The Inevitable Question

[The following article was written by Phil McAlister, Senior Advisor, Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters.? The views reflected here are those of Phil McAlister and do not necessarily reflect the views of NASA.]

Starliner is back on terra firma.? There were certainly some issues with Boeing’s Crewed Flight Test (CFT).? But, as Steve Stich said at the post-landing press conference, “it would have been a safe, successful landing with the crew on board.”? Obviously, it would have been better had Butch and Suni returned with Starliner.? But, in the grand scheme of things, it won’t matter too much.? The helium leaks and the thruster issues were going to have to get fixed regardless.?

My personal belief is that NASA will eventually certify the Starliner system (Disclaimer Again:? This is not a NASA position, it is my personal opinion.)? Boeing has demonstrated, with some caveats, that the Starliner/Atlas system can launch people to the International Space Station and return them safely back to Earth.?

Obviously, it has taken Boeing longer than anticipated to get to this point – CFT was four years later than SpaceX’s first crewed test flight.? But, I am not sure SpaceX is the most appropriate benchmark.? SpaceX does everything fast compared to historical aerospace norms.? Depending on how the post-CFT analysis goes, Starliner will probably take about 12 years to develop/certify.? That’s not out-of-family for human spaceflight development efforts.

So now the inevitable question has cropped up:? “Was the Commercial Crew Program a ‘success’?” ?It may be premature to ask this question now because the final chapter on Starliner has not been written yet. But, I understand the sentiment, and I will offer my opinion.

Yes, it is a success.?

Come on, you knew I was going to say that.? Having overseen the program since its inception, I’m not exactly un-biased.? But, you don’t have to take my word for it.? I will substantiate my answer with documented evidence.

To definitively answer that question, it is instructive to review the original CCP documents to see how well the program held up to initial expectations. Thus, I pulled the CCP Formulation Authorization Document (FAD).? The FAD is the first, formal NASA document initiating the planning of a new program and it describes the program’s scope and objectives. The Associate Administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate signed the CCP FAD on April 5, 2011.

I was the primary author of the CCP FAD and I was very careful and deliberate about its wording.? It starts with three key paragraphs.? The first paragraph says “what” we are trying to accomplish (the purpose).? The second paragraph describes “how” we will accomplish it (the strategy).? And the third paragraph says “why” we are accomplishing it (the benefits).?

Here’s the first paragraph (the purpose):

"The purpose of the Commercial Crew Program is to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and from low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station."

There are some very crucial points in this purpose statement:

1.???? It says NASA will “facilitate the development”, not that NASA would do the development.? This was a huge deal.? It made it clear that industry was going to be responsible for doing this and NASA was just going to help.

2.???? I deliberately used the word “capability” because it was non-specific on the number of systems.? I wanted two systems, but I couldn’t guarantee that back in 2011.? And I didn’t want anyone to say we failed just because we could only complete one.

3.???? It includes the goal of transportation to “low-Earth orbit”, not just the ISS, making it clear that the systems had functionality beyond just NASA missions to the ISS.

Here’s the second paragraph (the strategy):

"In order to meet these objectives, the CCP will follow an alternative business model with the American aerospace industry to allow private companies more design ownership of their space systems. The CCP features an acquisition strategy based on pay-for-performance milestones, a fixed government investment, and a requirement for private capital. The CCP will use a government insight/oversight model featuring a core team of sustaining engineering and discipline experts who close follow the development of the vehicles, augmented during key milestone reviews, with the authority to resolve critical issues. It will also use tailored human rating requirements, standards, and processes with NASA providing the final crew transportation system certification."

I am pleased to be able to say now that NASA followed these strategies fairly closely.? We did evolve our insight/oversight model over time, and I thought that we would be able to do more tailoring of our requirements and standards than we ended up doing.? But we generally followed the major program management strategies listed above.

Here’s the third paragraph (the benefits):

"Partnering with industry in this innovative way potentially accelerates the availability of U.S. human access to LEO, as well as reduces the risk of relying on foreign crew transports to the ISS for years to come. It will also strengthen the U.S. commercial space launch industry, encourage competition, act as a catalyst for the development of other new space markets, provide new high-technology jobs, and reduce the cost of human access to space."

Check, check, and check.

The coup de grace comes later in the document with the identification of the two primary goals for CCP:

• Facilitate the U.S. private industry development of safe, reliable, and cost effective human space transportation to and from low Earth orbit and the International Space Station for use by the U.S. Government and other customers

• Enable the eventual purchase by NASA of commercial services to meet its ISS crew transportation need, once the capability is matured and available"

It is undeniable that CCP has already delivered on the goals established in the beginning of the program.

That doesn’t mean we should discontinue Starliner’s development.? That would be ill advised.? Only three countries have had human space transportation systems, and no country in history has had more than one system at a time.? Once Starliner is certified, the United States will have two independent human space transportations systems (SLS/Orion will eventually make it three).? It will be unprecedented, and it will essentially ensure that the U.S. will be able to access space with humans at all times; unlike the 32 months the U.S. was without human access to space after Challenger and the 30 months after Columbia.? There’s only one reasonable path for Starliner:? fix it, fly it.

And there is still so much to be done.? Like any commercial market, the commercial orbital human spaceflight market is not static. There are still about a dozen more operational missions to the ISS before the ISS retires in 2030.? And there will be Private Astronaut Missions to the ISS, and free-flying missions to low-Earth Orbit like Inspiration4 and the Polaris missions.? Then, there will be crewed flights to Commercial LEO Destinations.? And then maybe another generation of crew transportation systems will emerge, hopefully safer and even more affordable.?

That’s a future I can get behind.