This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

NASA (and Congress) Have No Idea What "Commercial Space" Means

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 12, 2012
Filed under , , ,

Moon to be private colony – NASA, AAP
“Our private industry partners have built every single space craft we have ever flown. “NASA has never built a single human-rated space craft.”
Keith’s note: C’mon, Charlie, be honest. Of course NASA has built human-rated spacecraft – along with its aerospace industry partners. It has always been that way. Wordsmithing won’t change the facts.
I just love it when NASA and Congress plays this semantic game i.e. “commercial” vs “government”. Charlie Bolden uses this throw away line to justify the current focus on utilization of commercial launchers to provide crew and cargo services. Fine. For “commercial” efforts, aerospace contractors provide services with less than usual government oversight, with significant government seed money, but also with significant private investments. Yet, simultaneously, NASA (i.e. “government”) mandates and oversees the construction of Orion using one of the very same aerospace companies that is involved in the “commercial” efforts (I would hope NASA’s Orion is human-rated) and also directs the construction of the SLS – likewise using another aerospace company that also participates in the “commercial” activities.

Why don’t we call Orion and SLS “commercial” too? They are being built by the very same “commercial” companies, Charlie. The only difference (I guess) – and this is often hard to discern given NASA’s propensity to fiddle with things – is how much government oversight (it is never zero and always in contention) and how much private incentive and innovation are involved. This is a dumb question, but I will ask it any way: can NASA define the term “commerical space” – in a sentence or two? Of course it can’t.
Sen. Nelson, Hutchison et al also get caught in this same semantic trap. They want “commercial” space to proceed in their home states but they also want to control how that happens in parallel (i.e. the “nation’s space program”) and therefore cut a big slice off for the NASA centers in their home states. Since they are all about controlling things, “commercial” space always suffers.
Truth be known, NASA’s interest in commercial space is half-hearted, at best. They have been dragged into this kicking and screaming and use every opportunity to slow-roll and exert old-fashioned control whenever and wherever they can. And their guidance flip flops: Space Act – yes, Space Act – no, Space Act – yes … Meanwhile, Congress doesn’t even pretend to be interested in commercial space and is simply interested in how many dollars are heading back home to voters. If the word “commercial” can be applied to the money fine. If not, who cares.
That said, SpaceX, Orbital, and others are still trying to change the way we do things in space using NASA help and commerical smarts. Now if only NASA and Congress will sit down, shut up, and let them try and show what “commercial” thinking can do.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

17 responses to “NASA (and Congress) Have No Idea What "Commercial Space" Means”

  1. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Keith, you’re right about half hearted support for the badly named “commercial space”. Perhaps it might be better called “provider space”?

    Various parts of NASA are skeptical – sometimes this is understandable, but usually its not. At POTUS and HQ level the politics behind it is very cagey. And the complete nonsense in the House, coupled with the disingenuousness with key senators … makes it seem sometimes like they are from other countries entirely and not the US at all … weird as that may seem.

    I’d like to think it’ll all die down a bit with some hard successes with COTS/CCDEV. But that may still be quite naive, as it may instead be increasing the envy factor … perhaps some think that if “commercial” is where all the success is going to be happening … maybe they need to redefine who … is funded … to be allowed to make that success in the first place.

    We are losing control of the point of this excercise … to increase the effectiveness of space … by letting in more promising ways to let America become a spacefairing nation once again.

    The success should be used to encourage same. Not to block it.

  2. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    The next part of this game is the manned lunar lander from Masten Space.

    • charliexmurphy says:
      0
      0

       Masten is not providing or building any manned lunar lander

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

         Masten is proposing it.

        See this video from 30:00 minutes
        <url>

      • charliexmurphy says:
        0
        0

         Proposing doesn’t means squat.  Every contractor has a proposal.  Until there is money associated with a proposal, it is meaningless much like your posts.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

           They have a Centaur that they are modifying, so there is some money associated with this proposal.

          As for your personal attack, its style reveals the person hiding behind the sock puppet.

  3. JJ says:
    0
    0

    NASA has nothing to do with access to space?  Why do “private” companies need COTS then?  The only way NASA can get to the point of picking up the phone and saying “I got a crew of three wanting to go to the ISS” is if private companies can make a profit, which implies volume.  No way a private company can sit idle with its rockets, engineers, launch operations, at the mercy of its only customer to pick up the phone for its services.  Does NASA really think millionaires are going to support commercial space with volume?  There simply isn’t a profit to be made.  The economic model for a private lunar colony is even worst!  The capital investment is huge, where is the return?  NASA can’t even afford it but Bolden expects private companies to do it out of philanthropy?  About the only thing I agree with is that private companies can do it, because as stated, NASA has never built a single human-rated space craft.  But is a big jump to can do it to would do it.

  4. TissyFurnes1 says:
    0
    0

    These phrases “traditional” and “commercial” aerospace get batted around willy-nilly by various proponents and opponents and can be quite confusing to follow, particularly when referring to orbital human spaceflight.  It would be nice to be able to define “commercial space” in a succinct phrase but it is not possible given the current nascent state of the industry and the government’s intent to develop and ultimately employ it. 

    What we are truly talking about is a hybrid commercial model, whereby the government partially funds the development of the product but industry contributes its own labor and capital and has primary control over the development, use and finally ownership of that product.  In the “traditional” model industry’s role is limited to building the product and in some cases and to varying degrees operates it (the Shuttle, for example).  In this model, the product is used exclusively for the government’s purposes and paid for accordingly.

    What further complicates the distinction is that at least initially commercial orbital HSF will be primarily used by the government (ISS crew delivery) and in some ways may look, act, feel and be like a “traditional” space model (and may even have some of the same companies from that world).  The first of two primary distinctions is that NASA through revised regulations and different contract mechanisms is using an “insight” as opposed to an “oversight” process as industry develops their space systems.  This is supposed to result in greater efficiencies, cost-savings and innovation by the private sector in no longer have to conform to as many restrictions, reporting requirements, administrative layering and specifications.  The second distinction is that the industry will have the ability to seek other buyers for its product or services.  This is where space tourism, foreign astronaut travel, and other ideas are referenced as spurring “true commercial” human spaceflight.

    What makes this such a fascinating time in the space program is that no one really can forecast what will happen (although there is no shortage of speculation!).  It will come down to settling two major questions — will HSF markets outside of ISS Crew delivery develop in a significant and sustained way, and will industry under the “insight” process be able to generate both cost-savings and provide safe travel for people.

  5. Josh Berk says:
    0
    0

     51 years after the anniversary of the first human space flight, 31 years after the first Space Shuttle launch it pains me to think we still don’t have reliable affordable access to LEO. Congress should read the Space Act of 1958 sometime and rediscover what NASA was intended to do. Then they should ask themselves if protecting the space labor force (MPCD, SLS development +operation) meets those objectives that they themselves codified. I am truly sick of throwing good money after bad!

  6. James Muncy says:
    0
    0

    If you don’t mind, I’d like to get away from the semantic games, and point out that the story seems to validate Mr. Gingrich’s proposed goal, for which he was roundly attacked (including by so-called space proponents). 

    Perhaps the Australians remember their frontier roots better than we do ours.  

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      The semantic games are the point, Jim. Everyone is playing them and it is time for NASA and Congress to start being honest about the use of these games. NASA is only following a commercial path because the White House told them too. Congress only follows it if there is a net benefit to their constituents. Sadly, neither particularly cares about space commerce.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         Perhaps because space commerce then becomes a threat to their pet interests?

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Keith,

        It may seem like a trivial point, but I think it’s worth saying that the use of the word “NASA” itself contributes to the word games and confusion. There is no single mind or opinion that is “NASA,” but we all too often use the word as if there were a single entity. For example, in your preceding comment “NASA” (I’m assuming from context) refers basically to policy at the senior level of the Administration, and does not assume that everybody employed by or associated with NASA has the same opinions and perceptions about “following a commercial path” or anything else. Far too many people say things about NASA that seem to imply that it is a single entity with a single set of ideas, habits, goals, opinions, etc. It has almost reached the point where we need to add footnotes for each use of the word NASA.

        Senior managers are NASA, and they often get attacked here and elsewhere by working people who are also NASA, and most of the people at NASA have no say in the NASA budget or what NASA programs there will be… It’s almost like we need a set of unique terms (like the many names for different types of snow), or maybe just use NASA1, NASA2, NASA3, etc. after assigning each one an official distinctive definition (which should sound pretty dumb in conversation).

        It seems to me that we’re all of us too loose with our terms; commercial is just a particularly misused example.

        Steve

  7. JJ says:
    0
    0

    Can new commercial industry be cheaper?  No doubt.  Old commercial industry can be cheaper too without NASA regulations and oversight.  But that doesn’t guarantee they can flourish, because at the end of the day they all need to make a profit.  Who is the people that do want to get into space?  What kind of volume are they going to provide?  Is enough to make a profit and support periods of idle operatons?  There are still many questions which none of us know the answer to, but we know we are way too far from commercial space being an off-the-shelf taxi service.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       In other words, “chicken and egg’? Do you need to start the process with something that can be cheaper, then afford its lower cost by using it more.

      Well, we tried it the other way with EELV –  get two “big guys” in a bake-off, and award more volume to the more competitive vendor, letting volume build to bring costs down. Didn’t work to bring down costs or motivate successive “evolution”. Wasn’t cheap enough – volume went elsewhere (out of the country). Had nothing to do with regulations and oversight. These were sweet deals, most with subsidies, guaranteed profit, and “cost plus”.

      Now, we haven’t had a HLV like SLS since the Saturn V. IMHO, its a 10x worse underbid JWST disaster. not a likely source of improvement but the opposite.

      Don’t think we are out of th woods yet with COTS / CCDEV – but the fact that theres a vehicle on the pad about to be flown counts a lot in my book. Orion dates from OSP –  and its nowhere near where it should be.

      Likely best are more providers. And, honestly, to allow the growth of a genuine economic reason for that to continue, the government should temporarily  underwrite this with more budget so that a means of bootstrapping continuing commercial can be enhanced. In a rational world, no one would argue with it.

      If it is so important that we do beyond earth orbit exploration, this seems to be the most sensible use of those funds rather than SLS.

      I think that this is the crossroads we are at. Too much success of COTS / CCDEV, too little of SLS/Orion, and a rational universe that is increasingly hard to deny.

      Thus everyone, in response, becomes irrational.

      Because they are being forced to by events.

      • JJ says:
        0
        0

        Why would we want to use commercial crew more?  ISS?  Been there, done that.  The ISS is never going to provide the volume to sustain an industry, in fact is not even permanent, currently at best is only scheduled to be used for about 4 years.  So I disagree the best is more providers, I simply don’t see a business case to support them.  I am not saying there is an alternative, aerospace is unique and perhaps inherently expensive.  Can someone develop a rocket?  Of course, there are dozens of rockets flown around the world each year, so I don’t see why that is an accomplishment.  Can someone make them more cheap and create a sustainable business model?  The jury is still out and we are a long ways to finding out.  Let’s begin by finding out if they can make reliable rocket first.  If you ask me, I don’t see a case for sustainable business model for a company at the mercy of their main, and perhaps only, customer to give them a call whenever they want.  NASA can fund commercial crew development, what they cannot do is create a sustainable private market, which these companies are going to need moving forward.  Creating a reliable rocket is not the hard part (and there are not even there yet), is been done for over half a century, creating a new business model is.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         JJ,
        Because they have a vehicle on the pad.

        Because they have recovered a capsule.

        Because there are two different kerolox LV’s that potentially could be a fraction of the cost of an EELV

        Because the task of exploration already has a demonstrated budget (in SLS/Orion/”not ISS”) … that is large enough to represent a source of dollars large enough to function as a “bootstrap” for commercial

        A far better use than a simple jobs program to pay off a bunch of lobbyists, wouldn’t you agree?