to team very, 

very closely with NASA and have them involved from the very beginning looking over from a safety standpoint, looking over our designs, identifying early those areas that we may not have enough 

tolerance, for example, in fixing those early. So it is process—it is 

a continual process. The most important thing is to stay vigilant 

and stay on top of that process all the way through, and that has 

been our approach. 

Mr. MUSK. Well, the single toughest thing I think having gone 

through this with our Dragon spacecraft approaching the space station, where it has to be a human rate system because it is a robotic 

spaceship that is approaching and berthing robotically with the 

space station, which is $100 billion asset and it has astronauts 

from several countries on board. The biggest challenge is two-failure tolerance. So in other words, you have to be able to fail any 

two things at any time and still be okay. And when you consider 
84 

all the systems on a spacecraft, that is just very difficult to achieve. 

We have been able to achieve it and we are going through—this is 

the final verification now, but that was the single most challenging 

thing. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congresswoman, we also have had decades of 

human rating considerations driven into our processes, and our 

partner on Liberty, Astrium Corporation, similarly on the Ariane 

5, which was designed with human rating in it for the Hermes 

space plane that Europe had planned brings our elements already 

to the table understanding and integrating human rating. The distinction that is being made at NASA right now, it is one thing to 

be human-rated; it is yet another to be determined that you are 

certified. So these new systems that we are bringing onboard have 

to go through a certification process even if we bring a humanrated full understanding of the requirements for human rating into 

the design. The question that we have is what will be the extent 

of the certification process that is not well known to us yet? And 

how many testing and verification activities and the cost of those 

will we have to include in our planning? 

Dr. SOWERS. Congresswoman, we are also very accustomed to the 

rigor that is required to have repeatable success, especially given 

the nature of the payload to be launched for the national security 

community. I would say one of the interesting challenges that we 

are faced with is providing the abort capability, and this is one 

thing that all of the systems that are being talked about for Commercial Crew that Space Shuttle didn’t have and that is the ability 

to sense an impending failure of the launch vehicle and to have the 

spacecraft come back safe and sound with the crew intact. And 

working out all those different abort scenarios is a very interesting 

challenge. I think it is also very worthwhile. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, looking at the 

timeline that NASA has provided, it is really not until 2017 that 

we are looking to get this mission accomplished. To me, coming 

from Silicon Valley, that seems like an awfully long time. Is there 

any possibility that we could significantly reduce that time frame 

in your judgment with the private sector involvement that we 

have? 

Mr. ELBON. Congresswoman, the baseline plan that we have laid 

in place has us flying by late 2015. That, of course, is a function 

of funding. And I think it is also a function, as NASA goes forward 

with the program, how many providers they decide to carry and so 

how many providers will that funding be divided amongst. But certainly with adequate funding we can be ready to go by the end of 

2015 and so start in earnest missions in 2016. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Congresswoman, our internal plan also has us 

starting to fly by the end of 2015, so I have heard the 2017 number 

from NASA and I haven’t talked to NASA about that number. But 

our internal number is 2015, and again, if we get adequate funding 

and—we will accelerate. If we don’t get adequate funding, then the 

schedule is the one thing that has to give. 

Mr. MUSK. Yeah, I totally agree. Six years seems like infinity. So 

SpaceX has only been around for nine years. During that time we 

developed from scratch two launch vehicles and flew them and 
85 

complex spacecraft and flew that. So I would be disappointed if this 

was not accomplished within 3 years. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congresswoman, acceleration is possible. It is 

one of the reasons we chose the Liberty concept because the elements are flying today on other vehicles and have that experience. 

So the long lead for us is actually the ordering of components in 

the supply chain and the lead time available to get those components ready to do a test flight. The other integration engineering 

happens in parallel, and so acceleration is feasible with the right 

funding profiles. 

Dr. SOWERS. So given that we are using existing rockets that are 

flying today, we can be ready as soon as any of these other companies can provide a spacecraft to launch. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentlelady. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, everyone. The great thing about going last I guess 

is I can just eliminate question after question that has already 

been asked and answered. But it is definitely good to see you all 

here today. 

The Chairman mentioned something earlier about how he was 

excited to hear on time and within budget, and I have always liked 

that, too, especially within the private sector—on time, within 

budget, but also to the customer’s satisfaction. So please don’t forget that aspect of it as well. 

I would like to ask each of our witnesses here today to share 

their perspective with this Committee on ground-based testing. 

What do you see the value in the ground-based testing? What have 

you done in regards to ground-based testing? What are you planning to do in regards to that? And also how can we also make sure 

that we stay focused with this critical component throughout the 

development and the procurement process? And we will start with 

Mr. Elbon. 

Mr. ELBON. Ground-based testing is an important part of any development program, particularly human spaceflight development 

programs. You saw on the video we have test-fired a couple engines. We will be doing ascent—or an ascent-abort test that will 

happen without a rocket so it will go from the ground. We are integrating our avionics now in Houston. I am traveling in about a 

month to visit Mr. Galloway at Stennis and to look at the capabilities there and determine what kind of testing might be possible at 

Stennis. So we will have a comprehensive ground-based testing 

that is in line with what we have traditionally done on human 

spaceflight programs. 

Colonel LINDSEY. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great question for us because actually, our philosophy on the Dream Chaser 

Program is test, test, test. You know, you can do thousands of wind 

tunnel simulations, but the best wind tunnel in the world is to actually go drop test and see if your vehicle really flies. You take 

more programmatic risk, but we think you can accelerate and go 

faster doing that. So we are all about test. And the first phase of 

the program, instead of just coming up with a Power Point vehicle, 
86 

we actually built a real vehicle, put it in University of Colorado’s 

earthquake lab and tested it structurally. We did drop-model tests; 

we have done all kinds of testing. Our rocket motors, which are actually the same rocket motors that are used by Virgin Galactic for 

SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo are extensively tested on the 

ground, and we continue to test those. 

Every component, every aspect of what we do will be ground-tested, so we think it is invaluable to do all of that before we go into 

flight test and we think it enables us to move faster and accelerate 

our program by doing an extensive amount of testing. 

Mr. MUSK. At SpaceX we do a great deal of ground-testing, but 

I should point out that we also flight-tested our launch vehicle and 

our Dragon spacecraft. So it is not just the ground-testing. We do— 

actually flight-test the vehicles and there is going to be a great deal 

of flight-testing to come. One of the big milestones is coming in 

about 3 months or so where we will dock with the space station or 

berth with the space station. And so that should be pretty exciting. 

Colonel PRECOURT. Congressman, flight-testing is critical, and 

many of the people in your State know that very, very well and we 

have worked for decades in many NASA programs exploiting the 

test capabilities in Mississippi. We actually have a plan with Liberty at leveraging a lot of testing that has already gone on behind 

us and then to leverage existing facilities like at Stennis and other 

places in the country that would further mitigate the risks of the 

systems as we take them into flight. 

Testing is all about a build-up approach. An example I can give 

you is we removed 1,500 pounds from the weight of our booster. We 

didn’t do that on one fell swoop; we did it incrementally over several ground tests. And when you are handling 3.5 million pounds 

of thrust, you have to do that with a build-up approach, not jumping to the end state immediately. So that testing is ultimately critical to the reliability that we get out of the product. 

Dr. SOWERS. Congressman, ground-based testing is fundamental 

to our philosophy of mission assurance. For every rocket that we 

fly, every part is tested as a part. They are built into subsystems 

and tested at the subsystem level. They are built further up into 

systems and tested at the system level. And then finally, the whole 

rocket is integrated on the launch pad and tested as an entire rocket, and that is before every single flight, and that is key to establishing repeatable mission success. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I appreciate that. When we had an opportunity to 

talk to Commander Cernan I asked him the importance of groundbased testing, and he pretty much said everybody that we sent up 

to the moon came home from the moon safely. So it is extremely 

important to our space program that we stayed committed to testing and we don’t try to take shortcuts, fly before we test, save 

costs, I don’t think that is in the best interest of the program at 

all. 

Chairman HALL. Judge Miller has kindly said that he will not 

ask any more questions, but he like others that were here have 

been on other committees during this time and knows that we have 

the full report to read. And Judge, thank you for yielding your 

time. 

Mrs. Adams is here. She has five minutes if she would like. 
87 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you for being here with us. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. I am sorry I am late. I was in another 

committee. 

I understand that with the recent failure of the Russian cargo 

mission, it highlighted some problems with depending on foreign 

countries to access ISS, so we need to build capacity for American 

astronauts to reach space on U.S. spacecraft and U.S.-built spacecraft built quickly but safely and with, I would believe, aggressive 

oversight by Congress based on what has happened in the past. 

Mr. Musk, can you talk about the importance of your rocket 

being 100 percent made and what business advantage you gain 

from that? 

Mr. MUSK. One hundred percent even American-made? I believe 

it is important to avoid a foreign dependency on American launch 

vehicles. You never know what the future security situation of the 

world will look like. And so in order to have good control over our 

costs and not face potential future foreign dependency, we sourced 

the vehicle 100 percent in the United States. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And what is your biggest concern with the management of the Commercial Crew Program? 

Mr. MUSK. Well, I should say right now I think NASA is doing 

a pretty good job. Going forward, the most important thing is that 

the terms and the costs be well defined. Where things can go wrong 

is if the price is fixed but then the terms change over time and that 

is obviously not a workable situation for any contract. 

Mrs. ADAMS. In the document given to the Committee dated February 19, 2008, SpaceX laid out an ambitious schedule which has 

all demonstration flights for commercial crew ending in April of 

next year. Can you tell the Committee what NASA can do to help 

you meet any schedule you lay out in the future and why the demonstrations have been so delayed? 

Mr. MUSK. Okay, but that could be a bit of a longer answer. 

So we are getting ready to do our first flight to the space station, 

which I think could occur in the January time frame. So I think 

that is doing pretty well. I think by the standards of the space industry, I think we are doing very well on schedule. The space industry is not known for being on time, so I guess if you are running 

a little bit late, that is maybe by most other standards being on 

time. I hate to say that but it is unfortunately true. And you know, 

I think I feel highly confident that if the funding is there for commercial crew that we can get crew safely to the station and back 

within three years. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Precourt, could you tell the Committee how 

much money that ATK spent on this application and CCDev–2? 

Colonel PRECOURT. How much we invested in going through the 

CCDev–2? We have a partner in Astrium from Europe, and together in putting together our program, we took the concept to a 

systems requirements review on our own funding, and it is north 

of $10 million. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And were you told that both launch vehicles and 

spacecraft were eligible for awards under CCDev–2? 
88 

Colonel PRECOURT. That was NASA solicitation. They specifically 

requested elements of vehicle, of spacecraft services such as launch 

vehicles and spacecraft. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Adams yields back. 

I think we really want to thank you for your good time. And I 

just want to comment on Ms. Lofgren’s question because she asked 

a good one about acceleration of those dates, 2017 and 2020. They 

seem a little far off to me but I can remember we are in an emergency, and this country is in an emergency right now. NASA is in 

an emergency. Our space program is in an emergency. We can do 

better than those dates I think, and I refer to a time back toward 

the end of World War II when the Japanese were headed for Midway and we had broken their code; we knew they were coming. We 

had two aircraft carriers, one of them ready for battle, the other 

being worked on in Pearl Harbor to be worked on for eight months 

Admiral Nimitz went aboard it on Monday and said by Thursday 

we are going to go out of here and meet the other. We only had 

two aircraft carriers to fight to five aircraft carriers that were attacking us. They did it in those five days. And somebody just needs 

to say damn it, let us go. And I think you all are the ones to do 

it and hope you will. 

And I thank the two astronauts who are there and all five of you. 

I am very grateful to you. We do have Garrett Reisman who has— 

flown three shuttle missions. I recognize him. And Bob Walker who 

chaired this Committee is here. We welcome you, Bob. And we are 

going to close this hearing in just a few minutes with thanks to 

Bart Gordon for the four years he served here. 

The round of questions are completed, and I thank you for your 

testimony. If Members of the Committee have additional questions 

for anyone, we will write to you and ask you to respond to those 

in writing if you will. 

You are excused. You can stay if you like. You are welcome to 

stay; you are wanted to stay. I know how busy you are. You are 

not going to stay, but we once again on behalf of all—everybody 

here, we really do appreciate you and the time you have given us, 

each one of you. 

Okay. At this time we will get our very patient second panel 

seated, I want to welcome you, too. Our first witness on the panel 

is the Honorable Paul Martin, the Inspector General of NASA, who 

was confirmed in November 2009. Prior to NASA, Mr. Martin 

served as Deputy Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Justice, a great background and good for service now. Mr. Martin, we 

are really delighted to have you here. 

Our second witness on the panel is Bill Gerstenmaier, a very 

knowledgeable Associate Administrator of the Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate. We don’t need any of that at 

NASA. He has been at NASA since 1977, led a number of activities 

with the Space Shuttle and the Shuttle Mir and International 

Space Station before becoming Associate Administrator for Space 

Operations prior to this summer. Mr. Gerstenmaier, thank you for 

your leadership in ensuring safe and successful human spaceflight 

program and for coming before us today. 
89 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes after which Members will have five minutes each to 

ask questions. We won’t hold you to the five minutes. Stay as close 

as you can but we are honored to have you and we will be very 

lenient. We don’t have a hook or anything. If they go a little over 

when they are as important as you two are. 

So at this time, I will recognize Mr. Martin to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL MARTIN, 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the 

progress made and the challenges remaining with NASA’s efforts 

to encourage a market for privately owned commercially operated 

space transportation. To date, NASA has spent $320 million in its commercial crew development effort, most recently making awards to four companies 

to help foster a commercial space industry that can meet NASA’s 

need to transport its crews to the International Space Station. Although NASA has over 50 years of experience with contractor-built 

government-owned space vehicles, it has never purchased transportation for its astronauts aboard a commercially developed system. 

Of primary concern in this new paradigm is how NASA will work 

with its commercial partners to ensure that their vehicles meet 

NASA’s safety and human rating requirements. How NASA addresses this challenge will to a large degree determine whether the 

nascent commercial space transportation industry can evolve into 

a viable commercial enterprise. 

To examine NASA’s progress as it transitions from its traditional 

role of owning human spaceflight vehicles to purchasing these services, the Office of Inspector General reported this summer on the 

Agency’s efforts to modify its safety and human rating requirements and acquire and certify commercial crew transportation 

services. Our June 30 report concluded that NASA has made sustained progress toward its goal of obtaining commercial transportation services to low Earth orbit. At the same time, we identified 

a series of significant challenges. My written statement summarizes each of these challenges, and I will not attempt a summary 

of that summary here. But let me highlight three important issues. 

First, NASA has not finalized the process it will use to certify 

that a commercial partner’s vehicle can safely transport NASA personnel. Every requirement NASA imposes has a cost associated 

with it in time, money, or potentially decreased innovation. Conversely, incurring these costs is often necessary to appropriately 

manage risk, particularly when the issue is human crew as opposed to cargo. In the coming months, NASA must finalize a set 

of crew safety requirements that help reduce development and operation costs for its commercial partners. 

Second, NASA has recently announced acquisition strategy that 

calls for a firm fixed-price contract in its first phase. NASA’s decision to move away from funded space act agreements toward farbased contracts has drawn criticism from some quarters over fears 
90 

that it may create administrative burdens and reduce the control 

companies have over their own system designs. NASA counters 

that its contract eliminates much of the time-consuming paperwork 

of a more traditional far-based contract. Going forward, one of the 

key challenges for NASA is to strike a balance that will enable innovation and flexibility, yet provide the appropriate amount of direct government involvement to ensure the safety of NASA astronauts, which leads to my third and final point. 

NASA initially plans to operate in an insight role while companies are beginning development of their launch systems. In later 

stages, NASA may assume more oversight role in directing or 

granting approval to partners on the path to certification. Selecting 

the appropriate level and mechanisms of insight and oversight will 

be critical to provide NASA with sufficient information to assess 

partners’ technical, schedule, and cost risks with the goal of certifying that commercially developed vehicles are safe for NASA astronauts, all without unduly affecting the commercial partner’s 

ability to operate in a cost-effective manner. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions, preferably easy questions. I would 

leave the hard ones to my colleague. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL MARTIN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the progress made—and challenges remaining—with NASA’s efforts to develop privately owned, commercially operated crew 

launch capabilities. 

With the final Space Shuttle flight in July 2011, the Agency turned its attention 

to the manned space program called for in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 

while continuing to encourage development of commercially operated U.S. space 

transportation systems. When these commercial capabilities are matured and available to the Government and other customers, NASA intends to use them to replace 

its reliance on the Russian Soyuz for transporting astronauts to the International 

Space Station (ISS). 

The emergence of commercial companies seeking to provide access to the ISS and 

low Earth orbit presents NASA with both opportunities and challenges. In April 

2011, NASA announced a second round of funded Space Act Agreements with four 

companies totaling $269.3 million as part of the Agency’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) effort. NASA has since reported that these four companies—Blue 

Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation (Sierra Nevada), and Space Exploration 

Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)—have successfully met all initial milestones set 

for them. Furthermore, NASA has amended its agreements with Boeing and Sierra 

Nevada to include optional milestones for specific tests intended to accelerate development efforts. If met, these new milestones bring the potential value of the companies’ agreements to $112.9 million and $105.6 million, respectively. 

Additionally, in July 2011 NASA and United Launch Alliance (ULA) entered into 

an unfunded Space Act Agreement to share personnel, infrastructure, and information to accelerate the potential use of ULA’s Atlas V launch vehicle as part of a commercial crew transportation system. Similarly, last month NASA and Alliant 

Techsystems (ATK) entered into an unfunded Space Act Agreement to collaborate 

on the development of ATK’s commercial launch system known as Liberty. Under 

the agreement, ATK and NASA will review and discuss Liberty system requirements, safety and certification plans, computational models of rocket stage performance, and avionics architecture designs. 

These Space Act Agreements illustrate the progress NASA has made to date with 

its CCDev initiative. However, significant challenges remain as NASA attempts to 

cultivate privately owned, commercially operated crew launch capabilities and foster 

a commercial space industry that could meet the Agency’s low Earth orbit crew 

transportation needs. Although the Agency has over 50 years of experience with con-
91 

1 ‘‘NASA’s Challenges Certifying and Acquiring Commercial Crew Transportation Services,’’ 

NASA Office of Inspector General (June 20, 2011) accessible at http://oignasa.gov/audits/reports/ 

FY11/IG–11–022.pdf. 

tractor-built, Government-owned space vehicles, NASA has never procured transportation for its astronauts aboard a commercially developed vehicle. Of primary concern in this new paradigm is how NASA will work with its commercial partners to 

ensure that commercially developed vehicles meet NASA’s safety and human-rating 

requirements, which seek to ensure that spaceflight systems accommodate human 

needs, control hazards, manage safety risks and, to the maximum extent possible, 

provide the capability to recover the crew safely from hazardous situations. How 

NASA responds to this challenge will to a large degree determine whether the nascent commercial space transportation industry evolves into a viable commercial enterprise that meets NASA’s crew transportation needs. To examine NASA’s progress 

as it transitions from its traditional role of contracting for and owning human 

spaceflight vehicles into the role of purchasing crew transportation services from industry, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) earlier this summer reported on the 

Agency’s efforts to modify its existing safety and human-rating requirements to 

make them applicable to commercially developed vehicles. We also evaluated the 

overarching challenges associated with possible approaches NASA may use to certify 

and acquire commercial crew transportation services. 

Our report, issued on June 30, 2011, concluded that NASA has made sustained 

progress toward its goal of obtaining commercial transportation services to low 

Earth orbit. 1 At the same time, we identified a series of challenges NASA faces as 

it expands its Commercial Crew Transportation program: 

• modifying NASA’s existing safety and human-rating requirements for commercially developed systems; 

• managing its acquisition strategy for commercial crew transportation services; 

• implementing the appropriate insight/oversight model for commercial partner 

vehicle development; 

• relying on an emerging industry and uncertain market conditions to achieve 

cost savings; and 

• managing the relationship between commercial partners, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), and NASA. 

I summarize each of these challenges in turn. 

Modifying NASA’s Existing Safety and Human-Rating Requirements for 

Commercially Developed Systems. In December 2010 NASA issued a consolidated set of health and medical, engineering, and safety and mission assurance requirements that commercial partners will have to meet to obtain certification to 

transport astronauts (‘‘Commercial Crew Transportation System Certification Requirements for NASA Low Earth Orbit Missions ’’). These Requirements describe 

NASA’s certification philosophy; the content and timing of the certification packages 

commercial companies will be required to deliver to NASA; and NASA’s expectations 

for system safety, human control of the vehicle, and crew survival. In addition, the 

Requirements reference a set of 93 other documents, each containing additional requirements the companies must consider in order to obtain certification. NASA has 

categorized the underlying 93 documents into three types: Type 1–mandatory, must 

be implemented as written; Type 2–alternatives allowed with NASA approval; and 

Type 3–suggested best practices. Each of the 93 documents reference other documents that set forth additional requirements. According to one estimate, NASA’s 

Certification documents contain more than 4,000 requirements. However, NASA has 

not finalized the processes Agency officials will use to verify that commercial partners have met these requirements and certify that a commercial partner’s vehicle 

can safely transport NASA personnel. In May 2011 the Agency released for industry 

comment six draft documents (the 1100–series) that supplement the Certification 

Requirements relating to missions to the ISS. These documents provide additional 

information to commercial partners regarding roles and responsibilities, technical 

management processes supporting certification, crew transportation system and ISS 

services requirements, and the application of technical and operations standards. 

Since issuance of our report, NASA has received industry’s feedback, reviewed 

and updated the 1100–series documents, and is working to validate the requirements for development of commercial services to deliver crew to the Space Station. 

Updates to these requirements will continue through the formal NASA document 

change process with final approval and release planned for early November 2011. 

Despite the absence of finalized requirements from NASA, the private sector is 

already developing systems and vehicles to meet NASA’s crew transportation needs. 
92 

During the comment phase, companies have suggested that NASA (1) modify existing requirements to the greatest extent possible and ensure they are achievable so 

that industry fully understands what is expected; (2) coordinate with the FAA 

—which has regulatory oversight of U.S. companies providing commercial space 

transportation services —to ensure NASA requirements and FAA regulations are 

compatible; and (3) allow for flexibility so that changes in vehicle or system design 

are attainable within reasonable costs. For its part, NASA said that it has reduced 

its compliance documents to those truly necessary to meet Government requirements. Additionally, the Agency has stated that it will allow commercial partners 

to propose alternative standards, where applicable. 

Every requirement NASA imposes on commercial vehicles has a cost associated 

with it in time, money, or decreased innovation. Conversely, incurring these costs 

is often necessary to appropriately manage risk, particularly when the issue is 

human crew as opposed to cargo. Consequently, many of the requirements NASA 

will impose on its commercial partners are the same as those the Agency applies 

to its own spaceflight programs. NASA must determine if, when, and how it will 

oversee commercial partners’ development efforts in order to ensure they meet 

Agency requirements and maximize safety and reliability without burdening commercial partners with unnecessary demands that lead to higher development and 

operations costs. 

Managing the Acquisition Strategy for Commercial Crew Transportation 

Services. When we issued our report in late June, NASA was still developing its 

acquisition strategy and had not settled on the specific mechanisms it planned to 

use for procuring commercial crew transportation services. Therefore, our report discussed the financial and programmatic challenges of several possible strategies, including those that rely on funded Space Act Agreements; competitive procurements, 

in particular fixed-price contracts; or a combination of both. 

With respect to funded Space Act Agreements, we reported that their use limits 

Government control compared to traditional procurement contracts based on the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). As one potential customer of the private sector market, NASA expects CCDev Space Act Agreements to result in commercial capabilities that consider the Agency’s Certification Requirements. However, under 

such agreements the Agency cannot dictate specific system concepts or elements or 

mandate compliance with its requirements. Rather, commercial partners are free to 

determine the system requirements and concepts they believe will best serve their 

target markets. Because crew transportation for NASA is the most viable segment 

of the human spaceflight market in the short term, it is in the companies’ best interests to ensure compliance with NASA requirements if they hope to obtain NASA’s 

business. Nevertheless, the lack of mandatory compliance with NASA’s requirements would have presented some risk that differences between partner designs and 

Agency requirements could occur. In addition, according to Agency policy, NASA 

may only enter into funded Space Act Agreements when its objective cannot be accomplished through a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Moreover, under 

the law a procurement contract is required if NASA is the sole beneficiary of the 

expected deliverables. 

Similarly, we reported that the use of fixed-price contracts for crew transportation 

services also presented challenges. Traditionally, cost-reimbursement rather than 

fixed-price contracts have been used on projects in which costs and risks are not 

clearly defined. While fixed-price contracts lock in the Government’s initial investment, proceeding in this manner may not eliminate cost risks. Some of NASA’s potential commercial crew partners are building spacecraft for the first time and design and development are under way without fully defined and finalized requirements. In this type of environment, there is a risk that during the period of contract 

performance NASA’s requirements may change so significantly that contractors 

could successfully argue that the Agency is changing the contract’s scope, in which 

case NASA could be required to pay the contractor to make necessary modifications. 

In September 2011, NASA released an outline of its acquisition strategy to 

achieve a certified crew transportation capability from private industry no later 

than the end of fiscal year 2016. The draft request for proposal calls for a firm fixedprice Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract in the first phase to be awarded 

to one or more companies that will result in a complete end-to-end design compliant 

with NASA Crew Transportation System requirements, including spacecraft, launch 

vehicle, launch services, ground and mission operations, and recovery. The contract 

value could be up to $1.61 billion from July 2012 through April 2014. In the second 

phase, NASA will issue a separate, formal solicitation for follow-on contracts for development, test, evaluation, and certification activities with optional ISS service 

flights. 
93 

NASA’s decision to move away from funded Space Act Agreements and toward 

FAR-based contracts has drawn criticism from some quarters over fears that this 

approach may cause significant delays and limit the flexibility of participating companies. In rolling out its new strategy, NASA has described it as a non-traditional 

contract approach that eliminates certified cost and pricing and Cost Accounting 

Standards requirements and incorporates tailored requirements, limited 

deliverables, and focused insight and oversight. Nevertheless, industry representatives have expressed concerns that NASA’s plans for a more hands-on FAR-based 

approach may be prohibitively expensive, create undue administrative burdens, and 

curtail the innovation and control they have over their system designs. Conversely, 

NASA believes the risk of commercial partners’ inability to meet its human-rating 

requirements could cause costly and time-consuming redesigns, pose safety concerns, and require NASA to be more involved in the development of any commercial 

transportation system. Going forward, one of the key challenges for NASA will be 

to strike a balance that will enable innovation and flexibility yet provide the appropriate amount of direct Government involvement to ensure the safety of NASA’s astronauts. 

Establishing the Appropriate Insight/Oversight Model for Commercial 

Partner Vehicle Development. In selecting the timing and appropriateness of its 

procurement mechanisms, NASA must balance its role as a supporter of commercial 

partners with its responsibility to ensure that commercially developed vehicles are 

safe for NASA astronauts, meet the Agency’s needs, and provide for a viable domestic alternative to the Soyuz vehicle. As we reported in June 2011, the Commercial 

Crew Office is in the process of developing the model for NASA’s insight and oversight of commercial companies. According to NASA policy, ‘‘insight’’ means acquiring 

knowledge and an understanding of contractors’ actions by monitoring selected 

metrics and milestones. Methods of achieving insight include reviewing documents, 

attending meetings and tests, and conducting compliance evaluations. ‘‘Oversight’’ 

combines technical insight of contractor activities with approvals that provide the 

contractor with formally documented authority to proceed or formal acceptance of 

plans, tests, or other criteria. 

With the issuance of the draft request for proposal for the Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract, NASA has confirmed that it plans to function in an insight 

role while commercial partners are designing and beginning development of their 

launch systems. For example, the Agency intends to assign a core Partner Integration Team comprised of NASA employees to follow each contractor as they design 

and begin to develop their systems, performing insight activities at commercial facilities as needed. Additionally, a board headed by a NASA Commercial Crew Program Manager and co-chaired by an industry representative will approve commercial systems and determine whether they meet NASA requirements. 

As each contractor moves forward with development, demonstration, and flight 

test activities, NASA will still need to maintain insight into the development of each 

vehicle but may assume more of an oversight role in granting approval or direction 

to each partner on the path to certification. To our knowledge, NASA has not finalized the oversight model for this phase that will include defining the key milestones 

commercial partners must successfully meet. Selecting the appropriate level and 

mechanisms of insight and oversight is critical to provide NASA with sufficient information to assess partners’ technical, schedule, and cost risks and certify that 

commercially developed vehicles are safe for NASA astronauts without unduly affecting the commercial partners’ ability to operate in a cost-effective manner. 

Relying on an Emerging Industry and Uncertain Market Conditions to 

Achieve Cost Savings. In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, Congress stated 

that commercial companies offer the potential of providing lower cost crew transportation services to support the Space Station. In fact, NASA’s acquisition strategy for 

procuring crew transportation services is premised on competition and a healthy 

commercial human spaceflight industry that would allow NASA to solicit bids from 

a number of partners and make informed, competitive procurement decisions that 

meet individual mission requirements and provide the best value for the taxpayer. 

However, the commercial human spaceflight industry is in its infancy and the market beyond NASA’s own crew transportation needs is uncertain. Many of the risks 

associated with achieving anticipated cost savings are largely out of NASA’s control, 

particularly in the area of creating non-Government demand for commercial human 

spaceflight services. The 2010 Authorization Act directs NASA to work with the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

and assess the potential non-Government market for commercially developed crew 

and cargo transportation systems and capabilities. In April 2011, NASA and the 

FAA reported that over time the market for commercial crew and cargo services 

may emerge and provide significantly more customers, more flights, and potentially 
94 

lower prices to the U.S. Government. The continuing challenge will be to determine 

at what point the market can sustain a number of commercial partners, allowing 

NASA to transition to the role of consumer and ultimately realize cost-effective commercial crew transportation. 

Managing the Relationship Among Commercial Partners, the FAA, and 

NASA. The FAA is responsible for regulatory oversight of companies seeking to provide commercial human space transportation. To date, the FAA has issued regulations pertaining to launch and reentry activities that could affect the public safety. 

However, in December 2012 the FAA is authorized to begin proposing regulations 

concerning the safety of passengers and crew involved in commercial spaceflight. As 

previously discussed, NASA plans to impose its own set of requirements, standards, 

and processes that commercial partners must meet to obtain a certification before 

transporting Agency personnel. Accordingly, NASA must coordinate with the FAA 

to avoid an environment of conflicting requirements and multiple sets of standards 

for commercial companies seeking to transport Government and non-Government 

passengers to low Earth orbit. Toward that end, the FAA and NASA have expressed 

a spirit of cooperation, and both groups have agreed that the ultimate goal is FAA 

licensing of commercially developed vehicles used to transport NASA personnel. Additionally, the agencies are co-locating personnel at NASA Headquarters, FAA field 

offices, and Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers to optimize Government oversight 

of commercial partners through compatible requirements, standards, and processes. 

While we did not make specific recommendations for corrective action in our June 

report, we continue to believe NASA must pay particular attention to these challenges as it continues to partner with commercial companies seeking to provide safe, 

reliable, and cost-effective access to the ISS. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Chairman HALL. That makes sense to me. 

I now recognize Mr. Gerstenmaier to present his testimony. And 

he will accord you the same opportunity I am sure. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN EXPLORATION 

AND OPERATIONS MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Commercial Crew Program represents a shift in near Earth 

operations to the private sector, freeing NASA and NASA’s limited 

resources to pursue other human spaceflight goals including the 

utilization of the International Space Station and setting out on 

missions of exploration. 

Commercial Transportation Systems, together with the capabilities to explore deep space provided by the Space Launch System 

and by the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle will enable NASA to 

move forward on a robust, comprehensive U.S. human spaceflight 

program. We had the right mix of government-managed programs 

and new commercial acquisitions. Technical considerations drove 

these acquisition approaches. 

NASA is committed to managing the requirements, standards, 

and processes for Commercial Transportation Systems certification 

to ensure that the commercial missions are held to the same safety 

standards as government missions. NASA will be responsible for 

defining, managing, reviewing, and approving certification plans 

and verifying requirements related to commercial crew program 

missions. However, more direct accountability will be shifting to 

the commercial companies providing these services to NASA. 

We have listened to the comments from the IG, the Aerospace 

Safety Advisory Board, and the GAO. We have amended our acquisition approach based on their input. We have listened to industry’s 
95 

comments from the draft RFP and learned from cargo transportation experiences. We have worked corporately with the IFA and 

worked cooperatively with the FAA. We have attempted to strike 

a balance among the many competing objectives. The plan that we 

have will have many challenges and will not be easy to execute. We 

will continue to listen and adapt as we move forward. We have put 

together a solid plan to deliver safe and reliable crew transportation for the Nation at low cost. 

NASA’s 2012 budget request of $850 million in fiscal year 2012 

for the Commercial Crew Program would provide for the development of commercial crew transportation system designs with crew 

transportation services available to the ISS in 2016. Reduction in 

funding from the President’s request could significantly impact the 

program’s schedule, risk posture, and acquisitions strategy. NASA’s 

initial analysis shows that a 2012 funding level of $500 million consistent with the 2010 NASA Authorization Act would delay initial 

capability to the ISS to 2017 assuming additional funding is available in the out years. During that roughly one-year period of delay, 

NASA would be paying approximately $480 million to Russia for 

crew transportation services. Therefore, NASA seeks funding for 

the Commercial Crew Program and the final conference action on 

the fiscal year 2012 appropriation as close to the NASA fiscal year 

2012 request as possible. 

Providing inadequate funding to this delicately balanced acquisition approach represents an unacceptable risk to program execution and would force us to relook at our overall approach. We need 

the appropriate funding for this challenging program. The commercial program is the Nation’s strategy for ending sole reliance on the 

Russians for crew transportation capability to the space station. 

Private enterprise and affordable commercial operations in low 

Earth orbit will enable a truly sustainable step in our expansion 

into space. 

NASA plans to acquire these services in a unique, cost-effective, 

and timely manner that will maintain safety for the crew. This acquisition will have many challenges. NASA is addressing these 

challenges in a systematic way. We will need your continued support and help in supporting this program. 

This program is part of a larger plan for the exploration of space 

that will keep the United States a leader in space exploration. I 

look forward to your questions and thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS

MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss NASA’s efforts to support the development of 

commercial crew transportation systems. We are pleased with the progress our industry partners have made in this new and innovative approach to human 

spaceflight development. Their success is critical to ensuring that we re-establish an 

American capability to transport U.S. astronauts—and their cargo—to the International Space Station (ISS), and quickly end the outsourcing of this work to foreign 

governments. And they need robust funding from NASA, to achieve timely success 

in this critical endeavor. Not only will the availability of one or more commercial 

crew transportation systems represent the emergence of a brand new domestic capability for carrying our astronauts to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the ISS, it will also 
96 

enable the Agency to focus on developing its own systems for sending astronauts 

on missions of exploration beyond LEO. 

Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) 

NASA’s investments have been aimed at stimulating efforts within the private 

sector to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities through the 

CCDev initiative. Since 2009, NASA has conducted two CCDev rounds, soliciting 

proposals from U.S. industry participants to further advance commercial crew space 

transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements 

of the system, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft. In the first round of CCDev, 

NASA awarded five funded Space Act Agreements (SAAs) in February 2010, which 

concluded in the first quarter of 2011. Awardees and the amounts of the awards 

were: Blue Origin, $3.7 million; the Boeing Company, $18 million; Paragon Space 

Development Corporation, $1.44 million; Sierra Nevada Corporation, $20 million; 

and United Launch Alliance, $6.7 million. Under these SAAs, companies received 

funding contingent upon completion of specified development milestones. All milestones were successfully accomplished by the CCDev industry partners. 

During the second CCDev competition, known as CCDev2, NASA awarded four 

funded SAAs that are currently being executed with the following industry partners: 

• Blue Origin’s work involves risk-reduction activities related to development of 

a crew transportation system comprised of a reusable biconic shaped Space Vehicle launched first on an Atlas V launch vehicle and then on Blue Origin’s own 

Reusable Booster System. The company is working to mature its Space Vehicle 

design through Systems Requirements Review (SRR), maturing the pusher escape system, and accelerating engine development for the Reusable Booster System. As of September 30, 2011, Blue Origin had successfully completed five of 

ten milestones and NASA had provided $11.2 million of the $22 million planned 

for this effort. 

• The Boeing Company is maturing its commercial crew transportation system 

through Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and performing development tests. 

Boeing’s system concept is a capsule-based spacecraft reusable for up to ten 

missions that is compatible with multiple launch vehicles. Boeing’s effort will 

include launch abort engine fabrication and static test fire, landing air bag drop 

demonstration, wind tunnel testing, parachute drop tests, Service Module Propellant Tank Development Test, and Launch Vehicle Emergency Detection System/Avionics System Integration Facility Interface Simulation Test. As of September 30, 2011, Boeing had successfully completed five of fifteen milestones 

and NASA had provided $52.5 million of the $112.9 million planned for this effort milestones. 

• Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is maturing its commercial crew transportation system, the Dream Chaser, through PDR with some subsystems to Critical Design Review (CDR). The Dream Chaser is a reusable, piloted lifting body, 

derived from NASA’s HL–20 concept that will be launched on an Atlas V launch 

vehicle. SNC’s effort also includes fabrication of an atmospheric flight test vehicle, conducting analysis and risk mitigation, and conducting hardware testing. 

As of September 30, 2011, SNC had successfully completed four of thirteen 

milestones and NASA had provided $30 million of the $105.6 million planned 

for this effort. 

• SpaceX is maturing its flight-proven Falcon 9/Dragon transportation system focusing on developing an integrated, side-mounted Launch Abort System. The 

uncrewed version of Dragon is already being demonstrated as part of the Commercial Cargo project, and will be used operationally as part of the ISS cargo 

resupply services effort. Their crew transportation system is based on the existing Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft. The Launch Abort System, 

an essential safety-critical system, represents the longest-lead portion of the 

Falcon 9/Dragon crew transportation system. As of September 30, 2011, SpaceX 

had successfully completed four of ten milestones and NASA had provided $40 

million of the $75 million planned for this effort. 

In addition to the four funded agreements mentioned above, NASA has also 

signed SAAs without funding with three companies: Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 

(ATK); United Launch Alliance (ULA); and Excalibur Almaz, Incorporated (EAI). 

The ATK agreement is to advance the company’s Liberty launch vehicle concept. 

The ULA agreement is to accelerate the potential use of the Atlas V as part of a 

commercial crew transportation system. The EAI agreement is to further develop 

the company’s concept for LEO crew transportation. As of September 30, 2011, ATK 
97 

had successfully completed one of five milestones; ULA successfully completed two 

of five milestones. NASA and EAI are initiating activities under the SAA now, and 

milestones are planned to continue through May 2012. 

Commercial Crew Program (CCP) 

The CCP is a partnership between NASA and the private sector to incentivize 

companies to build and operate safe, reliable, and cost effective commercial human 

space transportation systems. In the near term, NASA plans to be a reliable partner 

with U.S. industry, providing technical and financial assistance during the development phase. In the longer term, NASA plans to be a customer for these services, 

buying transportation services for U.S. and U.S.-designated astronauts to the ISS. 

We hope that these activities will stimulate the development of a new industry that 

will be available to all potential customers, including the U.S. Government. 

Success of the CCP would also end the outsourcing of space transportation to foreign providers. Together with the capabilities to explore deep p space provided by 

the Space Launch System and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, NASA is moving forward on a robust, comprehensive U.S. hum man spaceflight program. Reductions from the President’s FY 2012 requested funding level would affect our ability 

to successfully implement this program’s procurement strategy, and could leave us 

depend dent on foreign transportation services for a longer period of time at a cost 

of approximately $480 million per year. The success of this program will ensure that 

U.S. companies will provide these services. 

Commercial Crew Program Acquisition Roadmap 

The CCP acquisition lifecycle is comprised of an overall hybrid structure that 

originated d with the funded SAAs for subsystem, system and element design during the separate CCDev efforts, to be followed by a series of competitively awarded 

contracts for an integrated Crew Transportation System (CTS). NASA’s review and 

analysis led to the development of a phased acquisition strategy incorporating separate, sequential, full and open competitions, tailored to meet the Program objectives 

throughout each phase of design, development, test, evaluation, certification, and 

ISS transportation services. A combination of funded agreements and contracts for 

separate phases was determined to be the ideal strategy to capitalize on the 

strengths of each in the appropriate lifecycle phase, while balancing technical, 

schedule and cost risks. Figure 1.0 illustrates the overall hybrid approach for the 

CCP acquisition strategy. 
98 
99 

CCP’s acquisition approach focuses on reducing the risk and uncertainty of the 

development cycle and on the incentives provided through competition by separating 

the design and early development content (Phase 1) from the longer-term Development, Test, Evaluation, and Certification (DTEC) activities (Phase 2). This multiphased approach provides a shorter period of performance for the Phase 1 contract, 

thereby limiting the potential financial risk involved in utilizing long periods of performance with multiple commercial partners. Separating the early design from the 

longer-term development also provides a phased approach to cost assessment and 

management. The separation between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is distinctly defined to 

finalize design requirements in Phase 1, prior to a financial commitment to invest 

in the required capital assets associated with development and testing. Additionally, 

the approach encourages competition among multiple companies at each stage, 

which results in lower costs for each lifecycle phase and allows for well-timed incorporation of lessons learned. 

On September 19, 2011, NASA released a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for 

Phase 1, entitled Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract (CCIDC), inviting 

industry to comment on the process. The final CCIDC RFP will incorporate input 

from industry as appropriate and solicit proposals for a complete end-to-end crew 

transportation system design, including spacecraft, launch vehicles, launch services, 

ground and mission operations and recovery. NASA plans to release the final RFP 

for this effort by the end of 2011. The Agency anticipates that one or more operational CTS will be available for the transportation of astronauts to and from the 

ISS—as well as the provision of rescue services—by the middle of this decade, assuming that the CCP is funded at the requested level. Competition among multiple 

partners is a fundamental aspect of the strategy. Competition incentivizes performance, supports cost-effectiveness, and eliminates NASA dependence on a single provider. 

Human Rating/Safety 

The commercial crew program represents a shift in near Earth operations to the 

private sector, freeing NASA (and NASA’s limited resources) to pursue other human 

space flight goals, including utilizing the Space Station and setting out on missions 

of exploration. 

Within this new paradigm, NASA will maintain its stringent safety requirements 

and standards. We have always used contractors to build our space systems. In 

these programs, we are planning to use an acquisition approach that will allow the 

contractors more freedom to pursue cost-effectiveness, but still allow NASA the appropriate level of insight and oversight to ensure that the systems will be safe. Developing crew transportation systems to achieve LEO does not require any significant technological breakthroughs which is a key factor in using a unique insight/ 

oversight approach. We will maintain crew safety by way of a crew transportation 

system certification, and no system will receive this certification until NASA has 

confidence that our personnel will be safe. 

NASA is committed to managing the requirements, standards, and processes for 

CTS certification to ensure that commercial missions are held to the same safety 

standards as Government missions. NASA will be responsible for defining, managing, reviewing and approving certification plans and verification closure of requirements related to CCP missions. 

To implement the lessons learned from Apollo, Challenger, and Columbia relative 

to the independent oversight of design, test and certification, CCP will map program 

processes to the Agency’s programmatic guidelines for all NASA spaceflight programs (NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5, NASA Space Flight Program and 

Project Management Requirements) while working to minimize bureaucratic hurdles. These processes will include independent review of the commercial providers’ 

performance of key milestones and major technical risks to crew safety. NASA CTS 

certification will evaluate and assure that the commercial provider’s CTS design and 

implementation can safely conduct the required crew transportation mission. NASA 

CTS certification includes evaluation of design features and capabilities that accommodate human interaction with the CTS to enhance overall safety and mission success. NASA, through our CTS certification process, is fully accountable for the safety 

of the NASA crew on CCP missions. 

The underpinning of the certification process is the CTS requirements. To date, 

NASA’s CTS requirements have matured considerably. On May 21, 2010, NASA released its first version of commercial human rating requirements to industry in a 

document titled Commercial Human Rating Plan (CHRP). Through a Request for 

Information, NASA received extensive and valuable feedback on the CHRP and in-
100 

corporated that feedback, along with refined NASA understanding and planning, 

into the preparation of the next release of the requirements. 

In response to the release of CHRP, industry identified that there was a lack of 

clarity about the Agency’s approach to certifying commercial transportation systems. 

As a result, NASA released the Commercial Crew Transportation System Requirements for NASA LEO Missions to the public on December 10, 2010. This document 

provides requirements, standards and processes that will be applied to any NASA 

or NASA-sponsored commercial crew transportation mission to LEO. 

CCP currently is refining the requirements identified in the Commercial Crew 

Transportation System Requirements for NASA LEO Missions into several documents to clearly communicate NASA’s requirements, standards, and processes for 

CTS certification. The clarification provided by these documents will allow NASA 

and industry to ensure all necessary requirements, standards, and processes are 

met by commercial partners to safely transport NASA and NASA-sponsored crewmembers to the ISS. CCP refers to the program-level requirements as the ‘‘1100- 

series’’ documents, which are depicted in Figure 2.0. The initial public release of a 

subset of the program-level requirements was accomplished on October 25, 2010, 

along with the announcement for CCDev 2. 

The second release of the 1100-series documents to industry occurred on April 29, 

2011. As a result, all program-level requirements and standards were made available to industry for review and comment. CCP hosted a requirements workshop 

with industry on May 24–25, 2011 to communicate the intent of the documents, and 

to continue a dialogue with industry with respect to the documents. 

NASA provided a third release of the 1100-series documents in conjunction with 

the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Integrated Design Contracts on September 19, 2011, followed by another requirements workshop with industry on October 4, 2011. Baseline versions of the 1100-series documents are expected to be released to industry in December 2011 in conjunction with the final RFP for the Integrated Design contracts. 
101 
102 

As an additional ‘‘check and balance’’ in the area of safety, all CCP activities will 

be subject to evaluation by organizations independent of and funded separately from 

CCP, including the NASA Safety and Mission Assurance independent technical authority, the NASA Space Flight Safety Panel which is chaired by a member of the 

Astronaut Office, and the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. 

Coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Both NASA and the FAA envision a state where the FAA licenses commercial 

human spaceflights provided by a robust industry, from which NASA and the private sector can purchase transportation services. The requirements and processes 

of these separate agencies must be carefully coordinated and aligned to assure that 

both Agencies’ roles are accomplished with thoroughness and rigor. At the same 

time, it will be critical to the success of the industry ventures to minimize the burden of Government requirements and regulations imposed by multiple agencies. 

The nature of the FAA involvement in NASA’s commercial crew activities will 

vary through the development and operation of each potential flight system. NASA 

will establish initial certification and operations requirements for the services it 

wishes to acquire from commercial providers. NASA will partner with the FAA for 

the purposes of determining common standards and uniform processes to ensure 

both public safety and protection of crews and spaceflight participants for the 

NASA-sponsored missions. NASA and the FAA will work towards minimizing the 

duplication of requirements, developing a streamlined process and addressing indemnification issues. 

This will be accomplished by clearly defining roles and responsibilities of each 

Agency, sharing relevant data and jointly performing assessments to enable the 

commercial partner to be successful in support of NASA-sponsored missions and 

non-NASA commercial human spaceflight missions. NASA and the FAA are in the 

process of documenting agreements that solidify each Agency’s commitment to this 

partnership. 

Budget and Recent Accomplishments 

NASA has been told consistently by a broad range of potential providers that private sector partners expect to be able to achieve the capability to provide commercial spaceflight services to the ISS within 3–5 years from initial development start. 

NASA’s FY 2012 budget request of $850 million for CCP would provide that initial 

start in FY 2012 for the development of commercial crew transportation systems 

which NASA believes would enable services to ISS to be possible in the 2016 timeframe. A reduction in funding from the President’s request could significantly impact the program’s schedule, risk posture, and acquisition strategy. NASA’s initial 

analysis shows that a FY 2012 funding level of $500 million (consistent with the 

2010 NASA Authorization Act) would delay initial capability to ISS to 2017, assuming additional funding is available in the out-years. During that roughly one-year 

period of delay, NASA would be paying approximately $480M to Russia for crew 

transportation services. NASA remains concerned about potential reductions to the 

CCP budget and the anticipated schedule delays and additional costs that they will 

cause. NASA therefore requests sufficient funding for the CCP to avoid delaying the 

development of U.S. crew transport capabilities and lengthening the period during 

which the United States will need to pay Russia to transport crew to the Space Station. 

It is worth noting that subsequent to the passage and signing of the 2010 NASA 

Authorization Act in October 2010, several milestones or similarly important events 

have occurred which shed new light on the importance, viability, and criticality of 

NASA’s commercial crew efforts. 

In April 2011, NASA completed its CCDev agreements with five industry partners. These agreements yielded significant progress on multiple commercial crew 

transportation concepts for a relatively modest $50 million investment from NASA. 

Under CCDev, U.S. private industry was able to mature long-lead capabilities that 

accelerated commercial crew transportation concepts. 

As part of CCDev, NASA received and reviewed over 20 proposals from U.S. companies, ultimately making four awards in April 2011. NASA was very impressed 

with the quality of the proposals which suggested that, given the right investment 

and appropriate schedule, multiple U.S. companies could develop safe, reliable, and 

cost effective commercial CTS. 

n December 2010, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket successfully launched for the second 

time and the accompanying Dragon spacecraft successfully orbited the Earth and 

safely returned to the Pacific Ocean. This achievement helps demonstrate the viabil-
103 

ity of the Government/private sector partnerships like the one envisioned for commercial crew and provided further evidence that innovative approaches to spacecraft 

development efforts can be successful, and considerably less expensive than traditional NASA procurements. However, significant work still remains for delivery of 

cargo to ISS. The commercial companies are continuing to make sound progress in 

these activities. I expect to see cargo demonstrations in the next several months. 

Lastly, on August 24, 2011, Russia’s Progress 44 cargo vessel crashed in Siberia 

after the third stage of its Soyuz rocket failed. That rocket is similar to the one 

NASA depends on to transport astronauts to the ISS. A Russian commission recently pinpointed the Soyuz problem as a quality-control issue, not a major design 

flaw. NASA concurs with that assessment. However, the failure emphasized the 

need to have a robust capability to transport and provide rescue services for our ISS 

astronauts. Currently, we have three systems to carry cargo to the ISS, and that 

number will soon expand to five when Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are successful 

in completing their systems. However, we only have one system to rely on, the Russian Soyuz, to transport and provide rescue services for our ISS astronauts. If that 

system is unavailable for any reason for a significant length of time, there can be 

serious impacts to the productivity of the ISS. 

Challenges 

Currently, the biggest challenge confronting commercial crew developers as they 

attempt to develop and demonstrate their systems is financial. This challenge has 

been consistently cited as the top risk to commercial crew development and NASA’s 

financial commitment is critical to mitigating this risk. For example, in the fall of 

2009, the Augustine Report concluded, ‘‘.unless NASA creates significant incentives 

for the development of the [commercial crew] capsule, the service is unlikely to be 

developed on a purely commercial basis.’’ 

NASA’s CCP is designed to reduce the risk for private industry by providing significant financial (and technical) assistance for the development of these systems. 

NASA believes that by providing both assistance in the system development and demand for the service, the ‘‘business case’’ for commercial human spaceflight providers can close for one or more U.S. aerospace companies in a manner that also 

yields a safe and cost-effective capability for meeting NASA’s crew transportation 

needs. 

For these reasons and the timing issues discussed earlier, it is important that the 

Congress provide robust funding for NASA’s commercial crew initiative. This political and financial commitment from the Congress will also reduce the risk for private industry. This Congressional support will support industry in obtaining investment capital above the amount provided by NASA. 

In addition to financial challenges, each of the commercial crew developers has 

unique technical challenges associated with its system. Given NASA’s current understanding of the state of the commercial crew development efforts, the Agency is 

confident that the commercial crew developers can overcome these challenges. However, in order to mitigate the risk associated with technical challenges, NASA plans 

to support multiple commercial providers, thereby insulating the Agency in the 

event a commercial provider cannot complete its development effort. In addition, 

NASA plans to be fully supportive of in the commercial development activities, providing technical assistance, lessons learned, and past experience and knowledge in 

the area of human spaceflight development and operations. 

A final challenge is balancing the need for NASA involvement in order to obtain 

a safe and reliable system and allowing the providers the freedom to seek innovative 

and cost effective solutions. Striking the right balance will be key to successful and 

timely delivery of the crew transportation systems. 

Conclusion 

The Commercial Crew Program has great promise, but also some significant challenges ahead. Human spaceflight is a very difficult endeavor, and our industry partners will have the responsibility for the full end-to-end system. 

We cannot guarantee their success; however, we can structure an approach that 

provides the highest probability of success. I believe the approach outlined by NASA 

provides a solid path for developing and acquiring crew transportation services in 

a manner that is cost effective, and provides for crew safety. We need your support 

to provide the funding required for this effort. 

In July the Space Shuttle Atlantis rolled to ‘‘wheels stop’’ signifying the end of 

Space Shuttle operations. But, it also signaled the end for now of the ability of the 

U.S. to transport its astronauts into space, leaving the Nation dependent on the 
104 

Russian Soyuz for crew transportation to the ISS. The CCP seeks to ensure that 

American companies will transport our crews to the ISS by mid-decade and that 

aerospace jobs and taxpayer dollars remain here in America. 

The CCP is the Nation’s primary strategy for ending sole reliance on the Russians 

for crew transportation capability to the Space Station. Private enterprise and affordable commercial operations in LEO will enable a truly sustainable step in our 

expansion into space-a robust, vibrant, commercial enterprise with many providers 

and a wide range of private and public users will enable U.S. industry to support 

NASA—and other Government and commercial users—safely, reliably, and at a 

lower cost. This is the ultimate goal—one that I believe unites all of us. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any question you or the other 

Members of the Committee may have. 

Chairman HALL. All right. And I thank you. And Members, the 

two Members that are here know very well, it was three Members. 

I am sorry. Welcome—that we have a five minute limit on our 

questions. Let us try our best to stay with it and I will try to set 

the first record for it myself. I will ask some questions. 

My first question is developing any new systems typically takes 

a lot longer than expected. We know that; we have watched that 

happen. I know you all have seen it. My question is does NASA 

plan to negotiate the purchase of additional Soyuz seats that might 

be necessary in 2016 and 2017 and they are talking about 2020? 

We don’t know what is going to happen between now and then. 

There has been suggestions that we can accelerate the action prior 

to that time and then a lot of people think when we had the three 

birds we had, we ought to rob from two of them and still be flying 

that one. So there is a lot of arguments pro and con, but we have 

to face the facts and face what funds are going to be available, and 

I think it is a shame. As important as NASA is and as important 

as the space program is that we have less than half a percent of 

the whole dang budget of the entire Congress when really we are 

a national defense. We may be defending the next war out of space. 

It is important, I think, that the people that set the budget really 

realize this. 

The question is whether or not NASA plans to negotiate the purchase of additional seats, and a related question, what would be 

the impact on the International Space Station if Congress fails to 

extend the Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-Proliferation Act? And 

that is a general act that prohibits any American government from 

purchasing from Russia, but we also have an exception to it called 

INKSNA that allows them to do it. And you all are familiar with 

that and you know how to work that and work around it. What are 

you going to do if we fail to extend that act and the exception? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Okay. First of all, we have purchased all the 

seats from Russia that we can under the existing exemption to the 

act. So in other words, we have purchased all the things we can 

up to the period where we will need an exception to the Iran, North 

Korea, Syria Non-Proliferation Act if we are going to do any additional purchases. 

At this time, I think it is too early to say exactly whether we are 

going to make those purchases or not with Russia. We need to start 

into this program, see what funding levels we get, see how good of 

progress these commercial companies can make. As you heard in 

the previous session, they think they can do better than the dates 

that I read to you in my opening statement, so we will let them 
105 

go ahead and progress through and see and in the next year or so 

we will see——— 

Chairman HALL. Now, them, who are you talking about? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The commercial companies. 

Chairman HALL. All right. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The commercial companies look like they 

can provide earlier dates than what I verbally just read to you. So 

we will see what happens in the next year, how much progress 

they make, how well we do on issuing the contracts, and then we 

will make the decision on what the right risk posture is, should we 

purchase additional seats from Russia. In the meantime, we are 

going to have to pursue some relief to the Iran, North Korea, Syria 

Non-Proliferation Act. We are working that through the Administration now to see what needs to be done there. We think we need 

an exemption to that even for basic sustaining engineering onboard 

space station, independent of transportation. So we are starting to 

do that planning now and I would say we are probably about a 

year away before we are ready to answer the question that you 

asked, whether we will make additional purchases. 

Chairman HALL. And you think the exception would fall right in 

line? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We will work to get the exception in place 

to support our needs for crew transportation. 

Chairman HALL. All right. I have a minute and 23 seconds I am 

going to give back to Mr. Miller for his five minutes. You can have 

my minute and 20 seconds. 

Mr. MILLER. Six minutes and 23 seconds? 

Chairman HALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. That is exceptionally generous, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, in the past, we have paid all the costs of developing human space systems and we have owned them. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan on the subject of the Panama Canal, we 

bought it, we paid for it, it was ours, and we kept it. In your testimony today you say that the reason to go to commercial firms is 

to free up money to do other things, but I really have some questions about how that math works. It does appear that we are paying the Soviets—no longer the Soviets—the Russians about $62 

million per seat per flight. That is right, isn’t it? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. And we are presumably—you kept using the 

term companies but we are probably going to only have one contractor for this, right? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we need to go through the acquisition 

process and do the awarding process and we can see based on what 

proposals we get how many contracts we can carry through this 

process. So there may be an option of carrying more than one contractor through this process. We will see once we start getting responses to our proposals that we have put out for them to evaluate. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. The estimates are that they will pay some of 

the costs, whoever we have a contract with, and it is still hard to 

imagine that we are going to have two or three primes. I mean we 

are going to have just one company that we deal with in buying 

seats, right? 
106 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think it is a little early to speculate 

on that. We have a two-phase procurement where the first portion 

of the procurement would essentially put the vehicle design in 

place——— 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —and we would like to make—drop the request for proposal in the middle of December of this year for that 

activity. Then, there is a second phase where we do demonstration 

phases and then we finally go to a service phase at the end. That 

service phase could be one. Again, it depends. You heard in the 

earlier——— 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —hearing that there may be a market out 

there that is larger. It is up to these companies, the commercial 

companies to see if there is a larger market, and if there is, we 

may be able to choose more than one company. So the answer is, 

I think, it is too early to say definitely we are going to be down 

to only one provider. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. In terms of developing the system, though, 

they may pay something but we are going to pay 90—probably 90 

cents on the dollar and that is going to end up being around $6 billion. Is that correct? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, the 90 cents on the dollar discussion 

appeared from the previous hearing to be different. And you can go 

back and look at what each individual company said their contributions were, but I think they varied off of that. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay, but we think our part is going to be about 

$6 billion. Is that correct? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We are estimating somewhere between $4 

and $6 billion. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. And we think that we will end up needing 

about 40 seats, eight to ten missions to the space station with four 

astronauts on each, a maximum of about 40 seats, and then we will 

also be charged presumably per seat at the time. This is just development costs is four to six billion and then we will also have to pay 

them per seat to go there, isn’t that right? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, there will be some additional cost for 

the actual transportation services we——— 

Mr. MILLER. Any notion at all what that might be, any clue? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Well, we think it will be obviously less than 

what the Soyuz seat price is today. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. More than a bus ticket, less than Soyuz. 

Have you considered whether we will likely be requested or actually demanded by the companies we deal with that we indemnify 

them for any liability? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think that is one of the key issues we need 

to work with the companies and go through in this process. The 

amount and specific details of the indemnification needs to be 

worked out with the companies. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, there probably will be at least some kind of 

indemnity? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. There will be some indemnification. 
107 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. It certainly appears that we are paying a lot 

more per seat than we are paying the Russians now. Is that math 

wrong? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we need to see the actual proposals 

from the companies to make that statement. In our estimates, we 

think we can equal the Soyuz seat price or be slightly better than 

the Soyuz seat price, but we need to see the actual proposals and 

actually see the concepts get fleshed out by the companies. 

Mr. MILLER. And when it comes time to negotiate the per-seat 

flight, you really think there is a possibility of having more than 

one company we would negotiate with so there might actually be 

a market? There might actually be competition? That is a little difficult to imagine but——— 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It is difficult for me to speculate on that one 

way or the other. I think I would wait until we get a little bit further down the process, see if the market starts maturing as some 

of the commercial companies talked about in the previous hearing, 

and then we can make some definitive statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, with the minute and 33 seconds that Chairman Hall yielded to me, Mr. Martin, have you looked at those numbers and does this appear to be a good deal or how does this compare to the deal we have with the Russians now to pay them $62 

million per seat? 

Mr. MARTIN. We have not looked at those numbers yet. There are 

still far too many unknowns with respect to firm fixed requirements and time frames and, importantly, external funding. So we 

have not looked at those numbers yet. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Have any of my questions been misdirected? 

Is there anything in the math that I have laid out that has been 

incorrect? I mean it certainly sounds like this is going to be a lot 

more expensive to build a space system for a private contractor 

who will then own it or pay 90 cents on the dollar, whatever it is, 

and then contract with them and pay them to transport astronauts. 

It sounds like it is a lot more expensive than the deal we have now. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am going to defer to my colleague here, I am a 

lawyer but my understanding is that, yes, one of the objectives of 

course is to get NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, but under the Space Act Agreement was also want to foster 

this commercial space market. So there is at least two broad objectives in NASA’s moving forward here. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I think I have used my five 

minutes and your minute and 43 seconds. 

Chairman HALL. All right. At this time, I recognize Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Five full minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. All right. Let us just note that the testimony we just heard indicated that there had been major investment of money in the private sector and that if we can have up to 

a billion dollars of private sector money invested in space technology development, that is a good thing. That is a very good thing. 

And it is bound to have a positive result than not having that $1 

billion in private money being used for space-based technology development. And I will just note SpaceX, in answer to the question 
108 

to my colleague, suggested that they had put in $500 million in development of their Falcon System and only 300 of that—only $300 

million came from the government. So SpaceX was actually putting 

in several hundred million dollars more than what the government 

actually put into this. That is a good thing that we have a private 

sector company putting in $500 million in developing a new type 

of space transportation systems. 

So I would suggest that not only in the end by taking this approach. Had NASA been only totally in charge of this goal—of 

achieving this goal rather than trying to encourage the private sector companies, the major question we have is would that have cost 

the people, taxpayers, more than what in the end it will cost them 

when one of these companies wins the competition. Do you have 

any thoughts on that, either one of you? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think we have been able to use the 

private company investment very effectively to leverage the NASA 

investment to get a substantial amount of technology and research 

and activities done. So I think, so far, it has been a very good process for us in terms of getting return on their investment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. And in the end we hope we will have 

a product that it will cost less than what Soyuz or at least equal 

to what Soyuz is offering today and much less than if this was simply a NASA project that was being done in-house with NASA. So 

at a time when we have $1.5 trillion more in federal spending than 

we have in money coming in, having private sector money invested 

seems to me to be a very laudable goal. 

And I would like to ask for the last two minutes that I have got 

here, Mr. Martin, in your June report you describe several potential acquisition strategies that NASA could use for the Commercial 

Crew Program moving forward, including the use of funded Space 

Act agreements. Could you confirm the finding in your report that 

while every acquisition strategy has its strengths and weaknesses, 

which we have just heard, that the SAA’s could theoretically be 

used by providing certification requirements to participating companies in a non-mandatory fashion? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. I don’t believe our report went that far and 

I think whether or not——— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It did not. I am trying to push it a little farther. 

Mr. MARTIN. No, we did not go that far. It really comes down to 

sort of a procurement law and a legal question, and I think Bill is 

in a better position, at this particular stage, certainly with the first 

phase of this next stage in CCDev, perhaps you may have been 

able to use either acquisition vehicle. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Well, you said it is a legal requirement 

from a policy. According to agency policy, NASA may only enter 

into funded Space Act agreements when its objectives cannot be accomplished through contract, grant, or other agreements. I understand that is the ‘‘policy,’’ but legally, this is not a ‘‘legal’’ requirement, is it? It is just the ‘‘policy’’ requirement? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. My understanding is it is a legal requirement that once we say we need to have a service or we have a requirement for a capability, at that point we need to go into a FARtype instrument. 
109 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Is that your understanding, Mr. Martin, a legal requirement versus this is just what the policy is? 

Mr. MARTIN. It is. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you agree with that. Thank you 

very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair now recognizes the temporary Ranking Member of the Committee, Ms. Donna Edwards, the gentlelady 

from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentleman, for your testimony. And I apologize; I had to step out just 

briefly but I did have a chance to read your testimony. I want to 

go back to the earlier panel because one of the things that I haven’t 

heard, Mr. Gerstenmaier, is whether you all have in your cost estimates factored things—that at least some of the companies have 

said that the taxpayer is going to have to underwrite—like indemnification. Is that factored into your cost considerations? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It is a consideration but it is really difficult 

to estimate exactly what that cost could be and how that gets accounted in our budgets. So until we get into that portion of negotiation with the individual companies, it is very difficult to estimate. 

So we have some assumptions based on where we think it is. We 

think there will be some indemnification required but——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. But the companies—excuse me. But the companies in their testimony actually said that they can’t do this without 

the taxpayer providing the indemnification. So it would seem to me 

that sooner rather than later the taxpayer needs to know how 

much they are going to be on the hook for in the cases of failure. 

Let me just go to something else. Also, the companies talked 

about—Boeing in particular talked about the ownership of intellectual property rights. This is something that has long concerned me 

that basically taxpayers are underwriting a lot of the early development work where an awful lot of intellectual property assets are 

acquired and then the taxpayer basically gets no benefit, no real 

benefit of that bargain. Why is that in taxpayers’ interest not to 

receive at least some portion of the long-term profitability of intellectual property rights? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, the model is that the companies are 

going to invest some of their own money in this activity, and as we 

have heard, varying amounts depending upon the company. And 

for that investment, the company expects some return on that investment, so they would like——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. The taxpayer does, too. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I agree. And so the return for the taxpayer 

is we get a service at a lower price. The return for the company 

is that they have a vehicle which they own which they can then 

go market to other users that has really brought down the cost of 

development for the U.S. taxpayer. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right, I have to tell you I am just not actually 

clear where or who this other market is that somehow is out there. 

I haven’t been convinced at all about this market, and it sounds to 

me that the companies that were in front of us are presuming that 

the biggest consumer here is going to be the U.S. taxpayer for our 
110 

space program. And so this sort of ephemeral market and consumer 

out there I don’t think has quite materialized enough. 

Let me just go to another question. Your Deputy Administrator 

was recently quoted as saying, ‘‘We have an analysis that says we 

believe we would require $6 billion over 5 years.’’ If you have that 

analysis, I think it would be helpful for this Committee to see that 

analysis to know upon which you base that $6 billion over five 

years. Do you have an analysis? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have the basis for our budget submit and 

the basis of our estimate. It is roughly a range between 4 and $6 

billion. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, what is the analysis that the Deputy Administrator was referring to? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It is a portion of that same analysis, but the 

way it is going to work is when we actually get the proposals from 

the contractors next year, we can then really definitize that and we 

can show you a much more definitive budget. The problem with 

this acquisition is there is a lot of uncertainty of how much the 

companies will invest in their piece that we don’t know right now. 

We have some other issues to work out with them in terms of those 

prices. So we have estimates, we have a basis and a model that we 

have based our budgeting on, but we need to get that data from 

the companies to actually get more of a definitized model. So we 

have——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. For those of us who do numbers, can you show us 

the basis of your analysis? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yeah, we can—it will be a range and you 

can see the range. 

Ms. EDWARDS. No, I guess I am trying to figure out all of your 

underlying assumptions in making the analysis. I mean if your 

Deputy Administrator is going to say definitively that we are going 

to need $6 billion over five years, I kind of want to know where 

that is coming from. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We can show you the basis for that estimate. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then, Mr. Martin, how well do you have an 

understanding of NASA’s budget and the schedule estimates for 

the Commercial Crew Development Program? 

Mr. MARTIN. We have not—in preparing our June audit report on 

the status commercial crew challenges, we did not have access to 

those. We did not analyze those documents. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So NASA hasn’t given you an analysis that provides the basis for the estimates that they are making? 

Mr. MARTIN. They have not but they wouldn’t in normal course. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Would you ask for one? 

Mr. MARTIN. I will. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And then lastly, I just want to go to 

this point. It seems to me that we are running on a course of eventually the taxpayer subsidizing a monopoly, and my worry about 

that is that in subsidizing a monopoly, we will end up footing an 

even bigger bill than we can anticipate in the beginning because 

there will be no other, you know, I don’t know, horse in the race, 

you name your analogy. And so how does—how do you, Mr. 

Gerstenmaier, then estimate what the overall cost to taxpayers is 
111 

going to be in terms of subsidizing essentially one entrant, maybe 

you say another, into this program? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We tried to structure the acquisition approach in two phases. The first phase of the acquisition approach 

is essentially where we have the companies work on developing the 

design, and that means we get all the requirements in place, we 

see how well they understand our safety requirements, we see how 

well they can respond to our relaxed contracting requirements, we 

can actually see company performance with some milestones and 

development tests during that phase, and then we can enter into 

the second phase. So we can limit our exposure by doing this as 

a two-phase procurement so we can see the first portion of the procurement activities and see how well it progresses, see if we are 

making significant progress, see if these estimates that we put together for our budget hold up. If they do, then we can proceed into 

the second phase. If we see through this first phase something just 

doesn’t look right, it is totally different than we have got, we can 

adapt to that and then move forward to the next phase. So therefore we can——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just as you close because I know the Chairman——— 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —minimize the risk to the taxpayer. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. Just one last question and just a yes 

or no answer. Have any of the companies that were here before us 

ever provided safe crew transport? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I guess if you—under this model, no, but if 

you look at the space shuttle and——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Have any of the companies that were here that we 

have invested in at this point ever provided that? NASA has but 

these companies haven’t right? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Well, Boeing did the work in cooperation 

with NASA to develop the space shuttle which delivered crew to 

space. 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Edwards did a good job, but golly, I miss 

Ms. Johnson. 

Mr. Palazzo, I recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, you were developing an acquisition strategy 

for commercial crew and I think you were using the $850 million 

mark. What would you do differently if you have less than that, or 

more specifically, based on the $500 million that the Senate is 

pushing? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, based on our models and our internal 

estimates which have some softness in them because this is a new 

approach for procurement for us, if we ended up with $500 million 

in 2012, as long as we have got some additional funding in the out 

years above the levels that we put in our budget request, we think 

that would delay the commercial crew service to space station by 

about 1 year. 

Mr. PALAZZO. What is the total estimated cost of taxpayer dollars 

that NASA is committed to spending on each current commercial 

contractor? 
112 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have not broken it out by individual contractor. We have the total budget estimate that I described before 

of roughly four to six billion. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Do you have any legitimate studies that provide a 

realistic picture of the commercial market for human space flight 

activities that will exist in the next five years? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have in our report which we provided to 

Congress there is a wide range of potential activities that sit out 

there or potential market that sits out there in the future. There 

is a lot of uncertainty in that market, and I think again you can— 

as you heard in your previous panel—they can better describe what 

that market is than I can. 

Mr. PALAZZO. How many commercial crew providers can NASA 

support if the commercial market fails to materialize? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we will see what the cost is for those 

services, and depending upon the cost for those services, we could 

potentially support more than one but we need to see what the actual cost of the services is and then we will determine what that 

is—what we can afford in terms of number of providers. 

Mr. PALAZZO. How many flights per year are you planning to 

support the space station? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It would be roughly two flights per year. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Two? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. And we could change that model if the research demand changes and someone wants some other activities, 

but right now, that is our basic plan is two. 

Mr. PALAZZO. What is your estimated cost per flight once the development stage is completed? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we would look at it as equal to or less 

than what we would be paying for Soyuz at that time. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Some——— 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $480 million or so. 

Mr. PALAZZO. How much would that come down per astronaut 

since that seems to be the common way of looking at it? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $80 million per crew seat. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Six seats per year, $480 million total per 

year. 

Mr. PALAZZO. All right. Well, thank you for your testimony, and 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman, and the round of questions are completed. And I really thank both of you. You are very 

important, you are knowledgeable, and thank you for sharing that 

knowledge with us. Time and time again we have had you before. 

Members of the Committee have additional questions of witnesses, we will ask the witnesses to respond to those in writing. 

They might and we will send them to you. The record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional comments from Members, and 

witnesses are excused. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(113) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
114 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager 

for Space Exploration, The Boeing Company, Houston, TX 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. How confident are you about NASA’s and FAA’s ability to coordinate their requirements for commercial crew launches? Have you seen any evidence yet that 

the two agencies are attempting to define roles and responsibilities, and to minimize overlap? 

A1. NASA and the FAA both have key roles in establishing requirements for commercial crew launches, and have demonstrated willingness to work together to define the requirements. The regulatory body controlling NASA commercial crew 

flights to the ISS has not been definitively established to our understanding, but 

NASA and the FAA are working closely to finalize those details. Commercial crew 

flights in support of customers other than NASA will need to be regulated by the 

FAA. It is important for Congress to provide the FAA the ability to establish regulations to the existing Part 400 in support of this emerging market. Earlier regulatory 

ability will play a key role in stimulating the commercial space market in several 

ways. Regulations will help the insurance industry baseline safety for underwriting, 

resulting in more affordable insurance premiums. Regulations will also provide a 

level playing field, ensuring that all potential providers and operators duly consider 

safety concerns. A lack of safety regulations also increases business risk for all participants. An accident prior to regulation enforcement could produce three negative 

economic drivers: increased insurance costs, a pendulum swing to over-regulate, and 

lessened demand due to simple fear. 

Q2. Launch abort systems are one of the most critical technically challenging features to design, integrate and test. What type of launch abort system do you intend to build into your crew system, and how mature is the design? Do you intend to demonstrate it in a relevant launch environment? 

A2. Boeing’s CST–100 capsule utilizes a ‘‘Pusher type’’ launch abort system (LAS) 

with four 40,700-lb thrust launch abort engines which are derived from the Atlas 

II sustainer engines. Our LAS design ensures a controllable, stable abort from pad 

through orbit insertion with no ‘‘black zones,’’ meeting or exceeding all requirements 

for separation. During CCDev-2, we performed three full duration LAE development 

tests. During the future phases of the program, we plan to perform additional single 

engine hot-fire tests prior to full-up Service Module cold flow tests and hot fire tests. 

These tests precede a pad abort test that is similar in nature and uses the same 

test stand as the abort test conducted for the Orion spacecraft. 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. NASA’s plan requires the development and certification of the commercial crew 

systems to occur within a tight timeline, requires the commercial systems to capable of safe and reliable flight operations by 2016, makes use of new and 

unproven government-industry development and safety approaches, and has development and operations costs that are still unknown. In that regard, please 

provide the following questions: 

• What is the evidence that you believe provides the justification for Congress to 

invest in this commercial crew initiative, and 

• What your company realistically would require from the U.S. government to 

make this initiative a success. 

A1. The government-industry partnership on Commercial Crew has been highly 

successful as demonstrated by Boeing’s ability to complete a system preliminary design review in March 2012, less than two years from program start, with $120M 

of government funding. This is significantly faster and less expensive than traditional programs. In addition, we are designing the system with a firm understanding of NASA’s safety and certification requirements, based on five decades of 

building and operating HSF systems. Boeing’s CST–100 will provide safe, reliable, 

and affordable domestic transportation capability to ensure the full utilization of the 

ISS. This affordable transportation capability will also allow additional NASA resources to be applied to exploration beyond LEO with the Space Launch System and 

Orion vehicles. The commitment demonstrated by Congress and NASA to support 
115 

the infrastructure development is critical to support the emergence of the commercial space market. Boeing, in partnership with NASA, will deliver a safe, reliable, 

and affordable commercial crew system. Boeing has invested a significant amount 

prior to and during the performance of CCDEV, and will continue to invest throughout the development phase. 

Q2. What is your understanding of how third-party liability and indemnification 

will be addressed for both launch and reentry and for on-orbit operations of any 

commercial crew transportation system used for NASA ISS servicing: 

• How important an issue is liability and indemnification to any decision your 

company might make to enter into a Phase 1 or Phase 2 development contract 

with NASA for commercial crew systems, or to enter into a service contract with 

NASA to transport astronauts to the ISS? 

• Do you plan to purchase insurance for your systems as part of your business 

plan, and how confident are you that adequate insurance coverage will be 

available privately? If it isn’t, what do you plan to do? 

A2. There are two viable paths for liability protection in support of commercial crew 

launches to the ISS. If NASA is the final regulatory authority, they could offer indemnity protection for the launch, on-orbit, and re-entry phases of these launches. 

However, if the FAA is determined to be the regulatory authority for launches to 

the ISS, the launch and re-entry phases would be licensed through the CSLA. In 

this situation, insurance would be procured up to the maximum probable loss determination, and additional liability would be covered through the congressionally approved indemnity ceiling. Damage to the ISS would not be insurable, and adequate 

cross-waivers would need to be provided by NASA through their planned certification approach. 

FAA, COMSTAC and industry have been working together on defining an approach for addressing third-party liability for both launch and reentry phases. FAA 

has proposed an extension to the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) with informed consent as the path to limit liability. Boeing will require adequate cross 

waivers of liability prior to docking with ISS. For areas of risk not addressed by 

legislative limits of liability or indemnification, Boeing has included insurance protection in our cost estimates and business plan. 

Q3. During the hearing, you testified that your company could provide commercial 

crew transportation services within the 2015–2016 timeframe. Please provide 1) 

the assumptions behind the date, including a) the magnitude and timing of 

funding from NASA, b) the timeline assumed for development, integration, testing, and certification, and c) the number of certification flights you are assuming will be required. 

A3. The details of the Boeing plan for completing development of our Commercial 

Crew Transportation System—including assumptions, magnitude and timing of 

NASA funding, timeline, and certification approach—represent our proposal to 

NASA in response to the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) announcement for proposals. This is an ongoing competitive procurement, with awards 

expected July/August 2012. The CCiCAP AFP projected maximum awards during 

the 21-month base period of $300–$500 million. This funding level is below the 

funding level required to support a 2015 crewed test flight. However, if NASA is 

able to provide additional funding to Boeing during this phase, the launch date 

could move up to as early as 2015. The total funding required for the development 

and certification of the Boeing system is approximately $2 billion. This includes extensive qualification testing on the service module, structural test article, and qualification test articles. In addition, the cost includes a pad abort test, un-crewed orbital flight test, and a crewed flight test. Note that Boeing’s system cost above is 

for the development of the entire commercial crew mission capability, which includes ground operations, mission operations, crew training, and the launch vehicles 

to support the flight tests. 

Q4. Would you anticipate any additional capacity on CST–100 flights after taking 

into account NASA’s crew requirements on ISS crew rotations? 

• How will that overcapacity be dealt with? 

• Will NASA be required to procure the entire spacecraft, or will they be able to 

just purchase the required number of seats for each flight? 

• If passengers not paid for by NASA are transported on the flight, how will their 

stay on the ISS be accommodated and for how long? 

• Are you assuming the ISS partnership will host the non-NASA spaceflight participants on the ISS? 
116 

• If you are planning to fly extra passengers on each flight, how do you plan to 

get them back from the ISS in an emergency if the CST–100 capsule is also 

supposed to serve as an ISS crew rescue vehicle? 

A4. NASA has identified a transportation requirement for crew and limited cargo. 

The Boeing CST–100 spacecraft can accommodate up to 7 crew or a combination of 

crew and cargo. As part of our business plan, we anticipate a market for private 

space flight participants to travel to ISS, and if NASA were to approve such participation, the resulting revenue could offset the NASA mission cost. NASA could also 

use the additional cargo capacity available on each flight to support science payloads 

or logistics requirements. In the event private spaceflight participants were approved for travel to the ISS, it is projected that they would return on the Boeing 

CST–100 spacecraft that was docked to the ISS, serving as the prior rescue vehicle. 

Q5. NASA has proposed that the first phase of its commercial crew procurement— 

the Integrated Design Contract—be awarded fixed-price contract. From your perspective, is that a manageable approach? 

• How would you plan to balance risk mitigation and flight test programs, which 

can be expensive, against the need to keep within the contracted-for fixed-price 

limits? 

A5. NASA has changed its acquisition approach from a FAR-based fixed-price contract to an SAA, which also requires fixed price milestones. Boeing believes that a 

fixed-price contract is acceptable for this procurement. The design solution is lowrisk, benefiting from the incorporation of flight proven hardware previously flown 

on other Boeing programs, including the X–37, Orbital Express, Space Shuttle, and 

other programs. Efficient design and manufacturing approaches proven on Boeing 

commercial and defense programs are being incorporated in the CST–100 design to 

ensure successful program execution. Our approach has already included numerous 

risk mitigation hardware development tests to ensure success early in the development phase, significantly reducing the risk of costly redesigns later in the design 

phase. At Boeing, our brand and our business are fundamentally dependent on the 

safety of our products. We do not sacrifice safety for cost performance, because there 

is nothing more costly than an unsafe product. We have demonstrated repeatedly— 

across a range of commercial and defense aircraft and spacecraft—our ability to develop and manufacture safe and reliable products, and to do so in such a manner 

as to run a profitable, well-performing business. 

Questions submitted Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. What obligation does your company have under space act agreements to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

A1. Under the CCDev, CCDev2, and CCiCap space act agreements, NASA embeds 

a Partner Integration Team with our team for ongoing insight into our development 

process. NASA has visibility into our tests, demonstrations, and reviews as we are 

performing them and is aware of the outcomes as they occur. 

Q2. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a space act agreement? 

A2. See response to item 1 above. 

Q3. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a space 

act agreement? 

A3. See response to item 1 above. 

Q4. What obligations does your company have under traditional contracting to report anomalies to NASA? 

A4. The planned NASA insight approach is the same, regardless of contracting 

mechanism. Whether under SAA or FAR-based contract, NASA embeds members of 

their Partner Integration Team with our team, and they have full visibility into our 

tests, demonstrations, and reviews as they occur. 

Q5. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under traditional contracting? 

A4. See response to item 4 above. 
117 

Q6. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional 

contracting? 

A6. See response to item 4 above. 

Q7. What obligations does your company have under the modified FAR acquisition 

to report anomalies to NASA? 

A7. Boeing is unable to answer as NASA did not provide the final terms and conditions for their proposed modified FAR acquisition prior to switching to a space act 

agreement approach. However, the NASA insight approach, in which the NASA 

Partner Integration Team has full ongoing insight into our development effort, obviates the need for such reporting as NASA is aware as events emerge. 

Q8. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a modified FAR acquisition? 

A8. See response to item 7 above. 

Q9. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a modified 

FAR acquisition? 

A9. See response to item 7 above 

Questions submitted Representative Jerry Costello: 

Q1. NASA’s FY 2012 budget request proposes a total of $4.25 billion over five years, or $850 million a year through 2016, to fund the U.S. government’s share of 

commercial crew capabilities development for one or more systems. What do you 

believe, in terms of a percentage of total development costs, the private sector 

might realistically contribute? 

• What percentage is your company planning to contribute? 

A1. Boeing has invested significantly over the past five decades as well as directly 

in the performance of commercial crew development on hardware and technologies 

that support our offering. We will continue to offer significant investment throughout the development phase. NASA and the Congress have taken a tremendous step 

to stimulate this emerging market by committing to funding the preponderance of 

the development cost. Without this commitment, the market would take significantly longer to mature. In addition, the ability to provide a safe, reliable, and affordable domestic transportation capability vital to the ISS would not be available. 

Q2. Is private sector investment contingent on additional, non-financial U.S. government support too? If so, what would that support involve? 

A2. The support provided by NASA and the Congress to fund the preponderance of 

the development cost, along with significant industry investment, will ensure the 

ability of a safe, reliable, and affordable domestic transportation capability to the 

ISS. In addition, this commitment will allow the stimulation of the commercial 

space transportation market. The ability of NASA and/or the FAA to regulate these 

launches will be required prior to the services phase. 

Q3. What is your reaction to NASA’s proposed approach to human-rating future 

commercial crew transportation systems? Do you believe NASA’s proposed approach will both ensure astronaut safety and facilitate eventual FAA licensing 

of launches for non-government customers? Are there any changes you would like 

to see made to the approach? 

A3. NASA is applying their considerable experience in human space flight to baseline a set of human rating requirements to ensure crew safety and facilitate FAA 

licensing for non-government customer launches. Boeing incorporated the NASA requirements into our own design requirements to ensure that our system can achieve 

NASA and FAA certification. Although Boeing has adopted the NASA human rating 

requirements in our design, there is no contractual requirement to do so. We don’t 

have insight into other competitors’ plans, but we feel it is important that NASA 

have the ability to contractually levy design requirements in the future to ensure 

design safety, and an equitable competitive environment. 

Q4. During the hearing, you testified about the investment your company is making 

in commercial crew activities relative to what the government is investing in 

your program. Do you intend to maintain that percentage should you receive an 

award for the design and development contracts from NASA? If not, what level 
118 

of investment would you anticipate contributing for the design and development 

contract phase? 

A4. Boeing will continue to invest at the previous percentage level, providing NASA 

evidence at our commitment to provide a safe, reliable, and affordable commercial 

crew transportation system. 
119 

Responses by Mr. Steve Lindsey, Director of Space Exploration, 

Sierra Nevada Space Systems, Louisville, CO 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. How confident are you about NASA’s and FAA’s ability to coordinate their requirements for commercial crew launches? Have you seen any evidence yet that 

the two agencies are attempting to define roles and responsibilities, and to minimize overlap? 

A1. Sierra Nevada Corporation is working directly with both NASA and the FAA 

to coordinate our flight test program, set to begin in 2012. We don’t have any direct 

evidence that the two agencies are defining roles and responsibilities to minimize 

overlap, but we do know that the FAA has a person directly assigned to NASA’s 

Commercial Crew Program and that they have been working cooperatively on our 

program. We hope that meeting NASA’s defined requirements will also lead to a 

smooth licensing process through the FAA. This, of course will depend upon close 

communications, cooperation, and agreement between the FAA and NASA. 

Q2. Launch abort systems are one of the most critical and technically challenging 

features to design, integrate and test. What type of launch abort system do you 

intend to build into your crew system, and how mature is the design? Do you 

intend to demonstrate it in a relevant launch environment? 

A2. SNC plans to utilize the Atlas V rocket which is well known to both the DoD 

and NASA as it is their primary launch vehicle for high value payloads. The Atlas 

V has had 30 flights to date, all successful, and its characteristics are well known. 

SNC has been working with ULA for over five years studying and demonstrating 

through testing that our vehicle will not pose any significant challenges. We require 

no solid boosters which contribute to safety. On board the Sierra Nevada Dream 

Chaser we use our internally developed hybrid rocket motors as our abort system, 

which are designed to ensure a runway landing from anywhere along the ascent trajectory. We do not require a separate launch abort system external to the vehicle. 

These flight-proven rocket motors have already successfully flown into space on 

Spaceship 1 and the technology has already had over 50 tests to date. We just completed wind tunnel tests further validating positively our ascent models and intend 

to test our motors during powered flight drop testing. Additionally, prior to our first 

orbital flight we will demonstrate a powered abort from a simulated launch pad to 

a runway landing at Edwards Air Force Base as part of an end to end flight test 

program. We also plan to do an uncrewed autonomous orbital flight where the hybrid motors will again be tested on-orbit prior to the first crewed mission. 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. NASA’s plan requires the development and certification of the commercial crew 

systems to occur within a tight timeline, requires the commercial systems to be 

capable of safe and reliable flight operations by 2016, makes use of new and 

unproven government-industry development and safety approaches, and has development and operations costs that are still unknown. In that regard, please 

provide the following questions: 

• What is the evidence that you believe provides the justification for Congress to 

invest in this commercial crew initiative , and 

• What your company realistically would require from the U.S. Government to 

make this initiative a success. 

A1. Sierra Nevada Corporation is the ideal partner for NASA to develop a U.S. capability to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). 

We are an experienced systems integrator and a builder of 100% reliable space 

hardware that meets the goals and objectives of the commercial crew program. Over 

our 25 years we have been engaged on over 400 space missions and have built over 

4,000 systems, subsystems and components all of which have operated successfully 

on orbit. We successfully completed the first two phases of the NASA commercial 

crew program by performing extensive risk reduction and building hardware. To 

date we have completed all our milestones, 12 in total, on time and on budget while 

providing NASA complete insight and access to our technical program. We have 

brought together over 12 heritage space companies, three aerospace universities and 

7 NASA centers to be part of our program with employment happening in over 10 

states, including expected significant growth in Texas where we have opened a new 

office. 
120 

With all of the necessary partnerships, facilities and investment in place, we are 

ready to take the next step in the development of our integrated crew transportation 

system. The Dream Chaser Space System is based upon a NASA program called the 

HL–20 which had over ten years of development, includes the reliable Atlas V 

launch vehicle which has flown over 30 times, and has ground and mission systems 

that leverage the known infrastructure of the Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers, 

including Johnson’s Mission Operations Directorate which has successfully controlled and flown almost all of NASA’s human spaceflight missions. The Dream 

Chaser lifting body spacecraft offers significant advantages over capsules including 

low g reentry, substantial cross range and gentle runway landings. Our goal is to 

bring the jobs currently being outsourced to the Russian Space Program back to the 

United States and in doing so continue to drive America technology and manufacturing base forward while creating STEM opportunities for the next generation. 

Without this effort we are consigned to purchase our space needs from aboard. We 

realize that these are difficult economic times which are why as a Company we have 

substantially co-invested alongside of NASA. What we need most from the USG is 

predictability in the program and support to this mission of returning jobs to the 

U.S. It is difficult to build on a program that takes years without a commitment. 

We support this commitment being conditioned on our being able to continue to 

meet our milestones. 

Q2. What is your understanding of how third-party liability and indemnification 

will be addressed for both launch and reentry and for on-orbit operations of any 

commercial crew transportation system used for NASA ISS servicing? 

• How important an issue is liability and indemnification to any decision your 

company might make to enter into a Phase 1 or Phase 2 development contract 

with NASA for a commercial crew system, or to enter into a service contract 

with NASA to transport astronauts to the ISS? 

• Do you plan to purchase insurance for your systems as part of your business 

plan, and how confident are you that adequate insurance coverage will be 

available privately? If it isn’t, what do you plan to do? 

A2. Per the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA), all applicants 

applying for a launch and/or re-entry license from FAA must demonstrate financial 

responsibility through liability insurance or other means to cover third-party liability as well as damage or loss to Government property. The amount of the liability 

that has to be covered is determined by the FAA as part of the licensing process 

and is called the Maximum Probable Loss. We understand that we are responsible 

for that liability. Currently, there is limited indemnification for license applications 

received no later than December 31, 2012. Liability and indemnification is a very 

important issue for all commercial service providers, but we understand that it will 

take some time to finalize all the related issues, so this would not keep us from proceeding with development contracts with NASA. It will be a factor in our eventual 

pricing for a service contract since we will have to include the costs for liability insurance for all phases of the service. We do plan to purchase all the necessary insurance as part of our business plan and have had discussions with space insurance 

brokers and underwriters and believe that insurance coverage will be available privately. 

Q3. During the hearing, you testified that your company could provide commercial 

crew transportation services within the 2015–2016 timeframe. Please provide 1) 

the assumptions behind that date, including a) the magnitude and timing of 

funding from NASA, b) the timeline assumed for development, integration, testing and certification, and c) the number of certification flights you are assuming 

will be required. 

A3. As part of the competitive Commercial Crew Integrated Capabilities (CCiCap) 

proposal due to NASA on March 23, 2012, bidders are required to provide all of the 

information that is asked in this question as well as to identify the magnitude and 

timing of the company investment on the program. Since this is a competitive proposal that is still under review we respectfully cannot provide detail to this question 

at this time. We can however state that we are able to meet or exceed the requirement for flight times and costs as outlined in that RFP and would be available to 

provide information at a future date. 

Q4. Would you anticipate any additional capacity on the Dream Chaser after taking 

into account NASA’s crew requirements to ISS crew rotations? 

• How will that overcapacity be dealt with? 
121 

• Will NASA be required to procure the entire spacecraft, or will they be able to 

just purchase the required number of seats for each flight? 

• If passengers not paid for by NASA are transported on the flight, how will their 

stay on the ISS be accommodated and for how long? 

• Are you assuming the ISS partnership will host the non-NASA spaceflight participants on the ISS? 

• If you are planning to fly extra passengers on each flight, how do you plan to 

get them back from ISS in an emergency if the Dream Chaser is also supposed 

to serve as an ISS crew rescue vehicle? 

A4. NASA’s stated ISS requirement is to provide transportation to four crewmembers for crew rotation. Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chase Space System has a capability for seven seats. The additional three seats can be used in several ways. Those 

seats can be replaced by equivalent cargo to ISS or used to fly additional ISS crewmembers or payload specialists. Sierra Nevada plans to provide transportation services by the seat, so NASA will not be required to procure the entire spacecraft. We 

also assume that we are responsible for the logistics associated with any spaceflight 

participants that are not NASA crewmembers. We will either provide all support for 

these additional participants, or negotiate support with NASA/ISS, or a combination 

of the two. Extra passengers will only be flown if the ISS crew rotation model is 

‘direct handover’—which means there will be a second Dream Chaser already onorbit. In this case the non-NASA astronauts would only be on the ISS as long as 

it takes to swap out crews; they would all return to earth with the ISS crewmembers rotating home. In our traffic model, no non-NASA spaceflight participants 

would spend more than a few days on the ISS. 

Q5. NASA has proposed that the first phase of its commercial crew procurement— 

the Integrated Design Contract—be awarded as a fixed-price contract. From 

your perspective, is that a manageable approach? 

• How would you plan to balance risk mitigation and flight test programs, which 

can be expensive, against the need to keep within the contracted-for fixed-price 

limits? 

A5. SNC believes that our vehicle can be successfully designed, built, tested, and 

certified within the framework of a fixed-price contract. We have been in the aerospace business for over 25 years and have successfully completed hundreds of fixed 

price programs. There can be no compromise when it comes to astronaut safety. Of 

the greatest advantage to us is that a majority of our systems have significant flight 

heritage. For example the Atlas V, which pricing is known and our environmental 

systems which are NASA heritage. This provides us with the visibility to more accurately predict our costs. To back this up, SNC has available to it a substantial and 

existing financial capability which provides ample contingency for future program 

changes. 

Questions submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. What obligation does your company have under space act agreements to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

Q2. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a space act agreement? 

Q3. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a space 

act agreement? 

Q4. What obligation does your company have under traditional contracting to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

Q5. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under traditional contracting? 

Q6. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional 

contracting? 

Q7. What obligation does your company have under the modified FAR acquisition 

to report anomalies to NASA? 

Q8. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a modified FAR acquisition? 
122 

Q9. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under modified 

FAR acquisition? 

A1–9. Sierra Nevada’s approach to the NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is to be 

completely transparent, whether we are on a Space Act Agreement or a FAR-based 

contract. NASA is invited to any and all technical meetings we have, and learns of 

any anomalies in our technical development as they are happening. This completely 

honest and open approach enhances the NASA–Sierra Nevada team environment, 

promotes trust, and ultimately results in a much better product for both Sierra Nevada and NASA. We would expect no difference in dealing with anomalies under 

any contract type. Our safety program is consistent and is based upon doing what 

is right for the astronauts and the success of the program. We cannot answer how 

NASA may have dealt with such issues under a FAR or modified FAR contract as 

there was not a final RFP that was issued and that is a question better asked to 

NASA. 

Questions submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Q1. NASA’s FY 2012 budget request proposes a total of $4.25 billion over five years, 

or $850 million a year through 2016, to fund the U.S. government’s share of 

commercial crew capabilities development for one or more systems. What do you 

believe, in terms of a percentage of total development costs, the private sector 

might realistically contribute? 

• What percentage is your company planning to contribute? 

• Is private sector investment contingent on additional, non-financial U.S. government support too? If so, what would that support involve? 

A1. As part of the competitive Commercial Crew Integrated Capabilities (CCiCap) 

proposal due to NASA on March 23, 2012, bidders are required identify the magnitude and timing for all required NASA funds and all planned company investments both for a base contract period of 21 months, and for full system development 

through a crewed orbital demonstration flight. The percentage of company investment and how it relates to required NASA funding will be evident in our proposal. 

As this is in the competitive stage we cannot answer this question, however, we can 

say that our contribution was significant in the first two phases of the program and, 

for us, is not expected to be contingent on additional non-financial U.S. government 

support. 

Q2. What is your reaction to NASA’s proposed approach to human-rating future 

commercial crew transportation systems? Do you believe NASA’s proposed approach will both ensure astronaut safety and facilitate eventual FAA licensing 

of launches for non-government customers? Are there any changes you would like 

to see made to the approach. 

A2. SNC believes that NASA’s approach to human rating will ensure both astronaut safety and eventual FAA licensing. SNC is designing the Dream Chaser spacecraft to NASA’s 1100 and 50808 series requirements—which are the most recent 

NASA human rating requirements. Meeting these requirements will ensure we have 

the safest spacecraft possible—they are derived from ISS, Space Shuttle, and Constellation program requirements. FAA licensing should follow if there is tight communications, cooperation, and agreement between NASA’s requirements and the 

FAA’s licensing requirements for commercial spacecraft. 

Q3. During the hearing, you testified that your company is investing about 40 percent of the cost of your commercial crew activities relative to what the government is investing in your program. Do you intend to maintain that percentage 

should you receive an award for the design and development contracts from 

NASA? If not, what level of investment would you anticipate contributing for the 

design and development contract phase? 

A3. The percentage of our company investment and how it relates to required 

NASA funding will be disclosed in our proposal. As this is in the competitive stage 

we cannot answer this question at this time. 
123 

Responses by Mr. Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technology Officer, 

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, CA 

Question Submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. How confident are you about NASA’s and FAA’s ability to coordinate their requirements for commercial crew launches? Have you seen any evidence yet that 

the two agencies are attempting to define roles and responsibilities, and to minimize overlap? 

A1. SpaceX is confident that NASA and FAA will effectively coordinate their requirements for commercial crew launches. As you know, SpaceX previously secured 

FAA licensing for launch and reentry under the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. For Commercial Crew, we understand that 

NASA and FAA are in ongoing discussions to ensure that FAA regulations support 

NASA requirements and that duplication of efforts is minimal. The divisions of 

labor between NASA and FAA are clear: since NASA is both the leading federal 

agency for human spaceflight and the end user of the Commercial Crew Program, 

NASA should set requirements for human spaceflight systems. FAA should retain 

its current regulatory scope of protecting public safety during launch and reentry 

using its authority under the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) of 1984, as 

amended. 

NASA and FAA collaboration for future commercial crew missions is already underway. A NASA employee from the Commercial Crew Program office is on a rotational assignment at FAA headquarters. Similarly, a FAA representative is assigned 

to the Commercial Crew Program office at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. NASA 

is supporting FAA definition of regulations for crew and participant safety and FAA 

is participating in CCP safety certification requirements development. Both Agencies are ensuring compatibility between NASA requirements and FAA regulations. 

Furthermore, the FAA participates in the Commercial Crew Program milestone reviews. 

Q2. Launch abort systems are one of the most critical and technically challenging 

features to design, integrate and test. What type of launch abort system do you 

intend to build into your crew system, and how mature is the design? Do you 

intend to demonstrate it in a relevant launch environment? 

A2. SpaceX concurs that launch abort systems (LAS) are critical and technically 

challenging, which is why our LAS development is the centerpiece of our commercial 

crew effort. SpaceX’s crew Dragon will include an integrated launch abort system 

(LAS), which will yield numerous safety and performance benefits. The Dragon’s 

LAS is carried through orbit and reentry, with the abort systems available for use 

throughout the time the Dragon is boosted into space. Carrying the abort system 

all the way into orbit eliminates the jettison-effectively a stage separation event-of 

the abort system as a required event for the safe completion of a nominal mission. 

Separation events are, historically, a leading factor of launch failures. 

The Dragon LAS is a vehicle-integrated, side-mounted engine system selected for 

its safety, reliability and performance. Eight abort engines, or SuperDracos, are located around the periphery of the Dragon service section and are fed by hypergolic 

propellant stored in the spacecraft propellant tanks. In the event of a mishap or 

launch failure, the SuperDracos will push the Dragon spacecraft and crew away 

from the booster. This abort capability is maintained from the pad all the way 

through nominal on-orbit separation of Dragon from the second stage. 

To date, SpaceX has successfully completed five of the ten milestones in our 

CCDev2 Space Act Agreement (SAA). The completion of these milestones represents 

$40M of NASA’s $75M funding under SpaceX’s CCDev2 agreement. During the execution of these milestones, SpaceX provided NASA with comprehensive Falcon 9/ 

Dragon crew systems concept design insight, including cabin layout, seat design, 

space suit design, and life support system design. Further, SpaceX provided detail 

for abort scenarios, concepts for the launch abort system, ground systems, abort trajectories, and aerodynamics of ascent and entry and mass margins. The Design Status Review provided an opportunity for SpaceX to work with NASA and industry 

teammates as partners and make desired crew systems design concept changes subsequent to peer review. This feedback on the system-level designs and concepts constituted a successful collaboration between NASA and SpaceX under the SAA contracting structure. 

With regard to the LAS components PDR-our fourth milestone-SpaceX engineers 

demonstrated to NASA’s satisfaction that the LAS propulsion components design is 
124 

mature enough to support proceeding with detailed design, fabrication, assembly, integration and testing of LAS propulsion components test articles. SpaceX also provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Dragon LAS propulsion design 

meets all system requirements within acceptable risk and can be developed within 

schedule. 

Future milestones will include abort engine fabrication and testing, as well as further maturation of the vehicle system design and concept of operations. To achieve 

these milestones, SpaceX has already begun design and construction of a test facility for the launch abort engine at our Rocket Development Facility in McGregor, 

Texas. The remaining hardware milestones will culminate in all key launch abort 

system propulsion components undergoing initial fluid and environmental development testing. Here, the SuperDracos will be hot-fire tested for a full duration. 

SpaceX will further demonstrate throttle capability, which is necessary for abort 

maneuvers. 

Question Submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson: 

Q1. NASA’s plan requires the development and certification of the commercial crew 

systems to occur within a tight timeline, requires the commercial systems to be 

capable of safe and reliable flight operations by 2016, makes use of new and 

unproven government-industry development and safety approaches, and has development and operations costs that are still unknown: In that regard, please 

provide the following questions: 

• What is the evidence that you believe provides the justification for Congress to 

invest in this commercial crew initiative, and 

• What your company realistically would require from the U.S. Government to 

make this initiative a success. 

A1. The NASA Commercial Cargo and Crew Program is a public-private partnership with the U.S. commercial space sector that leverages financial and technical 

resources to develop, demonstrate, and provide safe, reliable, and low-cost space 

transportation capabilities to the International Space Station (ISS). At SpaceX, government investment is leveraged with two additional nongovernment sources of capital: private investment and revenue from other markets. In other words, NASA’s 

investment in commercial space transportation capabilities is augmented both by 

private investment and by advance sales revenue in the commercial and international launch market, such as telecommunication satellite launches and others. 

Since the retirement of the Space Shuttle earlier this year, the U.S. has no option 

but to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia annually to purchase seats on 

Soyuz spacecraft. While the Russians have been a reliable partner in space, they 

have continually increased their prices, from $48 million per seat in 2007 to $63 

million in 2011—an increase of 31 percent in just five years. With the purchase of 

six seats annually, this equates to a transfer of wealth of over $336 million per year 

to the Russian government, with an increase to $378 million annually in 2014. This 

cost escalation demonstrates clearly the need to expeditiously develop new American 

human spaceflight capabilities to low Earth orbit. The U.S. is outsourcing its space 

missions and jobs to Russia by relying on Russian Soyuz vehicles to reach the ISS. 

The U.S. has always been a human spaceflight leader. However, no new launch 

vehicle has been developed since the Space Shuttle, an engineering and technical 

marvel, primarily due to inefficient contracting structures that led to extreme cost 

and schedule overruns, leading to program termination. This has been a familiar 

history in recent years. The innovative approach that forms that basis of NASA’s 

Commercial Crew Program, in which private contractors have ‘‘skin in the game,’’ 

and are required to meet performance milestones to receive payment, has already 

contributed to the successful development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and a cargo 

version of the Dragon capsule. 

A robust U.S. Commercial Crew program-built on a firm fixed price, milestonebased, pay-for-performance approach-will leverage private investment to create 

thousands of American jobs in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Texas, California, Washington, and Alabama depending on the companies that remain involved 

going forward. According to an April 2010 Tauri Group study, fully funding and implementing the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program would result in an average 

of 11,800 direct jobs per year over the next five years nationwide. Further, Commercial Crew provides the only affordable way to regain America’s human spaceflight 

capability within the next several years. If Congress is committed to the restoration 

of this capability for America, it should ensure robust and consistent funding for the 

program. 
125 

Commercial crew and cargo providers actively seek as many new markets as possible for their services, increasing the volume of flights and thus reducing the cost 

of access to space for all, including NASA. SpaceX already has a substantial nongovernment customer base, with over 60 percent of our launch manifest consisting 

of commercial launches. This market diversity allows us to disperse our costs widely 

and keep them low for U.S. government customers. More broadly, markets for commercial spaceflight include scientific research flights, national security missions, 

commercial launches for satellites, private space travel, and others. A strengthened 

U.S. commercial spaceflight industry would bring space launches back to the United 

States-an outcome SpaceX has already contributed to-from foreign governments to 

whom the U.S. has recently surrendered that market. 

Subsequent to the Committee’s hearing in October, NASA has announced that it 

will initiate another competition for Space Act Agreements for the next round of 

Commercial Crew development. The details on the next round and the guidelines 

for proposals have not been released, but SpaceX is planning to participate and submit a proposal. Once we have additional details about the next commercial crew development phase, we will be better able to estimate the necessary federal investment. 

Q2. What is your understanding of how third-party liability and indemnification 

will be addressed for both launch and reentry and for on-orbit operations of any 

commercial crew transportation system used for NASA ISS servicing? 

• How important an issue is liability and indemnification to any decision your 

company might make to enter into a Phase 1 or Phase 2 development contract 

with NASA for a commercial crew system, or to enter into a service contract 

with NASA to transport astronauts to the ISS? 

• Do you plan to purchase insurance for your systems as part of your business 

plan, and how confident are you that adequate insurance coverage will be 

available privately? If it isn’t, what do you plan to do? 

A2. While NASA has not released its final plans for acquiring crew services to the 

ISS, NASA contracts have traditionally contemplated third-party liability and indemnification. The cross-waiver, indemnification, and insurance requirements in 

NASA contracts are set forth in 14 CFR 1266, NASA FAR Supplement Part 1828, 

and FAR Part 28. We anticipate that any commercial crew transportation system 

that is conducted under a NASA contract will accord with the legal and regulatory 

requirements guiding third-party liability and indemnification. Should that system 

require an FAA license, then contractors will be required to obtain that license pursuant to the Commercial Space Launch Act, 51 U.S.C. Ch. 509, §§ 50901–23 (2011). 

Liability and indemnification are one of many important factors that impact 

SpaceX’s decision to enter into contracts with NASA. Prior to entering into a development or services contract to transport astronauts to the ISS, it is essential that 

the applicable liability and indemnification regime be clearly defined. It would be 

very difficult to appropriately price the services without clearly delineated responsibilities, including any costs associated with the relevant insurance requirements. 

SpaceX will purchase appropriate levels of insurance consistent with prudent 

business practices and all relevant legal, regulatory and contractual requirements. 

We have no reason to believe that adequate insurance will not be available on the 

private market as insurance products meeting current FAA/NASA requirements are 

readily available. In the unlikely event insurance is not available on the private 

market, a contractor could self-insure or seek indemnification by NASA under the 

Space Act (Pub. L. No. 85–568). 

Q3. During the hearing, you testified that your company could provide commercial 

crew transportation services within the 2015–2016 timeframe. Please provide the 

assumptions behind that date, including: 

• the magnitude and timing of funding from NASA, 

• the timeline assumed for development, integration, testing, and certification, 

and 

• the number of certification flights you are assuming will be required. 

A3. In the coming years, SpaceX will collect significant data and experience on the 

Falcon 9 and Dragon system from upcoming COTS and CRS missions. According to 

the current schedule , the Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 launch vehicle will have 

flown together at least 8 more times before a crew demonstration if it were to occur 

by 2015. The Falcon 9 itself is scheduled to launch a total of 14 missions prior to 

the first Dragon crew mission. The commonality between the cargo and crew 
126 

1 NASA Commercial Crew Program, Commercial Crew Program Near Term Strategy Discussion. December 2011. 

versions of Dragon will generate significant end-to-end flight heritage and operational experience for our system well in advance of any crew flight. 

Ultimately, the Falcon 9 will be one hundred percent common as between the 

cargo and crew vehicles. Therefore, though there is much work ahead, SpaceX already is beyond a Critical Design Review (CDR) equivalent level of maturity—and 

even into the production phase—with respect to many aspects of the vehicle system. 

This includes the main propulsion systems, structures, thermal protection systems 

(including the Dragon heat shield), power generation systems, altitude control, onorbit propulsion systems, thermal control systems, and GNC systems. 

SpaceX has been steadily progressing through our CCDev2 milestones, which are 

focused on accelerating development of our launch abort system. As you know, 

NASA recently elected to pursue Space Act Agreements (SAA) for the next phase 

of the Commercial Crew Development program. NASA determined that an SAA approach will ‘‘offer more flexibility and efficiency in adjusting to future appropriations’’ and enhance ‘‘partner flexibility in technical development through the next 

phase.’’ 1 SpaceX looks forward to receiving more details on NASA’s plans for this 

phase, will be better able to predict our future schedule for development, integration, testing and, depending on NASA’s certification process, provide transportation 

services within the 2015 timeframe. SpaceX defers to NASA with regard to the 

number of certification flights that will be required and makes no assumptions in 

that regard. 

Q4. Would you anticipate any additional capacity on the Dragon capsule after taking into account NASA’s crew requirements on ISS crew rotations? 

• How will that overcapacity be dealt with? 

• Will NASA be required to procure the entire spacecraft, or will they be able to 

just purchase the required number of seats for each flight? 

• If passengers not paid for by NASA are transported on the flight, how will their 

stay on the ISS be accommodated and for how long? 

• Are you assuming the ISS partnership will host the non-NASA spaceflight participants on the ISS? 

• If you are planning to fly extra passengers on each flight, how do you plan to 

get them back from ISS in an emergency if the Dragon capsule is also supposed 

to serve as an ISS crew rescue vehicle? 

A4. The goal of SpaceX’s crew transportation system is to safely and reliably transport up to seven crew members from our launch pad on Cape Canaveral to the 

International Space Station (ISS), dwell on the ISS for up to 210 days and return 

the same number of crew safely to Earth. As America’s national laboratory in space, 

the ISS productivity depends on how many scientists can visit the lab, conduct their 

experiments and return to their public or private enterprises. NASA currently bases 

astronauts at the ISS for six months. That limitation is based on how many Soyuz 

capsules are produced each year, how long the Soyuz is rated to last on orbit and 

the high price of Soyuz seats. 

The ISS can actually support seven crew members once we have a better crew 

rescue capability. Commercial crew will deliver that capability. Should the U.S. 

space industry lower the cost to between $20 and $30 million per seat, it will be 

possible for research scientists to visit the ISS for shorter periods of time, conduct 

dedicated research and return to Earth. Less costly, more regular access to ISS will 

enable more scientists to do more research in the same amount of time, with the 

same amount of dollars. 

Since NASA has not released its final plans for acquiring crew services to the ISS, 

it is too soon to anticipate if the Dragon will have additional capacity beyond 

NASA’s crew. SpaceX anticipates that NASA will purchase seats on the Dragon in 

a similar fashion as NASA procures seats on the Russian Soyuz. SpaceX’s commercial crew proposals to date have been premised on developing a safe and affordable 

crew capability that NASA will be able to procure as a commercial service rather 

than bearing the burden of acquiring the entire spacecraft. 

The Commercial Crew Program is still in the development stage. Should NASA 

select SpaceX for future crew development efforts and eventually for a crew services 

contract, SpaceX will work with NASA to resolve questions about excess capacity, 

non-NASA participants, ISS visits and ISS emergency evacuations. 
127 

2 NASA Commercial Crew Program, Commercial Crew Program Near Term Strategy Discussion. December 2011. 

Q5. NASA is providing your company with an additional 42% of the original funding provided for developing a commercial cargo transportation system to buy 

down risk and assure that commercial cargo resupply services to the ISS are 

ready when NASA needs them. How can Congress have confidence that a commercial crew program, which is more challenging than developing systems to deliver cargo, will be any different and not require additional funding further 

down the road? 

A5. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) augmentation milestones exceeded the tests and demonstrations originally agreed to by SpaceX and 

NASA for COTS when the parties first signed their Space Act Agreement. Specifically, certain milestones augmented pre-planned ground and flight testing, others 

accelerated the development of enhanced cargo capabilities, and the remaining focused on infrastructure improvements. The additional milestones further developed 

the ground infrastructure needed for cargo carriage operations and helped improve 

the launch and recovery operations, test site and production facility infrastructure. 

In short, COTS augmentation milestones were meant to further reduce risk and enhance the execution of the cargo demonstration and operational missions to be performed under the COTS and CRS programs. NASA divided these milestones among 

multiple amendments due to the uncertainty in Fiscal Year 2011 funding. 

Since the hearing in October, NASA has announced that it will alter its approach 

to the next stage of commercial crew development and is delaying moving forward 

with the Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract (CCIDC). Instead, NASA is 

planning to initiate another competition for Space Act Agreements. NASA specifically cited the Fiscal Year 2012 funding level and ′′the uncertainty with the FY13 

and FY14 budget levels′′ as a key cause for ‘‘adjusting the near-term strategy.’’ 2

Further details on the next round and the guidelines for NASA’s commercial crew 

development Space Act Agreements have not been released. Once those are released, the industry and Congress will have a better sense of the funding required 

to participate in the next commercial crew development and the timeline for the program. 

Q6. NASA has proposed that the first phase of its commercial crew procurement— 

the Integrated Design Contract—be awarded as a fixed-price contract. From 

your perspective, is that a manageable approach? 

• How would you plan to balance risk mitigation and flight test programs, which 

can be expensive, against the need to keep within the contracted-for fixed-price 

limits? 

A6. NASA has elected to pursue Space Act Agreements (SAA) for the next phase 

of the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program rather than the previouslyproposed Commercial Crew Integrated Development Contract (CCIDC). SpaceX 

strongly supports firm fixed-price contracts, whether SAAs or FAR-based, as providing the best value for the taxpayer. To date, SpaceX has solely operated under 

firm fixed-price contracts, and believes this approach is manageable, provides contractors with proper incentives, and will help keep costs low as compared with costplus contracts. Firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts have proven that they deliver those 

results. For example, development of the Falcon 9 and cargo Dragon under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program was undertaken under a 

FFP. 

By contrast, cost-plus contracts have resulted in cost overruns and schedule 

delays, and ultimately have resulted in no new domestic launch vehicle since the 

Space Shuttle. Indeed, NASA’s internal studies using the NASA-Air Force Cost 

Model (NAFCOM) concluded that it would have cost NASA $1.7B to $4B to develop 

the Falcon 9 rocket. By contrast, in partnership with NASA’s COTS program, 

SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 for approximately $300M under its firm fixed-price 

Space Act Agreement. 

Firm fixed-price contracts make the most sense when requirements are properly 

identified and milestones are effectively negotiated. NASA and SpaceX will incorporate risk mitigation and flight testing into its FFP milestone-based, pay for performance contracts under Space Act Agreements as the CCDev program progresses. 

The clearest example of this approach is the Falcon 9/Dragon demonstration mission 

under the COTS program. FFP contracts do not inhibit risk mitigation or rigorous 

testing. In fact, they allow NASA and the contractor to negotiate those terms and 
128 

milestones at a high level of specificity on the front end of a contract, prompting 

payments when milestones are reached. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently identified NASA’s firm 

fixed-price approach for CCDev as one its ‘‘good acquisition practices.’’ Further, GAO 

states: ‘‘We have reported that the use of firm-fixed-price contracts-along with welldefined requirements and a sufficient level of knowledge about critical technologiespresents the least risk to the government. Firm fixed-price contracts place the onus 

on the contractor to provide the deliverable at the time, place, and price negotiated 

by the contractor and the government. In addition, firm fixed-price contracts place 

the maximum risk on the contractor as well as full responsibility for all costs and 

any resulting profit or loss’’ (GAO–12–282 NASA Commercial Crew Program). 

Question Submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. What obligation does your company have under space act agreements to report 

anomalies to NASA? What information do you believe your company is obligated 

to provide NASA about anomalies under a space act agreement? How long after 

an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe your company is 

obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a space act agreement? 

A1. The obligations to report anomalies under a Space Act Agreement are well-defined. Under SpaceX’s Space Act Agreement (SAA) for the Commercial Orbital 

Transportation Services (COTS) program, we are required to ‘‘[i]dentify any anomalies with preliminary assessment of cause’’ for each mission. When SpaceX documents an anomaly, we report it to NASA with our preliminary analysis of the 

anomaly’s cause and then we work to NASA on the resolution. 

SpaceX’s COTS SAA provides NASA with significant insight into SpaceX’s operations and includes a number of obligations and reporting requirements that include 

anomaly reporting assessment and corrective actions. SAA’s provide NASA with the 

ability to require anomaly reporting and information as well as a process for reviewing and resolving any anomalies observed during work taking place under the SAA. 

Q2. What obligation does your company have under traditional contracting to report 

anomalies to NASA? What information do you believe your company is obligated 

to provide NASA about anomalies under traditional contracting? How long after 

an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe your company is 

obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional contracting? 

A2. The obligations to report anomalies under a traditional contracting mechanism 

are determined by the contract. SpaceX’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract to provide NASA with ISS cargo services is a Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) contract. The FAR provides a framework for NASA to include mission-specific 

requirements in its contracts, including anomaly reporting. During its procurement 

process and negotiations with its contractors, NASA determines the level of insight 

and oversight it requires. 

For example, the following obligations are part of NASA’s insight and approval 

authority under SpaceX’s CRS contract: 

The Contractor shall notify NASA of qualification or test anomalies involving 

ISS Commercial Resupply launch and orbital vehicles, systems, subassemblies, 

components, software and similar launch and orbital vehicles that the Contractor is aware of. 

In the event of an in-flight anomaly or launch, on-orbit or entry failure, the 

Contractor shall allow NASA to participate fully in the Contractor‘s Failure 

Investigation Board including those for non-NASA missions. 

Our CRS contract provides NASA with significant insight into SpaceX’s operations and includes a number of obligations and reporting requirements that 

include anomaly reporting assessment, corrective actions. Those requirements 

appear in various parts of the contract. 

Q3. What obligation does your company have under the modified FAR acquisition 

to report anomalies to NASA? What information do you believe your company 

is obligated to provide NASA about anomalies under a modified FAR acquisition? How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under modified FAR acquisition? 
129 

A3. Please see the response above. Any differences in anomaly reporting obligations 

between a traditional FAR acquisition, a modified FAR acquisition, or a Space Act 

Agreement would be determined by NASA in the contract. 

Question Submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Q1. NASA’s FY 2012 budget request proposes a total of $4.25 billion over five years, or $850 million a year through 2016, to fund the U.S. government’s share of 

commercial crew capabilities development for one or more systems. What do you 

believe, in terms of a percentage of total development costs the private sector 

might realistically contribute? 

• What percentage is you company planning to contribute? 

• Is private sector investment contingent on additional, non-financial U.S. government support too? If so, what would that support involve? 

A1. At SpaceX, government investment is leveraged by at least one additional nongovernment source of capital, including private investment and revenue from other 

markets. In other words, NASA’s investment in commercial space transportation capabilities is augmented both by private investment and by advance sales revenue 

in the commercial and international launch market, such as telecommunication satellite launches and others. 

Commercial crew and cargo providers actively seek as many new markets as possible for their services, increasing the volume of flights and thus reducing the cost 

of access to space for all, including NASA. Markets for commercial spaceflight include scientific research flights, national security missions, commercial launches for 

satellites, private space travel, and others. A strengthened U.S. commercial 

spaceflight industry would bring space launches back to the United States from foreign governments who have increasingly taken over the market. 

Since the hearing in October, NASA has announced that it will alter its approach 

to the next stage of commercial crew development to initiate another competition 

for Space Act Agreements. The details on the next round and the guidelines for proposals have not been released, though SpaceX is planning to participate and submit 

a proposal. Once we have greater details about the next commercial crew development phase, we will be better able to estimate the private sector contribution. 

Our continued investment will not be contingent upon that support continuing; 

however, we believe it provides valuable benefits to NASA and its industry partners. 

Under NASA’s Space Act Agreements for COTS and commercial crew development, 

industry has received non-financial U.S. government support, generally in the form 

of technical assistance by NASA experts and centers. SpaceX’s participation in 

COTS and CCDev2 has not been contingent upon non-financial U.S. Government 

support, though NASA’s technical support has contributed to the success of our 

partnership. 

Q2. What is your reaction to NASA’s proposed approach to human-rating future 

commercial crew transportation systems? Do you believe NASA’s proposed approach will both ensure astronaut safety and facilitate eventual FAA licensing 

of launches for non-government customers? Are there any changes you would like 

to see made to the approach? 

A2. NASA has been safely transporting astronauts into space for 50 years. Building 

on its decades of experience, earlier this month, NASA released the baselined 

version of the CCT–1100 Series. Those documents will provide valuable guidance to 

industry on NASA’s human rating requirements as we continue development of future commercial crew transportation systems. NASA’s oversight coupled with 

SpaceX’s innovative vehicle design—which in many cases exceeds the NASA requirements—will improve safety by a factor of ten compared to previous human-carrying spacecraft. The resulting transportation system is also expected to satisfy the 

FAA licensing requirements. 

Q3. During the hearing, you testified that your company is investing about 60 percent of the cost of your commercial crew activities relative to what the government is investing in your program. Do you intend to maintain that percentage 

should you receive an award for the design and development contracts from 

NASA? If not, what level of investment would you anticipate contributing for the 

design and development contract phase? 

A3. Since the hearing in October, NASA has announced that it will alter its approach to the next stage of commercial crew development to initiate another competition for Space Act Agreements. The details on the next round and the guidelines 
130 

for proposals have not been released, though SpaceX is planning to participate and 

submit a proposal. Once we have greater details about the next commercial crew 

development phase, we will be better able to estimate the private sector contribution. However, SpaceX is committed to substantial investment as part of this program. 

Q4. During the hearing, you testified that you would commit in current year dollars 

to a price of $140 million for commercial crew for a seven astronaut flight and 

at a flight rate of four crewed flights per year. 

a. Do you anticipate any additional capacity on the four flights, after taking into 

account NASA’s requirements for ISS crew rotations? If so, how would you 

plan to fill the remaining seats on those flights included in the four flights 

per year rate? 

b. Would NASA assume the cost of the entire flight if any seats were not filled? 

A4. The goal of SpaceX’s crew transportation system is to safely and reliably transport up to seven crew members from our launch pad on Cape Canaveral to the 

International Space Station (ISS), dwell on the ISS for up to 210 days and return 

the same number of crew safely to Earth. SpaceX’s commercial crew proposals to 

date have been premised on developing a safe and affordable crew capability that 

NASA will be able to procure as a commercial service. 

Since NASA has not released its final plans for acquiring crew services to the ISS, 

it is too soon to anticipate if the Dragon will have additional capacity beyond 

NASA’s crew. SpaceX anticipates that NASA will purchase seats on the Dragon in 

a similar fashion as NASA procures seats on the Russian Soyuz. Should NASA select SpaceX for future crew development efforts and eventually for a crew services 

contract, SpaceX will work with NASA to resolve questions about excess capacity, 

non-NASA participants, ISS visits and ISS emergency evacuations. 

Q5. Following the hearing, it was reported that SpaceX may not bid on the commercial crew development contract if NASA does not change the terms in the draft 

version of the contract. Is that correct? 

A5. The report was inaccurate and was changed by the reporter. SpaceX plans to 

submit a proposal to participate in the next phase of NASA’s commercial crew development program. The company was founded to develop the safest, most reliable and 

affordable crew transportation system to low Earth orbit and, ultimately, beyond. 

Indeed, carrying humans into space has been a cornerstone of SpaceX’s vehicle designs from the day the company was founded. 

Since the hearing in October, NASA has announced that it will pursue competitively-awarded Space Act Agreements for the next stage of commercial crew development. The details on the next round and the guidelines for proposals have not been 

released, though SpaceX is planning to participate and submit a proposal. 
131 

Responses by Mr. Charlie Precourt, Vice President, 

ATK Launch Systems Group, Brigham City, UT 

Question Submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. How confident are you about NASA’s and FAA’s ability to coordinate their requirements for commercial crew launches? Have you seen any evidence yet that 

the two agencies are attempting to define roles and responsibilities, and to minimize overlap? 

A1. ATK believes that a working relationship is being developed between the two 

agencies for the ISS Commercial Resupply program which can be evolved to manage 

a Commercial Crew Transportation program. The FAA also has established a Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Council that includes industry membership 

to engage in issues surrounding roles and responsibilities for commercial spaceflight 

operations. The input from the COMSTAC informs the FAA on approaches that can 

be taken in its interface with NASA and other government agencies relative to commercial space activities. 

Question Submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. Please provide the evidence that provides the justification for Congress to invest 

in this commercial crew initiative and what would your company realistically 

require from the U.S. Government to make this initiative a success. 

A1. The question raises appropriate issues relative to the commercial crew program’s readiness to support ISS schedule requirements as well as the expected levels of safety, reliability, and the costs of development and operations in fielding a 

commercial system. One of the biggest factors that will influence the outcome of all 

of these questions is the certification process to be used by NASA for the commercial 

vehicles. The amount of testing and certification documentation required to be 

awarded a commercial crew delivery contract is not yet known. The certification 

process ultimately will affect schedule, cost, performance, reliability and safety. 

It is hoped the process for certification can become clear during the next phase 

of the development program, so that industry can better estimate the costs to be 

carried in its business approach. To make this initiative a success, our company 

would require a contract for services beyond the development program that is specific in terms of numbers of flights and prices. This was done for commercial cargo 

services during NASA’s COTS program. The Commercial Resupply Services contracts were awarded to the COTS contractors while development was still underway. This enabled the companies to project realistic returns on investment for the 

program. To date, this has not been addressed by NASA for the commercial crew 

program. The development activities for commercial crew could take longer than for 

cargo services, making the need for early services contracts all the more important 

to ensure reasonable returns on investment are achievable. 

Q2. What is your understanding of how third-party liability and indemnification 

will be addressed for both launch and reentry and for on-orbit operation of any 

commercial crew transportation system used for NASA ISS servicing? 

A2. At this time, ATK understands that NASA will procure commercial launch services, and the services will be provided and licensed under the FAA authority, which 

dictates the required insurance coverage, as well as the Government indemnification 

coverage. We also anticipate that a Cross Waiver of Liability for Space Station Activities, similar to Commercial Resupply, will be incorporated into any resulting contract. 

Q3. How important an issue is liability and indemnification to any decision your 

company might make to enter into a Phase 1 or Phase 2 development contract 

with NASA for commercial crew system, or to enter into a service contract with 

NASA to transport astronauts to the ISS? 

A3. While there are extremely talented people designing rockets and conducting a 

rigorous certification process, there are potential risks that could financially destroy 

a company. Without insurance coverage and ultimately indemnification, the risks 

would be too great to enter into the launch services business. 

Q4. Do you plan to purchase insurance for your systems as part of your business 

plan, and how confident are you that adequate insurance coverage will be available privately? If it isn’t, what do you plan to do? 
132 

A4. ATK plans to acquire the insurance required by an FAA License and has had 

discussions with the Insurance industry and believes that insurance will be available. 

Question Submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. What obligation does you company have under space act agreements to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

A1. ATK does not have any space act agreements that spell out a requirement for 

anomaly reporting. However, as a result of ATK’s ongoing relationship with NASA 

on several contracts, ATK provides NASA insight to events and anomalies as soon 

as they occur, whether required contractually or not. Generally, the aerospace industry openly reports anomalies to ensure that they aren’t unnecessarily repeated 

on other operating systems, or on other programs, due to lack of insight. This is a 

common lessons learned practice in the industry, and is done in a manner that enables learning while protecting proprietary information. 

Q2. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a space act agreement? 

A2. This is dependent on the type of space act agreement, the scope of the agreement, and the requirements contained in the agreement. For example, if an agreement required hardware performance and anomaly reporting, ATK would be obligated to provide information relative to the anomaly. 

Q3. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

you company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a space act 

agreement? 

A3. This is dependent on the type of a space act agreement, the scope of the agreement, and the requirements contained in the agreement. As noted in the response 

to question #1, we generally report anomalies as a normal way of doing business. 

Q4. What obligation does your company have under traditional contracting to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

A4. ATK is required to report failure and anomalies upon occurrence or detection 

for any and all anomalies. 

Q5. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under traditional contracting? 

A5. ATK is required to provide reporting on ten items 

1. A failure 

2. An overstress or a result of an overstress of equipment and/or material 

3. An unsatisfactory condition 

4. An unexplained anomaly 

5. An alert applicable to flight hardware 

6. Failure of Critical Items List (CIL) hardware that fail in critical failure modes 

7. Affects accepted delivered hardware 

8. In-flight anomaly 

9. Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Nonconformance 

10. Contractor/Customer request 

Q6. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

you company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional 

contracting? 

A6. Upon occurrence or detection (as soon as feasible). 

Q7. What obligation does your company have under the modified FAR contracting 

to report anomalies to NASA? 

Q8. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a modified FAR acquisition? 

Q9. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

you company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under modified 

FAR acquisition? 

A7–9. As noted in my response to question #1, we feel we are morally obligated to 

provide anomaly reporting as soon as practical regardless of contractual requirements. In our history, there have been numerous examples where we were assisted 
133 

by both the contracting agency and competitors in anomaly resolution and similarly, 

we assisted competitors and contracting agencies in analyzing and resolving their 

anomalies. Typically the industry works in this fashion to avoid unnecessary failures on similar systems on other programs. The process is as open as possible while 

protecting proprietary data. ATK feels that providing the launch services NASA is 

pursuing, be it payloads or people, is an extremely valuable and critical requirement 

for the nation. As such, ATK would not alter the approach to anomaly reporting currently in practice for the vast majority of our contracts if a modified FAR acquisition 

approach is taken. 

Question Submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Q1. What do you believe, in terms of a percentage of total development costs, the private sector might realistically contribute? What percentage is your company 

planning to contribute? Is private sector investment contingent on additional 

non-financial U.S. government support too? If so what would that support involve? 

A1. The percentage contribution from the private sector is directly proportionate to 

the return on investment that can be expected from the future sales of the product 

(in this case a launch service). Currently, for commercial crew services, there are 

many assumptions being made to create future business models. As a point of reference, one can look to the production of commercial aircraft for the airline industry, 

where 100% of the upfront investment is borne by industry. This is achievable because of the high numbers of aircraft ordered resulting in a positive return on investment. 

In the case of commercial crew services however, the number of flights (demand 

levels for the service) is likely to be six per year or less. The flight rate expectation 

will set the price levels required to generate a positive return on investment. If industry invested 100% in system development while anticipating these flight rates, 

the cost per flight required to recoup the investment would be extremely high. 

Therefore, government must offset the upfront costs so that investments from industry can be reasonably amortized. Using assumptions based on our best understanding of the NASA plan during the CCDev2 timeframe, ATK required 50% or 

less of the up-front investment from the government. However as changes in the 

NASA plan occur, the amount that ultimately is our contribution would change accordingly. For example, should NASA test and certification requirements prove to 

be more costly than we have assumed, then the investment percentages would be 

affected. 

Similarly, if NASA’s acquisition strategy changes, or the number of flight services 

ordered is lower than currently anticipated, then the cost per flight or the upfront 

government investment, or both would be affected. Given these uncertainties in the 

ultimate flight rates or contractual requirements through demonstration, test and 

initial operational capability, it is essentially impossible to define a set percentage 

investment that would be reasonable for industry to make. In the absence of this 

clarity, we make reasonable assumptions as a starting point for our investment with 

the expectation there will be changes as NASA’s final requirements, and the means 

to pay for them, become better understood. Finally, private sector investment also 

depends on other additional, non-financial U.S. government support. This is most 

notable in the area of launch site infrastructure and other government facility and 

equipment access. Costs to industry for access to the government owned assets will 

ultimately affect the viability of the commercial approach. There are various means 

to address these costs, but will be the government’s responsibility to determine. 

Q2. What is your reaction to NASA’s proposed approach to human-rating future 

commercial crew transportation systems? Do you believe NASA’s proposed approach will both ensure astronaut safety and facilitate eventual FAA licensing 

of launches for non-government customers? Are there any changes you would like 

to see made to the approach? 

A2. The most important consideration for human-rating is to ensure that standards 

we know to be technically achievable, and that would result in increases in astronaut safety relative to Shuttle, are not compromised for budget or other financial 

reasons. Although NASA has released its human rating requirements, it is not yet 

clear what will be required to be certified to those requirements. The means to 

prove a system meets the human rating requirement are still to be defined in a certification process. The cost for this process therefore is also an unknown. As those 

costs become better understood, there may be pressure to do less than what is 

achievable in the way of safety and reliability for the astronauts in a crew transpor-
134 

tation system. NASA should maintain the highest achievable standards for both 

their human rating requirements and their certification process to ensure we deliver 

the safest, most reliable system possible. 

Q3. During the hearing, you testified your company plans to have 50% of the cost 

come from outside, non-government investment. Do you intend to maintain that 

percentage should you receive an award for the design and development contracts from NASA? If not what level of investment would you anticipate contributing for the design and development contract phase? 

A3. Please see the answer to Question 1 above. Additionally, we would intend to 

maintain a level of investment that minimizes government costs and would strive 

to maintain our original business model and carry the original assumptions. However, as mentioned in the answer to question 1 above, the NASA acquisition strategy, schedule and ultimate requirements continue to evolve, all of which affect the 

business model and the required costs to be amortized over the life of the system. 

As a result, the exact percentages of our investment relative to the total system development cost are likely to change in an iterative fashion as the NASA plans become clearer. 
135 

Responses by Dr. George Sowers, Vice President, 

United Launch Alliance, Englewood, CO 

Question Submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. How confident are you about NASA’s and FAA’s ability to coordinate their requirements for commercial crew launches? Have you seen any evidence yet that 

the two agencies are attempting to define roles and responsibilities, and to minimize overlap? 

A1. ULA strongly supports both Congress’ and NASA’s efforts to develop a commercial capability to meet U.S. obligations to deliver crew to and from the International 

Space Station. ULA has been extremely encouraged at the level of cooperation between NASA and the FAA in working jointly to develop and coordinate requirements and certification processes for commercial crew launches. Both agencies are 

bringing their expertise and unique experience to work cooperatively towards the 

goal of developing a safe and affordable domestic capability to transport crew to low 

earth orbit. NASA has decades of human spaceflight experience which directly complements the FAA’s decades of experience certifying commercial and civilian aircraft, and licensing of commercial space launches. ULA is confident that both agencies will work cooperatively to define mutually beneficial roles and responsibilities, 

while proactively seeking input from the commercial crew service providers. 

Question Submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. NASA’s plan requires that development and certification of the commercial crew 

systems to occur within a tight timeline, requires the commercial systems to be 

capable of safe and reliable flight operations by 2016, makes use of new and 

unproven government-industry development and safety approaches, and has development and operations costs that are still unknown. In that regard, please 

provide the following questions: 

a. What is the evidence that you believe provides that justification for congress to invest in this commercial crew initiative, and 

A1 a. The primary justification to invest in the commercial crew initiative is that 

the nation needs this strategic capability to maintain our nation’s leadership in 

human spaceflight and is required to meet U.S. obligations to the ISS partners. We 

should have an urgency to get a commercial service up and operating as quickly as 

possible to close the U.S. Human Spaceflight ‘‘Gap’’ and to continue to exploit the 

investment that we’ve made in the ISS. 

The Government of Russia is NASA’s sixth largest contractor, receiving over 

$350M per year. Not only does this represent thousands of high tech jobs sent overseas, but it’s ceding our leadership as a space-faring nation. Furthermore, the Russian Soyuz vehicle now represents the only means to send crew to the station. The 

recent failure of that normally reliable craft reminds us that the very existence of 

the ISS is now in jeopardy, and that we are reliant on a single fragile lifeline that 

we have little insight into or control over. 

Finally, the establishment of a commercial crew initiative has the potential to 

stimulate an entire new economic sector with thousands of high tech jobs. For example, Bob Bigelow is a visionary with a dream of a fleet of private space stations. 

His customer base will be countries that want a space program but afford time on 

the ISS. But Bob needs a safe and affordable transportation system to orbit. NASA 

is in a unique position to create a transportation system that can address the nation’s needs for access to ISS, while also providing an opportunity to unleash the 

power of the U.S. entrepreneur in Low Earth Orbit. 

b. What your company realistically would require from the U.S. Government to make 

this initiative a success 

A1 b. The private sector has the expertise to provide crew transportation safely and 

can provide the best value to the taxpayer. The companies competing for the commercial crew service include those with decades of experience in NASA’s human 

spaceflight program, such as Boeing. Newer companies bring fresh ideas and the entrepreneurial spirit like Sierra Nevada, Blue Origin and SpaceX. The private sector 

already possesses the world’s most reliable rocket with the Atlas V. 

In order to make the commercial crew initiative a success, U.S. Industry needs 

the Congress to commit to provide adequate development funding. With adequate 
136 

funding, Atlas could be ready to support test flights in 2014 and operational flights 

in 2015. 

Q2. What is your understanding of how third-party liability and indemnification 

will be addressed for both launch and reentry and for on-orbit operations of any 

commercial crew transportation system used for ISS servicing? 

a. How important an issue is liability and indemnification to any decision your company might make to enter into a Phase 1 or Phase 2 development contract with 

NASA for a commercial crew system, or to enter into a service contract with NASA 

to transport astronauts to the ISS? 

A1 a. Liability and indemnification are very important considerations to ULA. With 

the addition of crew members, gaps in coverage exist currently for ISS on-orbit activities under existing indemnification regimes like the Commercial Space Launch 

Act, and the unavailability of insurance for certain potential claims, it is important 

that our company be protected against new and significant risks associated with 

these missions. Gaps in statutory liability coverage and lack of insurance for onorbit activities have the potential to expose companies to significant risk in the 

event of damage to the ISS or injury to its occupants and crew members during onorbit activities. 

b. Do you plan to purchase insurance for your systems as part of your business plan, 

and how confident are you that adequate insurance coverage will be available privately? If it isn’t, what do you plan to do? 

A1 b. ULA intends to purchase insurance for third party liability claims associated 

with the ascent phase of the mission—up to separation of the crew capsule from the 

launch vehicle second stage. This is consistent with our existing CSLA and NASA 

Act obligations. However, this coverage only protects against third party liability 

claims for bodily injury and property damage. In addition, we intend to seek waivers 

from crew members or rely on statutory and/or prime contract protections to protect 

us against claims from crew members in the event of a launch accident. Insurance 

may also be an option to protect against crew member claims, although cost and 

availability has not been fully determined. Although we have no performance obligations beyond the ascent phase, we intend to request coverage from the prime contractor for any potential crew member or third party claims beyond this phase. To 

our knowledge, insurance coverage for on-orbit activities is unavailable and we have 

not examined coverage for crew re-entry activities because we will not be performing 

that phase of the mission. 

Q3. In you prepared statement, you note that the Atlas 5 is the only launch vehicle 

certified by NASA to carry Category 3 missions, ‘‘a category reserved for NASA’s 

most important science missions’’. What did it take for ULA to achieve Category 

3 certification and how does that compare to the requirements for commercial 

crew certification as you understand them? 

A3. NASA Policy requires that launch vehicles are selected based on the complexity 

and risk of the payload. As such, NASA has identified a rigorous certification process that includes such things as a NASA Flight Margin Verification (FMV) which 

is verification by NASA that the launch vehicle meets the predicted vehicle and performance parameters. In addition, all flight anomalies and mission failures are required to be resolved. NASA also requires a comprehensive IV&V assessment of all 

analyses, involving independent modeling, model evaluation, and/or analytical review. 

In order to ensure the highest levels of safety, ULA envisions an equivalent assessment that builds upon the Category 3 Certification, with particular emphasis 

on launch vehicle designs and operations that my pose a safety hazard to the flight 

crew. 

Question Submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. What Obligation does your company have under space act agreements to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

Q2. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a space act agreement? 

Q3. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a space 

act agreement? 

Q4. What Obligation does your company have under traditional contracting to report 

anomalies to NASA? 
137 

Q5. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under traditional contracting? 

Q6. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional 

contracting? 

Q7. What Obligation does your company have under the modified FAR acquisition 

to report anomalies to NASA? 

Q8. What information do you believe your company is obligated to provide NASA 

about anomalies under a modified FAR acquisition? 

Q9. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

your company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under modified 

FAR acquisition? 

A1–9. Regardless of the contacting method, ULA standard policies require prompt 

identification, government customer notification, and initiation of an investigation 

are key tenets of successfully resolving and learning from anomalies. ULA has instituted processes to ensure that when an anomaly occurs, a proper investigation is 

performed, proper leadership is involved, independent oversight is included, and 

ULA and customer management team members are regularly briefed on the status 

of the investigation. For example, within hours following the occurrence of a major 

anomaly, ULA notifies Customer/government representative(s) and major subcontractor/partner representative(s). 

In addition to these formal notifications, government awareness is often instantaneous since NASA or Air Force representatives typically participate in launches and 

major tests. ULA accommodates this participation even if the operation is not specifically for that government customer. Depending on the level of anomaly, customers and government representatives are invited to participate in the Anomaly 

Investigation Teams and Oversight Boards. All of this is consistent with ULA’s practice of providing open and detailed technical insight to the U.S. Government. 

Question Submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Q1. NASA’s FY 2012 budget request proposes a total of $4.25billion over five years, or $850 million a year through 2016, to fund the U.S. government’s share of 

commercial crew capabilities development for one or more systems. What do you 

believe, in terms of a percentage of total development costs, the private sector 

might realistically contribute? 

A1. ULA is providing the flight-proven Atlas V launch vehicle as one element of the 

overall commercial crew capability. Atlas V was developed by the Lockheed Martin 

Corporation as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program. 

Lockheed Martin invested nearly $2.0B in the development of the Atlas V. 

ULA will not be providing the entire crew transportation services from launch 

through landing, and as such, is not in a position to comment on the total development costs for the services. ULA has identified the relatively few enhancements required to Atlas V for the commercial crew initiative. These enhancements will be 

funded via a combination of contracted activities and company funded development. 

a. What percentage is your company planning to contribute? 

A1 a. ULA embraces a philosophy of ‘‘Continuous Improvement’’ whereby we fund 

initiatives that improve our efficiency and reduce our costs. We are currently investing approximately $40M per year in initiatives that will directly benefit all our customers, including the commercial crew initiative. 

b. Is private sector investment contingent on additional, non-financial U.S. government support too? If so, what would that support involve? 

A1 b. ULA does not have a need for additional, non-financial U.S. government support for the commercial crew initiative. 

Q2. What is your reaction to NASA’s proposed approach to human-rating future 

commercial crew transportation systems? Do you believe NASA’s proposed approach will both ensure astronaut safety and facilitate eventual FAA licensing 

of launches for non-government customers? Are there any changes you would like 

to see made to the approach? 

A2. If NASA’s commercial crew program is to be successful, every effort must be 

undertaken to ensure the highest possible level of safety and reliability. A key element of this is the rigorous process of human system certification. Under a Space 

Act Agreement with NASA, we are conducting a comprehensive assessment of the 
138 

Atlas design against NASA’s stringent human certification requirements. This entails a part-by-part, system-by-system review of the design, analysis and test pedigree of the Atlas. We are also performing a detailed analysis of the hazards faced 

by the crew and their mitigation as well as a Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the 

launch of crew. Our expectation is that the Atlas will fare very well. This is because 

of the rigor and attention to detail we applied during the original design and development process as well as the flight demonstrated performance of the system 

through 28 successful missions. 

The importance of insight and rigorous human certification criteria has been 

highlighted by the recent Soyuz failure. For new, unproven vehicles, you need the 

rigor even more, in addition to establishing a track record of demonstrated and repeatable success. 

We have been impressed with the thoroughness and rigor that NASA has used 

to determine how Atlas met their requirements. Based on this experience, it is our 

belief that NASA will not compromise astronaut safety solely to develop a commercial crew capability. 
139 

1 ‘‘NASA’s Challenges Certifying and Acquiring Commercial Crew Transportation Services,’’ 

NASA Office of Inspector General (June 20, 2011) accessible at http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/ 

FY11/IG–11–022.pdf. 

Responses by The Hon. Paul Martin, Inspector General, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Question Submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1 a. Your report, NASA’s Challenges Certifying and Acquiring Commercial Crew 

Transportation Services, states that some of NASA’s potential commercial 

crew partners are building spacecraft for the first time, and design and development are under way without fully defined and finalized requirements. What 

are the risks of developing systems without a set of finalized requirements? 

A1 a. Having finalized requirements enhances vehicle reliability, improves mission 

success, maximizes crew safety, and reduces risks. In addition, final requirements 

clearly communicate to NASA’s commercial partners the design, development, testing, and operations parameters they must meet to achieve certification of their systems. To mitigate the risks of commercial crew partners building spacecraft for the 

first time without fully defined and finalized requirements, NASA refined the requirements identified in the December 2010 ‘‘Commercial Crew Transportation System Certification Requirements for NASA Low Earth Orbit Missions’’ (Certification 

Requirements) and on December 8, 2011, NASA released baseline versions of its 

commercial crew requirements relating to missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Known as the ‘‘1100-series,’’ these documents provide additional information to commercial partners regarding roles and responsibilities, technical management processes supporting certification, crew transportation system and ISS services requirements, and the application of technical and operations standards. The 

release of these documents should help communicate NASA’s requirements, standards, and processes for commercial transportation system certification. 

Q1 b. Do you agree that NASA has adequately mitigated such risks? 

A1 b. It remains to be seen whether NASA has adequately mitigated these risks. 

However, NASA has taken steps to date to ensure that commercial partners understand the Agency’s health and medical, engineering, and safety and mission assurance requirements. As previously stated, in addition to issuing its December 2010 

Certification Requirements NASA recently released baseline versions of its 1100-series documents relating to missions to the ISS. 

In addition, as we discussed in our June 2011 report, the use of funded Space 

Act Agreements limits Government control compared to traditional procurement 

contracts based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). 1 Specifically, under 

such agreements NASA cannot dictate specific system concepts or elements or mandate compliance with its requirements. Accordingly, continuing to use Space Act 

Agreements in the later stages of the acquisition process could pose risks that the 

systems developed by commercial partners may ultimately not meet NASA’s humanrating requirements and that costly and time-consuming redesigns will be required. 

To mitigate this risk, at the time we issued our report NASA appeared to be moving 

away from funded Space Act Agreements toward FAR-based contracts (which allow 

for more direct Government involvement). However, in mid-December 2011 NASA 

announced plans to shift back to funded Space Act Agreements due to concerns 

about overall program funding levels. 

Q2. Your report goes on to say ‘‘In this type of environment, there is a risk that during the period of contract performance NASA’s requirements may change so significantly that contractors can successfully argue that the Agency is changing 

the contract’s scope, in which case NASA could be required to pay the contractor 

to make necessary modifications.’’ Do you feel that there is a likelihood NASA’s 

requirements will change during the contract? Is this a common trait in development efforts? Has NASA adequately accounted for this cost risk? 

A2. Changes in requirements are not uncommon in large scale development efforts. 

NASA’s requirements for crew transportation to the ISS may change based on the 

needs of the ISS Program and the Agency’s future exploration goals. However, 

NASA has taken steps to minimize this possibility. For example, the Agency has reduced its list of requirements to those it believes are essential to ensure safe and 

reliable systems. In addition, when possible NASA will allow contractors to propose 

alternative methods for meeting Agency requirements. Finally, NASA’s approach of 

dividing its acquisition process into phases that separate system design from devel-
140 

opment, test, evaluation, and certification should help limit the Agency’s financial 

risk. 

Question Submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1–3. What obligations do companies have to report anomalies to NASA under 

Space Act Agreements? What information do you believe companies are obligated to provide NASA under a Space Act Agreement? How long after an 

anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe a company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a Space Act Agreement? 

A1–3. NASA establishes its expectations with regard to reporting by partner companies in each Space Act Agreement. For example, NASA’s funded Commercial Crew 

Development 2 (CCDev2) Space Act Agreement with Sierra Nevada Corporation requires the company to hold quarterly project status briefings with NASA personnel 

describing the progress made using a mutually agreed upon quantifiable performance method, any difficulties encountered and corrective action necessary, and the 

company’s plans to move forward. Similarly, the unfunded CCDev2 Space Act 

Agreement with Excalibur Almaz, Inc. requires the company to hold project status 

briefings with NASA at each milestone review. To the extent that an anomaly would 

impact the company’s ability to achieve progress or complete an agreed-upon milestone, the Office of Inspector General would expect the company to report such an 

event to NASA. 

Moreover, with respect to funded agreements, partner companies will not receive 

payment until they demonstrate successful completion of each specified milestone. 

Further, NASA may terminate agreements for failure to demonstrate progress and 

timely achievement of milestones. For example, in October 2007 NASA terminated 

its funded Space Act Agreement with Rocketplane Kistler due to the company’s failure to meet agreed-upon milestones. 

Q4–6. What obligation does a company have under traditional contracting to report 

anomalies to NASA? What information do you believe a company is obligated 

to provide NASA under traditional contracting? How long after an anomaly 

is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe a company is obligated to 

report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional contracting? 

A4–6. Reporting requirements vary by contract based on factors such as the types 

of supplies or services purchased, the type of contract vehicle selected, and the dollar value of the acquisition. Specific reporting requirements for technical, cost, and 

schedule anomalies are reflected in the final negotiated contract. Generally, NASA’s 

FAR-based contracts require the contractor to perform monthly program status reviews to communicate the status of the technical effort, program schedule, and resource conditions, and provide a summary of all open anomalies, problem reports, 

and program technical issues that may impact the contracted work. Contractors are 

also required to submit monthly financial management reports that describe actual 

and planned costs and labor hours, short-term cost projections, estimates to complete, and contract values. Finally, pursuant to NASA regulation, contractors may 

be required to notify the Government of any mishaps within 1 hour of occurrence. 

Q7–9. What obligation does a company have under the modified FAR acquisition to 

report anomalies to NASA? What information do you believe a company is obligated to provide NASA under a modified FAR acquisition? How long after 

an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe a company is 

obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a modified FAR acquisition? 

A7–9. We anticipate any ‘‘modified FAR acquisition’’ undertaken as part of NASA’s 

Commercial Crew Program will be negotiated similar to a traditional FAR-based 

contract described above. 

Q10. Please explain, in detail, the role of NASA’s Safety and Mission Assurance Office in the design, development, construction, testing and acquisition of hardware associated with commercial crew services. 

A10. NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) has been involved in 

the development of the Commercial Crew Program from its inception. Many of the 

requirements that the commercial partners must adhere to are derived from OSMA 

policies and standards. In addition, according to NASA’s plans at the time of our 

audit, OSMA personnel will participate as members of the NASA Performance Integration Teams that will be embedded at contractor locations during the acquisition 

phases of the program. These teams will gain insight into the contractor’s progress 
141 

2Section 818 of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act repeals Section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989, which prohibited the use of firm fixed-price contracts except in limited circumstances. 

through observation, document reviews, tests, and compliance evaluations, and will 

work side-by-side with contractor personnel to provide expertise and aid in the resolution of technical issues. The insight gained will be used to determine whether the 

contractor has successfully completed agreed-upon milestones. 

Question Submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Q1. In describing fixed-price contracts, your report, NASA’s Challenges Certifying 

and Acquiring Commercial Crew Transportation Services, makes the following 

caution: ‘‘[A]lthough fixed-price contracts provide the maximum incentive for 

contractors to perform effectively while controlling costs, they also place on the 

contractor the maximum risk of loss if it is unable to so. This situation can create incentives for a contractor to ‘‘cut corners’’ to protect its profit margin.’’ How 

can NASA guard against creating such incentives? 

A1. As previously discussed, NASA planned to embed at contractor locations Performance Integration Teams and chair or co-chair program control and technical review boards to review the verification of requirements and recommend disposition 

when a requirement cannot be met by the contractor. The insight and collaboration 

provided by the Performance Integration Teams, along with the oversight provided 

by the boards, is designed to identify developmental challenges and prevent the contractor from cutting corners. 

Q2. Given the possibility of NASA having only one provider, what would be NASA’s 

recourse if the provider cannot deliver at the agreed-to fixed price, other than 

paying for the cost increase? 

A2. A determination would first have to be made regarding whether the cost increase is due to a requirement change that is outside the scope of the original contract. The contractor is responsible for absorbing cost increases caused by changes 

that are within the original scope of the contract. However, if the contractor becomes insolvent or refuses to proceed, NASA’s only recourse may be to purchase 

more seats aboard Russia’s Soyuz vehicle. As stated in our report, because of the 

long lead-time required for procuring Soyuz seats and planning a mission to the 

ISS, NASA would have to make the decision to purchase additional Soyuz seats for 

flights in 2016 and beyond by spring 2013—at least three years before commercial 

partners are expected to be ready to provide transportation services. 

Additionally, Congress would have to grant another waiver from the restrictions 

on paying Russia for ISS-related activities contained in the Iran-North Korea-Syria 

Nonproliferation Act because the current waiver expires in 2016. 

Q3. Do you have any examples at NASA or in the Federal government where firm 

fixed price was used for development programs, both successfully and unsuccessfully? 

A3. NASA has most frequently used cost-plus-award-fee contracts for its development programs. Moreover, for approximately 18 years federal agencies were prohibited from using fixed-price contracts for development efforts except in limited circumstances. 2 Consequently, we are not aware of any recent examples of successful 

development programs using fixed price contracts. 
142 

Responses by Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, 

Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Question Submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. Are any changes in launch indemnification being contemplated, especially for 

flights carrying NASA astronauts? 

A1. On December 15, 2011, NASA announced that it will continue to use competitively awarded, funded Space Act Agreements (SAAs) rather than transitioning to 

contracts for the next phase of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP). Commercial 

launch and reentry activities under SAAs are subject to licensing by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA). The Commercial Space Launch Act (51 U.S.C. § 

50901, et. seq.) prescribes methods to indemnify the licensee for third-party liability 

arising during the licensed activities. 

For future phases of commercial crew development, NASA’s approach to allocating third-party liability between the Government and industry will be dependent 

on NASA’s approach to FAA licensing, which is still under development. For any 

commercial launch and reentry activity that requires an FAA license, the Commercial Space Launch Act indemnification provisions will apply. For launch and reentry 

activities of NASA missions that do not require an FAA license, NASA intends to 

use contract provisions that match the intent of the FAA authority to limit thirdparty liability. Contract provisions similar to those used in NASA’s Launch Services 

(NLS) contracts, which are commercial, may be incorporated into future CCP contracts to allocate liability, but this is still being reviewed. 

Q2. (a) NASA is proposing the next phase of the Commercial Crew program to be 

a firm-fixed price procurement. As an experienced program manager do you 

believe that NASA’s requirements in developing human spaceflight systems 

are mature enough for NASA’s industry partners to bear all of the technical, 

safety, and schedule risks with a fixed-price contract? 

Q2. (b) Given the track record of previous attempts to build a replacement for the 

Space Shuttle over the past 20 years, why is NASA so confident that the 

technical, safety, and schedule risks have been mitigated enough to allow for 

a firm-fixed price procurement? 

A2 a. On December 15, 2011, NASA announced a modified competitive acquisition 

strategy designed to make the best use of available resources and to define the most 

cost effective path to the achievement of a commercial crew capability, as directed 

by Congress. Instead of transitioning to firm-fixed price contracts for the next phase 

of the Program, the Agency plans to continue to use multiple, competitively awarded 

funded Space Act Agreements (SAAs). Using competitively-awarded SAAs instead of 

contracts will allow NASA to maintain multiple partners during this phase of the 

Program, and provide NASA with the flexibility to adjust technical content and 

funding levels based on available funds. This new acquisition strategy will allow the 

Agency to preserve competition and maintain momentum to provide a U.S.-based 

commercial crew launch capability at the earliest possible time. 

A2 b. NASA recently completed the baseline technical and safety requirements for 

a crew transportation system. The requirements documents are complete (i.e., there 

are no items yet ‘‘to be determined’’) and they reflect over two years of effort on the 

part of the Agency. There were several draft versions that were released to industry, 

and NASA received and addressed extensive comments to the earlier drafts. The requirements are publicly available at http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=28 

for use by the commercial partners during the SAA phase. Thus, NASA believes 

that the requirements are sufficiently mature to enable the Agency to confidently 

enter the next phase of the Program. 

Q3. Launch abort systems are one of the most critical and technically challenging 

features to design, integrate, and test. What are NASA’s plans for verifying the 

performance of each company’s systems? For instance, will they be required to 

successfully flight-test their launch abort systems? 

A3. In future phases of the Commercial Crew Program, NASA will manage the crew 

transportation system certification process to ensure that commercial partners have 

met NASA requirements—including crew safety requirements—in their certification 

plans. Crew transportation system certifications will culminate with a successful 

mission to and from the International Space Station (ISS), or a comparable target. 

Results of a commercial partner’s tests, analyses, demonstrations, and/or inspections 
143 

of spacecraft systems, including launch abort systems, will be formally evaluated to 

obtain NASA concurrence of the commercial partner’s progress towards certification. 

To date, NASA has not dictated that a specific test program be followed for all crew 

transportation systems. Instead, NASA plans to evaluate the overall test program 

for each specific system. 

Following the NASA determination of readiness, NASA will facilitate an Agencylevel review to grant the commercial partners approval to transport NASA and 

NASA-sponsored personnel to the ISS, based on evidence of satisfactorily completing 

the crew transportation system certification. 

It should be noted that, as part of its efforts to support the development of safe, 

reliable, commercial transportation systems, NASA has provided technical assistance to companies that participated in the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) 

effort, and the Agency anticipates continuing to provide ‘‘lessons learned’’ information to its Commercial Crew Program partners. 

Q4. What steps is NASA taking to coordinate requirements and regulations with the 

Federal Aviation Administration to ensure compatibility? 

A4. Both NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) envision a state 

where the FAA licenses commercial human spaceflights provided by a robust industry, from which the government and the private sector can purchase transportation 

services. The FAA has already developed and implemented processes and procedures 

for licensing and regulating commercial space activities to protect the safety of the 

public. Additional regulations for protection of crew safety are in development. 

Although it is not a regulatory Federal agency like the FAA, NASA is responsible 

for assuring the safety of the public, as well as NASA crews/workforce and assets 

during NASA or NASA-sponsored space operations. In support of those responsibilities, NASA is currently developing the certification requirements and program processes for commercial transportation of NASA crews to the ISS. 

The requirements and processes of these separate agencies must be carefully coordinated and aligned to assure that both agencies’ roles are accomplished with 

thoroughness and rigor while remaining consistent in areas of mutual consideration. 

At the same time, it will be critical to the success of the industry ventures to minimize the burden of Government requirements and regulations imposed by multiple 

agencies. Early collaboration between NASA and the FAA during the formulation 

of requirements, certification processes and regulatory compliance processes will encourage an efficient and effective synergy between NASA and the FAA in the execution of their responsibilities. 

In collaboration with the FAA, NASA has recently baselined the initial certification and operations requirements for the services it wishes to acquire from commercial providers. NASA will continue to partner with the FAA for the purposes of 

determining common standards and uniform processes to ensure both public safety 

and protection of cargo, crews, and spaceflight participants for the NASA-sponsored 

missions. NASA and the FAA will work towards minimizing the duplication of requirements, developing a streamlined process and addressing indemnification 

issues. This will be accomplished by clearly defining roles and responsibilities of 

each agency, sharing relevant data and jointly performing assessments to enable the 

commercial partner to be successful in support of missions with and without NASAsponsored personnel. NASA and the FAA are in the process of documenting agreements that solidify each agency’s commitment to this partnership. 

Q5. According to the IG, NASA will not be ‘‘human rating’’ commercial systems that 

will fly NASA astronauts. Instead, the Agency is planning to ‘‘certify’’ commercial vehicles to carry NASA astronauts. What is the difference between ‘‘human 

rating’’ NASA vehicles and simply certifying commercial systems to carry NASA 

astronauts? 

A5. The term ‘human rating’ is intentionally not used by NASA when referring to 

the certification of commercial systems because it implies a broader context of certification to fly any humans on any missions. NASA’s current efforts to define a certification process only involve Agency-sponsored personnel on low Earth orbit (LEO) 

missions to the ISS. NASA will not be involved in the certification of commercial 

systems when they are used to transport non-Agency-sponsored personnel. 

Question Submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. NASA has stressed the importance of competition as a means for achieving costeffectiveness during development of the commercial crew systems. 
144 

• If appropriated funding is only enough for one development contract, how much 

confidence can Congress have in the cost-effectiveness of that development plan, 

especially given NASA’s critical need for the capability? 

• Are you prepared to go forward in the event there is only one contractor at the 

end of the day? What, if any alternative, do you have? 

• If there is only one contractor, you would be in effect setting up a monopoly 

in commercial crew transportation services. How comfortable would you be 

with that, and what does that mean for the ISS in the event of a launch failure 

from that single contractor? 

A1. NASA agrees that a key objective of the CCP is to maintain as many viable 

commercial vendors as possible in order to keep the cost of crew transportation services down and reduce the risk that U.S. astronauts might be grounded by a technical anomaly. The Agency’s ability to fund more than one commercial crew provider 

is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. While the $406M for the 

Commercial Crew Program funded in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–55) will enable the Agency to move the Program 

forward, NASA has had to reassess its acquisition strategy for this Program to 

maximize the effectiveness of limited resources. 

On December 15, 2011, NASA announced a modified competitive procurement 

strategy designed to make the best use of available resources and to define the most 

cost effective path to the achievement of a commercial crew capability, as directed 

by Congress. Instead of transitioning to contracts for the next phase of the Program, 

the Agency plans to continue to use multiple, competitively awarded funded Space 

Act Agreements (SAAs). Using competitive SAAs instead of contracts will allow 

NASA to maintain a larger number of partners during this phase of the Program, 

and provide NASA with the flexibility to more easily adjust to various funding levels. This new acquisition strategy will allow the Agency to preserve competition and 

maintain momentum to provide a U.S.-based commercial crew launch capability at 

the earliest possible time. 

This new strategy has resulted in an estimated availability date for U.S. commercial crew services likely by 2017. NASA’s current exception to the Iran, North 

Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) extends through June 2016. In 

order to procure transportation and rescue services using the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, the Agency will require modifications to INKSNA. Separate from the need for 

INKSNA relief for Soyuz crew transportation and rescue services, INKSNA relief 

will be needed for Russia-unique ISS goods and services for the life of the ISS Program. Given the lead-time required to manufacture Soyuz spacecraft, contractual arrangements for crew rotation and rescue for launch in the spring of 2016 should be 

in place by the spring of 2013. As NASA has testified, some modification of the 

INKSNA provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of ISS and 

other space programs after 2016. The Administration plans to propose appropriate 

provisions and looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. 

NASA plans to procure U.S. commercial crew transportation and rescue services 

from one or more U.S. commercial providers, depending on funding availability. 

Having more than one domestic capability will provide the advantages of keeping 

costs low through competition, and ensuring that if one vendor’s vehicle is grounded 

due to an anomaly, NASA would still retain a domestic option for the transport and 

rescue of its astronauts to the ISS. Having a contract in place with Russia, if we 

have the necessary INKSNA modification, would provide another layer of redundancy that would ensure that the Agency could meet its transportation obligations 

in the event of a commercial vendor stand-down in a single vendor scenario but this 

would force the program to again rely on foreign providers for transportation services. 

The Agency believes that it will be able to fund multiple commercial crew transportation providers at least for the next phase of the program. Funding only a single 

provider would entail greater technical risks for the Agency and reduce the providers’ incentive to keep the costs of crew transportation down. The GAO recently 

concluded that using competition for CCP was a ‘‘good practice’’ in its report, ‘‘Acquisition Approach for Commercial Crew Transportation Includes Good Practices but 

Faces Significant Challenges.’’ (GAO 11–282). If NASA is limited to funding a single 

provider, the Agency will assess its options, risks, and resources availability to determine the feasibility and impacts of having a single U.S. provider. Adequate funding will be important to maintaining the ability to retain multiple providers. 

Q2. How will the international partnership ‘‘certify’’ the crew rescue capability of 

commercial crew vehicles, or will certification be solely a NASA decision? 
145 

A2. It is NASA’s responsibility to provide crew transportation and rescue capability 

for U.S., European, Japanese, and Canadian astronauts (the Russians are responsible for providing these capabilities for their cosmonauts). NASA is responsible for 

certifying the crew transportation and rescue capabilities of the commercial service 

providers from whom it procures services, though the Agency would keep the other 

ISS Partners apprised of its review. NASA responsibilities include assessment of 

compliance with the ISS Visiting Vehicles policy, thereby ensuring that the safety 

and integrity of the ISS will be maintained for all concerned parties. 

Q3. I understand that the Phase 1 design contract will last approximately two years 

and that an RFP for the Phase 2 development contract could be issued about 

halfway into Phase 1. Please explain the rationale for issuing a development 

RFP when work on the design Phase is not complete? How does that approach 

meet the objective of reducing risk through a two-phase procurement strategy? 

A3. NASA has recently re-assessed its approach to the Commercial Crew Program 

in light of available funding (please see response to question #1), so the phasing of 

the design and development work is under review. However, in general, the overlapping approach was adopted to reduce development risk while at the same time ensuring that the period between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and NASA’s 

ability to send astronauts to the ISS aboard new U.S. vehicles was kept to a minimum, without sacrificing safety considerations. 

Q4. How much weight will you give to a commercial proposer’s business strategy 

when it comes time to award contracts for the initial design and later for the 

development of commercial crew systems to meet NASA’s needs? Is a proposer’s 

ability to obtain revenue from markets other than NASA ISS flights a requirement, and if so, by what timeframe? 

A4. On February 7, 2012, NASA released an Announcement for Proposals (AFP) for 

the next phase in Commercial Crew development. The effort is known as Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap). Proposals from industry will be due on 

March 23, 2012, and NASA expects to award multiple funded Space Act Agreements 

(SAAs) in the July/August timeframe. The overall CCiCap strategic goal is to advance multiple integrated commercial crew transportation system concepts to the 

stage of an orbital crewed demonstration flight capability as soon as possible while 

ensuring crew safety and considering potential customer standards. 

NASA has been and will continue to refine its cost modeling capability to help 

understand potential crew transportation system development costs. In addition, 

NASA will evaluate the total government investment being requested by participants in their Commercial Crew Integration Capability (CCiCap) proposals to determine the effectiveness of their proposed approach and to establish a confidence factor for each company’s likelihood of successful performance. 

Q5. Witnesses on the first panel testified that should the ISS international partnership open up to other countries, there would be a possibility for an expanded 

market to provide services for the other partners who would then need access to 

the ISS. Have the international partners contemplated inviting new partners to 

the ISS? What would be involved in expanding the partnership? What would be 

entailed in allowing access to other potential partners? Does NASA have plans 

to seek an expanded partnership? 

A5. Expanding the ISS partnership would entail significant multi-lateral negotiations, including extensive discussions on the allocation of Space Station crewing, resources, and research time. In addition, if a hypothetical new partner were to provide their own hardware or vehicle for use with the ISS, such equipment would need 

to be assessed and certified as being safe for use in or near the Station, and their 

systems would have to be compatible with those used aboard ISS. While the addition of new partners is a possibility, NASA and its current ISS partners have no 

plans to seek an expanded partnership at this time. However, the ISS partnership 

will continue enabling research opportunities for non-partner countries. Such participants are currently sponsored by an existing ISS partner. 

Question Submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. What obligations do companies have to report anomalies to NASA under space 

act agreements? 

A1. Just like FAR-based contracts, there is no standard requirement that companies report anomalies to NASA under Space Act Agreements. However, a company 

may be required to report anomalies as part of its performance under a Space Act 
146 

Agreement if that obligation is negotiated between NASA and the company and included in the Space Act Agreement. For example, in order to receive a milestone 

payment for a demonstration mission under its COTS Space Act Agreement, SpaceX 

is required to provide NASA with an identification of any anomalies associated with 

the mission along with its preliminary assessment regarding the cause of the anomaly. 

Q2. What information do you believe companies are obligated to provide NASA 

under a space act agreement? 

A2. Just like FAR-based contracts, there is no standard requirement that companies report anomalies to NASA under Space Act Agreements. However, a company 

may be required to report anomalies as part of its performance under a Space Act 

Agreement if that obligation is negotiated between NASA and the company and included in the Space Act Agreement. For example, in order to receive a milestone 

payment for a demonstration mission under its COTS Space Act Agreement, SpaceX 

is required to provide NASA with an identification of any anomalies associated with 

the mission along with its preliminary assessment regarding the cause of the anomaly. 

Q2. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

a company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under a space act 

agreement? 

A2. If a Space Act Agreement includes a requirement for a company to report anomalies to NASA, the Space Act Agreement will also specify the time frame for the 

report. For example, if reporting anomalies is a requirement for a milestone payment then the report would be due at the same time other documentation is provided to NASA to support the milestone payment. 

Q4. What obligation does a company have under traditional contracting to report 

anomalies to NASA? 

A4. There is no standard contract requirement regarding anomaly reporting. When 

needed, a clause is tailored for the specific contract. 

Under the previous acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Program, the Integrated Design Contract (IDC) would have required the Contractor to notify the Government of qualification or test anomalies involving the Crew Transportation System (CTS) design (e.g., launch and orbital vehicles, systems, subassemblies, components, software) and similar launch and orbital vehicles that might affect the CTS 

design. Under the contract, the Contractor would have been responsible for conducting any investigation of test anomalies and presenting any findings and proposed corrective actions to the Government. In addition, the Government would 

have had the right to conduct its own investigation of any anomaly. The Contractor 

would have been required to cooperate with any Government investigation and to 

allow the Government to observe and participate in any Contractor-led investigation. 

Q5. What information do you believe a company is obligated to provide NASA under 

traditional contracting? 

A5. Each contract includes data reporting and deliverable provisions as appropriate 

for the purpose and requirements of that contract. Under the IDC draft RFP, NASA 

identified the information to be provided by prospective Contractors through use of 

a Data Requirements List (DRL)/Data Requirements Description (DRD). This Data 

Requirements List (DRL) set forth the data requirements in each Data Requirements Description (DRD) describing the data required for the contract. There were 

fourteen (14) detailed DRL/DRDs contained in the draft RFP for IDC. 

Q6. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

a company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under traditional 

contracting? 

A6. NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8621.1, for Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping, requires that Contractors notify NASA of anomalies 

within 24 hours. Anomalies that are classified as mishaps or high-visibility close 

calls must be reported to NASA telephonically as soon as practicable, and followed 

up within 24 hours in writing to HQs with detailed descriptions. These NPD reporting requirements were incorporated into the IDC contract as part of DRL CCIDC– 

S-001. 

Q7. What obligation does a company have under the modified FAR acquisition to report anomalies to NASA? 
147 

A7. There is no standard contract requirement regarding anomaly reporting. When 

needed, a clause is tailored for the specific contract. 

Under the previous acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Program, the Integrated Design Contract (IDC) would have required the Contractor to notify the Government of qualification or test anomalies involving the Crew Transportation System (CTS) design (e.g., launch and orbital vehicles, systems, subassemblies, components, software) and similar launch and orbital vehicles that might affect the CTS 

design. Under the contract, the Contractor would have been responsible for conducting any investigation of test anomalies and presenting any findings and proposed corrective actions to the Government. In addition, the Government would 

have had the right to conduct its own investigation of any anomaly. The Contractor 

would have been required to cooperate with any Government investigation and to 

allow the Government to observe and participate in any Contractor-led investigation. 

Q8. What information do you believe a company is obligated to provide NASA under 

a modified FAR acquisition? 

A8. Refer to answer provided for Question 5. Under the IDC solicitation, NASA 

used a more streamlined, commercial approach to limit the quantity of deliverables 

and reporting requirements while still ensuring NASA access and insight into information generated by the Contractor in performance of the contract. 

Q9. How long after an anomaly is detected, observed, or identified, do you believe 

a company is obligated to report such an anomaly to NASA under modified FAR 

acquisition? 

A9. NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8621.1, for Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping, requires that Contractors notify NASA of anomalies 

within 24 hours. Anomalies that are classified as mishaps or high-visibility close 

calls must be reported to NASA telephonically as soon as practicable, and followed 

up within 24 hours in writing to HQs with detailed descriptions. These NPD reporting requirements were incorporated into the IDC contract as part of DRL CCIDC– 

S-001. 

Q10. Please explain, in detail, the role of NASA’s Safety and Mission Assurance Office in the design, development, construction, testing and acquisition of hardware associated with commercial crew services.? 

A10. NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is governed by NASA 

Policy Directive (NPD) 1000.0A, the NASA Governance and Strategic Management 

Handbook and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5, NASA Program and 

Project Management. For the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), as with other 

NASA programs, a Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer (CSO) has been assigned to carry out the roles of the SMA Technical Authority for CCP. The CSO reports independently through the Center SMA Director, the Center Director, and 

then to the Chief, OSMA. 

OSMA, along with the other two NASA Technical Authorities and the Mission Directorate, were key contributors to, and are key stakeholders of, the Commercial 

Crew Transportation System Requirements Document (ESMD–CCTSCR–12.10). 

This document includes the appropriate set of safety, reliability, maintainability, 

and quality assurance policies, procedures, and requirements which must be met before NASA will certify a commercial provider to fly NASA or NASA-sponsored crew 

aboard their vehicle. Included are requirements and standards that govern the safety and mission assurance aspects of design, development, construction, and testing 

of commercial vehicles that will be used to transport NASA crew. The requirements 

defined herein must be met prior to flying NASA crew, regardless of the acquisition 

or procurement strategy followed. 

As far as acquisition, the Chief, OSMA, is involved in NASA Acquisition Strategy 

and Procurement Strategy forums for each NASA Program. Currently, the strategy 

for CCP is for NASA to procure transportation services, not hardware. The services 

contract will include the mechanisms necessary for the appropriate amount of government insight needed to assure verification of the requirements in ESMD– 

CCTSCR–12.10. NASA will perform assessments to determine if the contractor has 

met all these requirements. If all requirements have been successfully met, NASA 

will grant CCTS Certification. If NASA cannot verify these requirements as having 

been met, NASA will not grant Certification. 
148 

Question Submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Q1. What is NASA’s backup plan if commercial crew systems are not available in 

the 2015–2016 timeline you anticipate? What contingency plan does NASA have 

for ensuring its requirements to service the ISS will still be met? 

• What will you do if there is an incident that requires a stand-down after you 

have started commercial crew flights? Will the Russians be willing and able 

to provide a backup crew transport capability without a crew transport contract 

extension already in place? 

• At what point would NASA have to make a decision to extend its contract with 

the Russians for the use of Soyuz seats to transport NASA crews to the ISS, 

and what conditions would be required for NASA to make that decision? 

A1. While the $406M for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) funded in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–55) will enable the Agency to move forward with its plans to advance commercial services for 

crew transportation and rescue capabilities in support of the International Space 

Station (ISS), NASA has had to reassess its acquisition strategy for this Program. 

On December 15, 2011, NASA announced a modified competitive procurement 

strategy designed to make the best use of available resources and to define the most 

cost effective path to the achievement of a commercial crew capability, as directed 

by Congress. Instead of transitioning to contracts for the next phase of the Program, 

the Agency plans to continue to use multiple, competitively awarded funded Space 

Act Agreements (SAAs). Using competitive SAAs instead of contracts will allow 

NASA to maintain a larger number of partners during this phase of the Program, 

and provide NASA with the flexibility to more easily adjust to various funding levels. This new acquisition strategy will allow the Agency to preserve competition and 

maintain momentum to provide a U.S.-based commercial crew launch capability at 

the earliest possible time. 

This new strategy has resulted in an estimated availability date for U.S. commercial crew services likely by 2017. Thus, additional Soyuz purchases will be necessary 

to fill the gap until commercial crew becomes available. Fabrication of Soyuz vehicles must begin approximately 36 months prior to launch. Contractual arrangements for crew rotation and rescue services for launch in spring 2016 should be in 

place by spring 2013. 

NASA’s current exception to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation 

Act (INKSNA) extends through June 2016. In order to procure transportation and 

rescue services using the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, and for Russia-unique ISS goods 

and services for the life of the ISS Program, the Agency will require modifications 

to INKSNA. Given the lead-time required to manufacture Soyuz spacecraft, contractual arrangements for crew rotation and rescue for launch in the spring of 2016 

should be in place by the spring of 2013. As NASA has testified, some modification 

of the INKSNA provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of ISS 

and other space programs after 2016. The Administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. 

NASA plans to procure U.S. commercial crew transportation and rescue services 

from one or more U.S. commercial providers, depending on funding availability. 

Having more than one domestic capability will provide the advantages of keeping 

costs low through competition, and ensuring that if one vendor’s vehicle is grounded 

due to an anomaly, NASA would still retain a domestic option for the transport of 

its astronauts to the ISS. Having a contingency contract in place with Russia, presuming appropriate INKSNA modifications, would provide another layer of redundancy that would ensure that the Agency could meet its transportation obligations 

in the event of a commercial vendor stand-down in a single vendor scenario but this 

would force the program to again rely on foreign providers for transportation services. 

Q2. Do you envision commercial spaceflight participants to be sitting on the same 

commercial crew flights as NASA astronauts? Would including spaceflight participants add risks and liability concerns, and if so, what would NASA require 

of the commercial providers to mitigate those risks and liability concerns? 

A2. It is a central part of NASA’s CCP strategy that the commercial providers be 

able to sell human space transportation services to customers other than the Agency. Thus, NASA does envision the possibility that crew transportation system missions will include both NASA and non-NASA personnel at some point. There would 

need to be other agreements on the use of ISS resources if a commercial crew-
149 

member wanted to visit the ISS. For example, the ISS partnership would likely require compensation for consumables and resources consumed or used by the commercial crewmember. 

Including spaceflight participants on missions involving NASA personnel may add 

some unique risks to the flight, depending on the flight training and acceptance requirements of the spaceflight participants. Once those flight training and acceptance 

requirements have been established, NASA will be able to specifically address/mitigate any risk or liability concerns. 

Q3. What is the plan for crew rescue vehicle stay time requirements at the ISS once 

NASA transitions to the use of commercially provided crew transportation to the 

ISS? 

A3. NASA’s requirements for crew rescue include the ability to rapidly and safely 

evacuate crewmembers from the ISS during a six-month Expedition, or ‘‘increment.’’ 

Currently, this capability is provided by the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which remains docked to the ISS for the entirety of a given increment, so that it is close 

at hand in the event of an anomaly which might require evacuation. 

Requirements for commercially provided crew transportation systems were recently baselined by the Agency. The following are the relevant excerpts regarding 

crew rescue: 

‘‘3.1.2.2 Return Crew 

The CTS shall return 1, 2, 3, and 4 NASA crew during a single entry/landing. 

[R.CTS.011] [I] 

Rationale: Four NASA crew are required to be transported and returned to the 

ISS to meet the USOS demand for crew time based on full utilization of the ISS to 

perform science and support the ISS National Laboratory Program. All docking and 

undocking operations are a significant impact to the completion of ISS science, resulting in the determination by the ISS Program that the most efficient crew rotations strategy is to launch and return four crewmembers on a single vehicle. Additionally, the CTS must be able to accommodate one, two, three, or four crewmembers 

in a single launch or landing to provide flexibility in the ISS crew rotation plan. The 

spacecraft’s secondary objective is to serve as the rescue vehicle for all personnel that 

were launched onboard and must have the capability to return all crewmembers in 

the event of an early mission termination or ascent abort. 

3.1.2.3 Docked Duration 

The CTS shall be capable of being docked to the ISS for 210 days to provide an 

assured crew return capability for four NASA crew. [R.CTS.012] [I] 

Rationale: The ISS requires continuous presence of the spacecraft to support sustained operations. The 210 days provides 30 days of contingency on the nominal 180- 

day turnaround. 

3.1.2.4 Rotation Intervals 

The CTS shall be capable of exchanging up to four NASA ISS crewmembers 

every 150 to 210 days. [R.CTS.013] [I] 

Rationale: The nominal crew rotation will occur at approximately 180 days based 

on the ISS human research program medical data collection needs. It is possible for 

this rotation to be altered by one month (earlier or later) in order to accommodate 

other overall ISS Program requirements or anomaly resolution/response.’’ 

(151) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
152 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Statement submitted by Representative Jerry Costello 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to receive testimony on the 

accomplishments and challenges of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Commercial Crew Development Program. 

Since 2009, NASA has committed to developing a commercial crew system that 

utilizes innovation and entrepreneurship to build safe and affordable vehicles for 

transporting astronauts to and from low-earth orbit. 

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle earlier this year, and NASA’s contract 

for Russian crew services set to end in five years, commercial crew systems are an 

important part of human spaceflight’s future and will ensure we fully utilize the 

International Space Station (ISS) through at least 2020. 

While NASA’s commercial crew development activities offer exciting opportunities 

for the future, these public-private partnerships represent a new approach to acquisition and human spaceflight that pose unique questions and challenges for the 

agency, its commercial partners, and Congress. I look forward to hearing how NASA 

and the six companies participating in the program are working together to ensure 

that the program remains efficient, cost-effective, and, most importantly, safe for 

our astronauts. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses more about the progress made and 

the challenges that remain in achieving NASA’s goal of a viable commercial system 

by 2016. 

First, I would like to understand how confident NASA is in the cost and schedule 

estimates for achieving U.S. commercial crew services by about 2016 as well as the 

basis for those estimates. Second, I would like to understand what steps NASA and 

its commercial partners are taking to ensure that future U.S. commercial crew 

transportation systems are safe. Third, I would like to understand if there are 

trade-offs on risks given NASA’s plans for a fixed government investment in the development of those systems. 

I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their testimony. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 
153 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Letter submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives 
154 
155 

Æ