Since 2011, when NASA concluded its final Space Shuttle flight, the US has heavily relied on the rockets as a means of conveyance to the ISS. NASA forks out in the order of $70.7 million to the Russian space agency Rosaviakosmos per seat on a Soyuz capsule. All parties, notes Marco Cáceres of the Teal Group, are happy: Rosaviakosmos gets some cash and NASA gets to have its astronauts on a space station that cost the US tax payer $100 billion.

“It’s dismaying that NASA officials would be directed to use this crisis to score domestic political points on behalf of the White House.” Marco Cáceres, senior analyst and director of space studies at Teal Group, is also perturbed. “It sounds like they are trying to use the crisis [in Crimea] as a way to increase NASA’s funding,” he says, “but it’s a disingenuous way of making the case, especially since there are a lot of other good reasons to increase NASA’s budget.” Currently, the agency’s budget is just under $18 billion — a level of funding that the agency has maintained more or less for the last six years. “NASA is extremely underfunded as it is,” Cáceres says. “Any recent increases have been barely enough to keep up with inflation.”

Cáceres says he is more concerned with NASA’s prediction that the agency will be able to launch from US soil as early as 2017. Even with a marked increase in NASA funding, he says, the likelihood of a US-based launch is minuscule because NASA doesn’t currently have access to a viable means of transportation to the ISS. “There really isn’t any great option in terms of a vehicle,” he says. “Even if you were to increase [NASA's] budget by 10 or 20 percent — maybe even 50 — you still wouldn’t have a good way of getting up there.” Cáceres says that although NASA is developing a heavy-lift rocket system called the Space Launch System, it won’t be ready for a crewed spaceflight before 2021.

“Resulta desalentador que los funcionarios de la NASA reciban indicaciones de utilizar esta crisis para ganar puntos políticos a nivel nacional en representación de la Casa Blanca”, dijo Marco Cáceres, analista y director de estudios espaciales de la consultora Teal Group.  Según Cáceres, “parece que están tratando de utilizar la crisis [en Crimea] como una manera de aumentar la financiación de la NASA”, lo cual, en su opinión, es una forma errónea de actuar.

SpaceX’s prices are so low that they could upend the price structure the Air Force has used in sending military satellites into orbit. “What we do know is that if you look at a SpaceX heavy launcher like a Falcon 9 or a Falcon heavy, it’s at least 50 percent cheaper than a comparable vehicle by Boeing or Lockheed,” said Marco Caceres, senior analyst at the Teal Group Corp. in Fairfax, Va. “We’re talking at least $50 million cheaper per vehicle so it’s a significant cost saving for the Air Force.”

Each mission is expected to take about a month; it takes about five days for the Cygnus to make it to the station, it will stay there for anywhere from two weeks to two months, and it will take another day or two for the spacecraft to disintegrate on reentry. "The idea of now relying on private industry and let[ting] them lead the way has already been decided," said Marco A. Caceres, director of space studies at the Teal Group. "The question is: Can industry do it without too many failures?" He said Orbital's success, along with that of SpaceX, which has already made it to the space station, would provide the needed competition and potentially open the door to more companies. "There's a lot at stake here because you're really talking about the future of human spaceflight. It's not going to be NASA that does it," said Caceres. "It's these companies ... that are supposedly going to be colonizing the moon and maybe even Mars."