Commercial Crew Services Also Have The Right Stuff

I once believed that Mr. Augustine would drive the panel with his recollection that NASA's predecessor (NACA) assisted the development of aircraft in various ways (research, mail contracts, etc.). My opinion is that it would be wise to build on what we know. The existing Space Shuttle suffers from problems, continuing issues, too much needed maintenance (engine teardowns after each launch) and having to deal with POLITICS (projects need to be in many states in order for them to exist term to term, dispite administration changes). A second generation shuttle could only be afforded by the government. Who would buy the newer rocket engine that need not be reassembled after each flight?

A more responsible thing to do is to advocate for a vehicle that bridges the gap between commercial aviation capability and space plane capability.

The big players (Boeing-Lockheed-Northrop) have had their plans layed out for them with the CxP. But one has to wonder if the big players are developing a plan B strategy?

ErnieAcosta is right and so are the astronauts of Wall Street J.

We should not be throwing away the knowledge gained on Shuttle. Its time to use that knowledge to develop a new vehicle optimized for crew travel, based on the knowledge we gained on Shuttle.

Government's role, NASA together with academia, is the R&D to develop new and better materials and processes. NASA should be and should only be developing vehicles when they advance the state-of-the-art in a way that industry cannot or will not. Let NASA together with academia build the mock-ups and prototypes. Get students, post-grads, and the educated into the development process. That funds them, gives them jobs, and further develops the expertise, and transfers the expertise from one generation to the next. Government's role is R&D in areas that are too expensive or too immature to expect industry to compete, yet.

Once the knowledge has been developed, its time to let industry in and have them compete for the work. NASA might need to be the first customer but its best if NASA provides no more than specs, standards, contracts, and safety verification.

Earth Orbit and even basic human space flight (capsules) have been known quantities for nearly 50 years and its time for government to get out of the way and start encouraging commercial leadership.

The US has been innovative and the technology leaders in the past and could be again but its going to take a different way of doing business.

I agree with the idea that regular travel to and from LEO could be better handled by external outsourcing. Let the companies develop and implement a system to meet NASA's specifications and take the financial risk to do so. That frees NASA to take on the bigger and bolder projects.

The distinction that should be made between government and industrial R&D is not the level of technical sophistication but the level of financial and technical risk. If you need a special new subsystem for a series of missions, but the technical risk and the R&D cost are high, and the payoff is only one small mission next year and 6 more a decade later, then industry may not jump at the opportunity. You can get over that hump using R&D at the centers or gov't CRAD money spent in industry. That decision should be and often is affected by (a) what capabilities may already exist in specific companies, and (b) where the technological know-how ought to reside at the end. However when there isn't a strong incumbent in industry, usually the centers get the first crack at the research money, regardless of other strategic factors.

Unfortunately this also treads into the same politics of whose jobs in whose district are supported by the R&D money.

Space tourism combined with launching satellites is probably best way for private manned space flight companies to avoid being dependent on the Federal government for their survival. Maybe NASA could use its future heavy lift capability to launch large simple space stations into equatorial orbit that could be rented to private space companies for space tourism. If NASA charged space tourist an additional $2 million each for a two week stay at one of their simple $2 billion dollar space stations (space station structure plus HLV launch cost), 4 tourist every two weeks via an Orion-- in theory-- could make NASA more than $200 million a year or $2 billion in 10 years (enough to pay of the initial cost of manufacturing and placing the space station into orbit).

Marcel F. Williams

So you want NASA to compete against Bigelow instead of working with them? Same for SpaceX?

NASA's just trying to hold on to the territory it's staked out over the years... that territory being control over access to LEO and beyond.

Of course the unfortunate results of the overreach of STS into the commercial launch markets and the subsequent collapse of said markets can't really be blamed on NASA and their gigantic and hugely overexpensive taxpayer-funded launcher.

And, really, who else but NASA can be entrusted with control of any human spaceflight that might in any way concern U.S. assets?

Really, now... ;)

Nope, don't think so.

Here's something critical that NASA HSF (Shuttle/Apollo-not CxP) does significantly better, & is world class best at, than anything anywhere:

They Write the Right Stuff

The right stuff is the software...But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free... Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors...

...That's the culture: the on-board shuttle group produces grown-up software, and the way they do it is by being grown-ups. It may not be sexy, it may not be a coding ego-trip -- but it is the future of software. When you're ready to take the next step -- when you have to write perfect software instead of software that's just good enough...

...The process isn't even rocket science. Its standard practice in almost every engineering discipline except software engineering...

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html#

The CxP vs. Commercial astronaut team(s) are both wrong.

Sorry MoonLady, software excellence does NOT distinguish NASA centers from aerospace corporations. Many companies, including my own, have an excellent record of error-free software on orbit. I think you'll find that most of the successful NASA-funded missions of the last 10 years were governed partly or completely by industry-written software.

There *is* a significant difference between government-funded aerospace (NASA or contractor) and investor-funded aerospace. Companies like SpaceX and Iridium are willing to take a significantly different risk posture to keep costs down. That's like a real faster-better-cheaper, in which complexity, process, and cost are reduced in exchange for a higher acceptable failure rate. Dan Goldin thought of that, but then wouldn't really accept more failures.

So let's keep trying to think of ways that NASA centers are better at aerospace than industry. Certainly they're closer to the teat; was there something else?