It was not the worst choice, it was not the best choice, and it certainly was not a surprising choice. On Tuesday, NASA finally announced its long awaited decision on budget allocation for the final part of its Commercial Crew program. Commercial Crew subsidizes the development of commercial spaceflight systems that can replace the expensive rides NASA buys from the Russians. The Launch America awards went to aerospace veteran, Boeing, and new space innovator, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) was, regrettably, eliminated from funding. Initial reactions to this choice have been generally positive. There is a sense that NASA struck a balance between investing in Boeing’s military-industrial heritage and SpaceX’s entrepreneurial ground-up approach.
Along with NASA’s Orion project, SpaceX’s Dragon V2 (a crewed version of SpaceX’s Dragon; we’re still dubious about the V2 moniker) and Boeing’s CST-100 are space capsules in the general style of Apollo. The capsule and parachute is a proven, conservative approach that will get the job done. In fact, Elon Musk’s SpaceX is pretty much ready to go, having lifted several cargo payloads to the International Space Station in a nearly identical vessel on top of their proven Falcon 9 rocket. Further, SpaceX offers the only “all American” solution, as both the Boeing and SNC vehicles are designed for launch on the United Launch Alliance Atlas V, a rocket that relies on Russian built RD-180 engines. With a major goal of the Commercial Crew program being to give NASA an “American” (read Putin-free) launch alternative, throwing SpaceX out would have looked ridiculous. Further it would have left the space agency open to accusations of political favoritism toward Boeing; a firm extremely well entrenched inside the Beltway.
Nonetheless, Musk’s firm received only $2.6 billion in funding while Boeing grabbed a hefty $4.2 billion. We are forced to conclude that the difference was based on the presumption that entrepreneurial SpaceX is further along and/or significantly more efficient than old school Boeing (probably both). In any case, the additional $1.6 billion garnered by Boeing could have gone a very long way at SNC.
History suggests that it is best to let the market choose a dominant design and the better role for government is to help spur a new market, not define one. SNC’s Dream Chaser promised an opportunity to continue development of the Space Shuttle’s winged approach to reusable vehicles. While the shuttle had many operational issues, including two fatal disasters, its glider return system was remarkably successful. Winged spacecraft deserve further development and we hope SNC secures the funding to continue its development.
To be fair, the Administration and Congress placed NASA administrator Charlie Bolden in an untenable position. The Obama White House has followed the wise recommendations of the Augustine Commission in transferring the truck and bus business of hauling materials and crew off to the private sector. Meanwhile, powerful members of the Senate and House protected traditional space sector jobs in Alabama and Texas by halving the President’s funding request for commercial space each year. The money shaved from the commercial effort was diverted to the government run Space Launch System, a big budget program without a clear mission. This left NASA struggling with their biggest real world need – getting crew to ISS –chronically underfunded. Mr. Bolden made a tough call given the circumstances and we don't fault that or blame him for taking his time. However, the choices and the allocations in this downselect appear to be the unfortunate artifacts of politics rather than a reflection of the technical or commercial merits of any of the particular entrants.
