Commercial Space: Hot Air Vs Real Hardware

I've been a big supporter of space commercialization. But I've also learned that "privatization" doesn't always lead to a cheaper, faster, or higher quality product.

I would have hoped that the citizens of the US would have learned, too. The last few decades have been filled with the dangers of reckless privatization, Halliburton being a poster child.

And "there ain't no free lunch." Certain things have to be done to build safe spacecraft and set up off-planet outposts. We can either do those things, or give our tax dollars to private companies who should do those things. Unfortunately the modern approach to privatization often neglects oversight, so we can't be sure the private company has the skills and the will to take all the necessary steps.

The depth of anti-government sentiment in the US, institutionalized in the Reagan era, is blinding the people's eyes. Instead of acknowledging that a skilled and competent federal workforce is being mismanaged by politicians, they decide to give their tax dollars to private companies. And those companies may spend just as much or more re-learning what their own workforce already knew.

One answer may be partnerships that give private ventures more autonomy than the current contractor relationships, not the sort of "throw the baby out with the bath water" viewpoint of the anti-government crowd.

mismanaged by politicians

Exploration Systems Architecture was not designed by Congress, but contributed tremendously to the budget-busting cross-roads that we're at.

we can't be sure the private company has the skills

Didn't NASA just fire Kistler from the COTS competition? Seems like NASA has all of the contractual and oversight tools they need to be responsible stewards.

And those companies may spend just as much or more re-learning what their own workforce already knew.

When it comes to space launch operations, the private sector may demonstrably have as much intellectual capital than NASA. Delta and Atlas have flow and will continue to fly more often than NASA operated vehicles.

not the sort of "throw the baby out with the bath water" viewpoint of the anti-government crowd.

Who is this crowd? Why would fixed price service contracts "throw the baby out"? It is a common sense procurement vehicle used in many places through the US government, and by ESA with Arianespace for the last 30 years.

The astronomically expensive private health insurance system in the US is probably the poster child of how private industry can sometimes make things a lot more expensive then they should be. Thanks to the American private health insurance companies, the US spends 2 to 7 times more on health care than most other industrialized nations despite the fact that we have a higher infant mortality and a lower longevity than most of these other countries. And this has also significantly inflated the price of US products and services, severely hampering America's competitiveness around the world!

We need a government civilian manned space program in order to pioneer the solar system, paving the way for possible future commercial ventures and to fund the R&D for future air craft and space vehicles.

We need privately owned manned space companies (not dependent on government contracts) to see if there is money to be made in the New Frontier which could help to grow the US economy.

And we also need a military manned space program in order to protect our interest on Earth and in the New Frontier. Let's stop pretending that we don't have a military space program. Their budget is already larger than NASA's. They need manned space flight capability in case people in orbit need to be rescued in an emergency and to protect US interest in space.

Marcel F. Williams

We (the U.S.) need a versatile, advanced, workhorse type vehicle like the Space Shuttle. We need to be able to do hard, unpredictable things in space, probably mostly between earth and geo-synchronous distance.
We would not get that from Ares1/Orion. The commercial ones are already designed, and they are focused tightly on an easy, profitable function.

The need remains. I say NASA can do it, despite the failure of the George W. Bush, "Apollo on steroids" mandate.

I don't mean to exonerate NASA management. My comment stems from the tone of many, if not most of the people who contribute to the conversation at NASA Watch. They are almost uniformly critical of the NASA workforce. I've worked on both sides, and been impressed with both. And I'm saddened by the public stereotype of civil servants.

So I do believe that NASA management was wrong to build a program from the unfunded mandate from BushII. The VSE wasn't a vision, it was an hallucination. Some of those close to the efforts recognized that they were doing the work because someone else would do it if they refused.

In the middle of my career, I refused a "suggestion" that I do the "wrong" thing. A year later, I took a different career path. I know first hand that "no good deed goes unpunished"; but I think those close to ESAS should have said "no, we can't do it on your budget or your timetable", and accepted the consequences.

And I think there are folks involved in the latest angst who should be saying "that won't work". Even Charlie Bolden ought to be putting his badge on the line to put some common sense back in the politicians.

But it seems that most people in the thick of these problems want to hold on to the stick, confident that they can pull things out before it's too late. With that piloting philosophy, you get irrational budgets, fantasy timelines, and the hope that the fickle nature of politics will screw things up more than your miscalculations.

I believe that it is the leader, not those s/he leads, that has to take responsibility for the way the organization works. Until we have leaders with long-term vision and a funding system that isn't at the whim of 1-year cycles and 2-year political campaigns, we may have to watch countries with greater resolve colonize space. Our planet may be the source of the Klingons, not The Federation.

Didn't NASA just fire Kistler from the COTS competition? Seems like NASA has all of the contractual and oversight tools they need to be responsible stewards.

I hope you realize that's a huge stretch. NASA doesn't even have the oversight to always catch bad components. The good old days of civil servants located at contractor facilities are long, long gone.

When it comes to space launch operations, the private sector may demonstrably have as much intellectual capital [as] NASA. Delta and Atlas have [flown] and will continue to fly more often than NASA operated vehicles.

You are falsely equating EELV reliability with human-rated design. While companies like Boeing and Lockheed have some amount of capital building things for NASA, they haven't done much on their own and haven't built the independent SRQA structure that's been shown to improve the safety of NASA's human space systems.

Why would fixed price service contracts "throw the baby out"?

I didn't say they would, but they might. If a move to privatize ignores NASA's 50 year experience base and eschews adequate oversight, the baby may be hanging to the fire escape by it's fingers.

Amen, Marcel.

A few minor quibbles:

1) I agree private companies shouldn't be dependent on government contracts (that didn't work out for DC-X and SpaceHab), but I see a continuum in contract types and timeframes that would allow them to get on their feet by working with the government.

2) I think we should keep any manned military space efforts on the qt. We don't now (and naively we may never) need to show that kind of force, and we're likely to get outspent by those who hold our IOUs if we do.

It seems pointless to complain about the lack of multi year funding and unchanging guidance from Congress. It would be nice to have and DOD has been requesting it for many years. It certainly has the potential to save a great deal more in DOD than in NASA. Not going to happen probable in our life times so we need to get on with living in the real system that exist rather than complaining. If the real price of the first mission to the Moon and the first shuttle flight and the ISS were know by the public and at program inception they would never had been accomplished and our stealth aircraft would have never flown. Money games are played to get the programs started and political games, such as spreading the work over various states and critical districts, are played to keep the money flowing. That is the job of NASA leaders who truly have a vision of the future and know how the system really works. Now is the time for such leadership with a self commitment to manned exploration.

On another point we discuss private launches but seem to either ignore or are ignorant of the option of commercial crews for the associated flights. The public does not react the same way to loss of commercial test pilots, cargo aircraft crews or military mercenaries as compared to astronauts. Perhaps it is time to contract out where ever possible the role of government astronauts. Might be cheaper and in the hopefully rare cases where there is a loss the political implications or impacts on the agency will be less.

Foreign governments only own about 25% of our national debt with China plus Hong Kong owning about 27% of that debt. So China owns about 6.7% of our national debt. Just a couple of years ago, Japan actually owned more of our national debt than China but that never seemed to bother anyone.

Most of our national debt, however, is owned by Americans and American institutions. With the economic troubles that the US is in these days, I doubt if China would want to purchase significantly more of our debt:-)

China says the the militarization of space is inevitable (whatever that means). I believe them!

The best way to fund private commercial manned space launches, IMO, is through a space tourism lotto system-- not though government contracts, IMO. We should let average Americans and non-Americans who claim to be space enthusiast, put their money where their mouths are by purchasing a chance to win a ride into space aboard a private commercial space ship. $100 million tickets a year sold should be enough to pay for 4 passengers. $1 billion a year, 40 passengers per year. Let's find out how many people around the world would be willing to spend a $1 or more for a chance to fly into space or even someday to the Moon aboard private commercial space craft!

Why should space travel be for only an elite group of astronauts or the super wealthy. Why shouldn't the rest of us get a chance to travel into space too since its mostly our tax dollars that were used to develop the space program in the first place!

Marcel F. Williams

I'd like to comment wrt Keith's observation about the difference in attitude between old and new concerns. What he observed is, regrettably, all too true far too often. There have been good people on both sides of the question, passionate about what they believe, who honestly believe in what they are trying to convince people of. They love America's HSF program and want desperately to see it go in the right direction.

But too often sour grapes enters in when a decision is made that doesn't validate their pov. That is a sad state of affairs. Once the decision has been made, then, for the good of American HSF, it is time to bite your tongue, get behind the choice made, and try to make it work. Why? Because that's how adults are supposed to behave. It's also how a democracy is supposed to work. Give the new program an honest try, and real honest try. After that, if you are still convinced it won't work, then work to change it; not by tearing down, but by building up. Instead of badmouthing the program, create and present an alternative. Let your ideas stand on their own merit because ultimately, if your idea is going to work, it will have to.

I have personally been on both sides of this kind of situation, winner and looser, several times in my life. It has been my experience that in every case, if I put the good of the program ahead of my personal ambition, and personal pride, that it usually works out. There are lots of different ways to do any one thing; all different, most viable in one way or another. It doesn't have to be your way all the time.

I applaud the attitude of the Commercial Spaceflight Foundation, and hope that eventually wiser minds will prevail over at the Space Frontier Foundation.

@newpapyrus
I've always thought a lotto is an idea that should be used...maybe even a bingo game like the one that Bigelow tried to setup in his genesis 2 craft..http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/games/?Bigelow_Bingo.. be cool to play bingo from space..
or set up a seismic sensor on the moon and you pick the time when the largest reading will occur...winner gets a free ride to space or cash.
Status quo needed to be changed since Ares is too expensive..so far this seems like it could work..can't wait til Feb 1st..
indeed interesting times!!
jb

rayfil is really on to something - "...but [we] seem to either ignore or are ignorant of the option of commercial crews for the associated flights"

Yes - Use commercial astronauts to transport American researchers and foreign crews to and from the ISS. Why do the astronauts that serve aboard the ISS have to be NASA astronauts? The ISS represents an investment by all Americans, not just a single government agency. So why should only astronauts from that organization be the ones to visit there and work there?

Oh yeah, this is a whole new paradigm all right.

US human spaceflight has now regressed from a program of record that was working fine (according to Augustine Committee) with a focused goal of going back to the Moon to.....nothing.

Hope all you Ares bashers are happy now. Hey in a couple of years
SpaceX et al may get us to ISS with cargo and then maybe a few years
after that with crew - maybe.

If only we had a vehicle now that could take cargo or crew to the ISS..
Oh yeah - we have one. It's called the Space Shuttle - and we're trashing
it well before its operational lifetime is over because why? For Constellation? Oh yeah - we're trashing that too - for a whole new paradigm - a 1960s rocket paradigm to LEO. How exciting.

Note we now have fixed the shuttle's booster O rings and don't launch foolishly in cold weather.

Note we improved the foam shedding on the external tank.

Note we now inspect for orbiter damage on ascent and do a 360 degree
inspection in orbit.

Note we can haul up a lot more with the shuttle than with any commercial dream on the drawing boards now.

Note we can do in orbit repair in the shuttle bay.

But we're throwing it all away. For a commercial service to LEO - hopefully. Which the Russians can do now.

Note that the Constellation architecture was designed for both LEO AND beyond LEO operations. Can the Falcon 9 do that?

And this idea of a flexible path - what a joke. That just means we don't know what the hell we want to do and don't have a plan for getting there and what to do when we get there.

Going back to the moon is a no brainer. It's only 2 days away. It's right there. Six touch and goes 40 years ago does not equal "been there, done that". It's a whole nother world right on our doorstep that can be settled, mined, explored. Radio telescopes on the far side. Solar generators at the poles. It's got water at the poles for crying out load. We can establish a spacefaring infrastructure right close to home in cislunar space beyond LEO.

Am I boring all you space cadets with the facts? Sorry.

Mars is a great destination but it is very, very, very far away. WE need to do a lot of prep work before we have a chance out there - and we can do it in the Earth-Moon system. The Moon is right here, a gift for a potential spacefaring species.

Wake me up when the first "flexible path" mission gets beyond the study phase.

What a mess.

After Monday we will all know it the US will take the lead in manned space flight or play second fiddle to the Russians and Chinese.

Obama is the big disappointment to many on this forum. He has let the country down. He is great at campaigning but cannot lead.

To Aerospace Engineer:
Have to agree with you about the Shuttle vs. the commercial "capsules". But Ares-1/Orion was also a major design failure, as I think you've implied.

The whole "Apollo on steroids" fiasco was a result of the fast-return-reentry problem. As we know, lifting bodies can't do it. The only way out of an Apollo-like capsule future is to swear off fast-return, and make the commitment to a retro-rocket slowdown to earth orbit. Then we're back to a lifting body, back in the 21st Century, and out of low earth orbit.
And NASA and DARPA should do it.

I also agree that the moon is a wondrous opportunity.

I'd like to add a couple of comments regarding your cost analogy using private health insurance costs.

For decades costs inched up and up and up through third party pay. For a long time most people didn't bother to look (or care about cost) because "someone else" was paying the bill. Now a huge bureaucratic layer exists that must be adhered to and supported.

Medical tests and procedures are out of control because medical lawsuits are out of control. And that adds up to big bucks.

The cost of insurance would drop if competition across state lines was allowed. Right now employers are required to buy what's available in their state.

Infant mortality numbers in the United States are hugely affected by the fact that here in our country, we view saving babies born earlier than their due-dates a medical imperative. And while many of them die, many of them live.

Ad Luna!

Cost of Constellation: ~$8B ??
Cost of commercial space: unknown
Cost of motivating your talent: priceless.

Good luck Obama, you can throw whatever money you want at NASA--commercial or not commercial, but you've already destroyed the dream. De-motivating the young talent is what has happened, so money will only buy you the 2nd or 3rd-rate talent now.

Constellation, for better or worse, on the contractor side, employees a LOT of YOUNG technical-minded math/science talent. And now that all of this news is out (...and while watching Obama state that math/science education is important...), one could postulate that the crisp drive (priceless) of that talent is now suffocated and replaced by an attitude of jaded cynicism and defeat.

The babies have left the building with the bathwater, the tub, and everything else.

I was once asked what I liked about Aerospace. The answer was "working with very talented and smart people." The answer now? "No comment."

Unfortunately the engineering solutions arrived at for the STS rendered it non-commercial both in terms of frequency of usage, of the servicing infrastructure, and minimal(actually just token) re-useability. Transferring the management and basic operations into the hands of a commercial contractor did NOT reduce the costing either. The point about the U.S Health "System" is WELL made IMO.

One has to ask that, if a program was indeed working "all right", then why(when it was intended to be a "economical" solution BTW) will it require an extra $3Billion in annual funding to get beyond just "The Stick". the latter, I might add, constituting the lion's share of R&D costing for the tail-end of the LV hardware package - and barely minimal to boot: just having to produce two variants of Orion in order to justify developing a sub-standard vehicle(in terms of payload capability) getting heavier and less capable by the proverbial beggars description IMO. Augustine(via "The Aerospace Company") made it clear that once more NASA budgetary skills are in need of severe revision since the advent of STS. Their technical and financial solution to the VSE/ESAS concept has proven a farce: were it not so, this discussion would be redundant and we'd be on track...

Once more, it's all going to depend on how this is handled. If we get a repeat of the ATK/NASA nepotistic boondoggle with ARES/ORION, then God help America's Space program. The urge to squeeze even more money out of the punters - a'la the U.S Health System - while providing barely adequate goods and services, is going to end up in the cancellation bin.

The prospects are not good; with the likes of Elon Musk almost doubling his prices before full service - as hyped by same - is even provided: and this is the CHEAP guy remember.

Kistler failed because they trusted the LOCKMARTS, Boeing, NORTHRUP_GRUMMAN et al for their hardware. Despite the latter taking Kistler over, they singularly failed to provide the necessary funding when vitally needed: result; byebye Kistler and we keep the hardware! But guess who're offering their pet alternatives to ARES...

One other point that seems to be missed here is that it is the big three: L-M, NG, & BOEING, who STILL design and construct virtually all the NASA hardware - and have always done so. OSC has always worked with NASA/DOD/USAF etc, and without the USAF holding it's hand, SPACE X would be alongside Kistler right now - although I suspect it was the using of Licence-built Sov...soree...I mean Russian, engines that got them given the push, while AEROJET continues to pick up what scraps are left.

Ideas are not much good if executed badly: the situation with ARES. DECIDE on a realistic budget, and if the contractor goes over a proscribed limit - say by 33%(same overun as STS) - hit cont' with eat it or cancellation AND return of remaining funds to USG. If nothing else it'll orient them towards the most cost effective solution: it's not like we're re-inventing the wheel here.

If it were me I'd get the big three to take the NLS/DIRECT design and produce a brace of vehicles that can do both LEO and EXO-LEO missions using different spacecraft: Jupiter 120/130 lite & heavy can accommodate both capsules and lifting bodies, as can their big brothers: that'd partially solve the differentials of re-entry requirements. I'd not be surprised if the original NLS studies from '92 show this. Compete with SPACE X for LEO missions to keep Musk on his toes and we might see things start to happen. They certainly need to, I think we all agree!