<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" NASA&amp;#039;s plan for private space industry faced a tough crowd today during a hearing in Washington, D.C. Not only did SpaceX&amp;#039;s Elon Musk signal the chance that his company would not bid on the NASA contract to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station, but the day&amp;#039;s event raised a larger problem\u2014skeptical members of Congress.  During the hearing of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, U.S. representatives from both sides of the aisle expressed doubts that the space agency could manage the program, that there were worthwhile customers beyond NASA to serve as a foundation for a new industry, that the agency could bring the program in without delay and price spikes. &amp;quot;If the industry can perform safely and profitably, and at a substantially less cost, I will be first to congratulate them,&amp;quot; said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, chair of the committee. &amp;quot;My hesitance, though, is based on very thin evidence provided to date by NASA that this new business model is well understood and that it can succeed.&amp;quot;  The nascent NASA effort seems beset with dangers, and the view from Capitol Hill seemed especially grim as politicians and industry leaders chipped at NASA&amp;#039;s Commercial Crew Program.  Chicken and Egg: Does Anyone Besides NASA Need a Ride to Orbit? Although industry leaders point to space tourism, orbital science operations, satellite tending, and the ferrying of other nations&amp;#039; astronauts as potential markets beyond NASA, members of Congress on hand today had their doubts. Hall said one of his top concerns about the NASA\u2013industry relationship was that he wanted to avoid making space companies &amp;quot;too important to fail&amp;quot; to the point that they would need to be bailed out if they fell into financial trouble lest America risk the loss of its ability to launch people into space. &amp;quot;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&amp;#039;s commitment to the International Space Station,&amp;quot; he said.  Elon Musk, the founder and owner of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) offered the most pointed defense. Although his company could not have come so far so fast without NASA help, he said &amp;quot;more than 50 percent of revenue&amp;quot; is coming from non-government launches. &amp;quot;With respect to the launch vehicle, we have 35 [unmanned satellite] launches under contract, so I believe the costs associated with the rocket part will be well taken care of,&amp;quot; Musk said.  In addition, he said, the cargo craft that SpaceX is currently working on\u2014and that has been flown into space\u2014is so similar to the one that will carry people that the costs will be reduced significantly. Asked if he could deliver astronauts to the ISS if there were no customers beyond NASA, Musk said: &amp;quot;I will personally guarantee this.&amp;quot;  But other private space players were not so quick to claim market independence. John Elbon, vice president and general manager of Boeing&amp;#039;s Space Exploration division, said that the market for delivering people and cargo to low Earth orbit is robust and cited several space-tourism ventures as examples. He added, however, that without NASA Boeing would not be interested and that the company could close the deal even if NASA was the only customer. &amp;quot;To ensure a successful venture, we must be certain we can have a viable business based on NASA flights alone.&amp;quot; In response to worries like Hall&amp;#039;s\u2014that the new relationship would mean the government will be dependent upon private companies to get to the ISS\u2014Elbon said having that dependent relationship protects the government as well. That way, he said, the United States won&amp;#039;t have to &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Down to the Dollars Other committee members saw ambiguity in the cost estimates of NASA&amp;#039;s plan. The ranking member, Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, noted that NASA has not yet fixed the cost of this initiative. &amp;quot;NASA still has not provided Congress with the basis of its commercial-crew request since the initiative was first announced, almost two years ago,&amp;quot; she said.  NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier, in later testimony, said NASA can commit to a price once the companies provide actual costs for their services, and that those actual costs will come after the companies submit their proposals next year. But Johnson said that recent comments and information provided to Congress were not encouraging, indicating that spacecraft development alone could cost $6 billion. &amp;quot;NASA will still be paying roughly the same amount to commercial-crew providers through 2020 that it would to the Russians,&amp;quot; she said. &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t think the prospect of spending $6 billion of taxpayer money 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.&amp;quot; Musk responded to Johnson by saying his flights would cost $20 million compared to the $60 million paid to Russia for rides on the Soyuz. &amp;quot;You have it on record,&amp;quot; he told the Committee.  Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., rallied to the industry&amp;#039;s defense, citing a &amp;quot;hostility&amp;quot; to the private space industry. &amp;quot;Much to my dismay, I see some of the worst elements of decision making,&amp;quot; he said. &amp;quot;I see an anti-commercial-space attitude that could have very negative consequences.&amp;quot; Rohrabacher (who represents a district near SpaceX&amp;#039;s headquarters) seemed to chide Hall and Johnson, the two Texans who chair the panel, for parochial views. &amp;quot;Focusing on one&amp;#039;s own district and directing federal funds seems to be having a major impact on this decision,&amp;quot; he said. As we anticipated yesterday, there were other regional pleas connected to the word of choice heard in the halls of Congress: jobs. Rep. Hansen Clarke, D-Mich., for instance, asked how the space contract could be used to create jobs in his district of metropolitan Detroit. The witnesses made the most diplomatic kowtows they could. &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;ve been pushing SpaceX to use more automotive suppliers,&amp;quot; Musk responded. Other space industry execs went on to claim Michigan subcontractors, to praise the auto industry, and to speak of spin-offs from space science programs.  But, as Hall pointed out, there&amp;#039;s still a huge hole in the current plans\u2014NASA&amp;#039;s crew program has few specific goals. &amp;quot;NASA owes Congress and the laudable companies before us today a much more thorough assessment of the situation ahead,&amp;quot; he said. &amp;quot;These companies have invested millions of dollars, and Congress has committed millions more\u2014it is time for NASA to deliver a credible plan and analysis so that we can move forward with more confidence.&amp;quot; "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a11879/will-congress-abandon-private-space-6530564/>