The Intricate Dance of Orion, SLS, Commercial Crew, and Soyuz

I’ve been thinking a lot about the draft of the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act that Marcia Smith, of SpacePolicyOnline.com, reported on this week:

According to a draft we’ve seen, there are three especially interesting changes. One clarifies that the primary consideration for the acquisition strategy for the commercial crew program is to carry U.S. astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) “safely, reliably, and affordably.” Another directs NASA to report to Congress on how the Orion spacecraft can fulfill the provision in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that it be able to serve as a backup to commercial crew, including with use of a launch vehicle other than the Space Launch System.

The biggest criticism of Commercial Crew is that the program is behind schedule, and additional delays make NASA increasingly reliant on an increasingly unreliable partner—Russia. Soyuz is the only method of crew transportation into orbit, and there are serious quality control and reliability problems throughout the Russian space program and industry.

“Safely” and “reliably” transporting US astronauts are listed as two distinct items with regard to commercial crew. That could mean that Congress would mandate a US-based backup crew vehicle be available at all times, instead of falling back on Soyuz in times of trouble or transition. This is precisely where Orion could enter the picture.

As part of Constellation, Orion was intended to be used for crew transportation to the ISS, and Congress is now asking for a report on whether that is still in the cards. If Orion is able to serve this role and be launched by various launch vehicles, we would have our backup crew vehicle, and additionally, there would be one less reason for SLS’ existence in its current form. That would give those RFIs NASA put out last fall a lot more weight, since it becomes feasible to replace SLS with commercially-available launch vehicles, especially as Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, and New Glenn get closer to the launch pad.

The US currently has no active crew vehicles, but plenty of active launch vehicles. The combination of that fact, increasingly unreliable launches from Russia, and a NASA report stating that, with some design work, Orion can be flown on other launch vehicles could give Congress the political capital it needs to make some serious changes. I can envision a policy that cancels and replaces SLS with commercial alternatives, revitalizes the Orion program with changes from the NASA RFI, and effectively increases Orion’s funding using funds saved from SLS’ development.

I previously thought that SLS was more cancellation-proof but I’m beginning to think Orion holds that title.