National Space Council Meeting Summaries
Council Meeting Signals High Level Administration Interest In Space, Space Policy Online
“Pence indicated the Council will meet again in 45 days to review all those efforts, hence the deadline. That’s a challenging goal, but conveys a sense of urgency to make decisions. That could be tied to budget schedules since the administration is currently crafting the FY2019 budget request. By law, budget requests are supposed to be submitted to Congress on the first Monday of February so the FY2019 request should be sent to Congress on February 5, 2018. If the Space Council meets again in 45 days, there would still be time to influence the FY2019 request.”
National Space Council hears calls for moon trips and stronger space defense, Geekwire
“Pence said the council’s meeting was a “very good start” for a re-examination of America’s space policy. But not everyone agreed. Keith Cowing, the editor of NASA Watch and a longtime commentator on space policy, said in a blog posting that the proceedings were “scripted and predictable.” Former space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said in a tweet that the meeting offered “bold talk … but we’ve heard it before.” “What counts will be resources ($) and long term commitment,” Hale said.”
The first meeting of the National Space Council, Behind The Black
“Overall, this meeting indicates that the Trump administration is likely not going to do much to drain the swamp that presently dominates our space effort. Trump’s interest in reducing regulation remains strong, but it also appears he and his administration is also strongly committed to continuing the crony capitalism that is wasting literally billions of dollars in space and helping to put the nation into unrecoverable debt.”
Keith’s note: My summary:
1. Big aerospace companies said that they’d be happy to do whatever the government will pay them to do.
2. Commercial space companies didn’t ask for a handout and will be doing other things – with their own money.
3. Military space discussion was hampered because much of what is going on is classified and cannot be discussed in an open forum.
4. Earth and space science – no one talked about that.
5. Pence says America needs to lead in space again – even if it is still leading in space – already.
And no that’s not the official logo. But they need one.
A few things that struck me (all are my humble opinion): The VP wants to characterize “space” in a very nationalistic tone, with America in the “pole position” in everything. I worry that he will cause valuable colleagues in Canada, Japan, and Europe to cooperate more with Russia and China in case we prioritize American projects and leave them out.
VP Pence wants to convince us that we are lagging behind and have lost our ability to solve challenges. Hmmm isn’t it interesting that a U.S. company was the one to finally prove that rockets can be reused? A U.S. company will soon be flying a winged vehicle that will land on runways. There are many other examples but if we are afraid maybe we will do what VP Pence wants. Is VP Pence hoping that we will grow suspicious of our loyal colleagues of decades, and agree that a competition is ahead where there will be winners and losers?
Actually that is good thing as complexity economics and economic history shows much of the technical progress of the last 400 years was due to competition between nations, not cooperation. Cooperation always leads to technology stagnation.
Just look at the progress in between 1957 (Sputnik) and 1975 (Apollo Soyuz Test Project) compared to the stagnation since as the U.S. view of space changed from one of global competition to one of global cooperation.
Indeed, one could even argue we have gone backward in the last two decades of close international cooperation (ISS) with the retirement of the Shuttle and the focus on the neo-Saturn V/Apollo (SLS/Orion) NASA is working on at a much slower pace. (Saturn V took only 7 years to place astronauts around the Moon. SLS/Orion will take 12 years IF it stays on schedule.)
As a big believer in competition – I agree that competition is important and should be encouraged. However competition between companies is as good as competition between countries. Look at the enormous progress is computers – that was driven by competition between companies.
What we want to discourage is turning every space effort into some nationalistic America First program. We need the ideas and innovation of colleagues in other countries.
Possible NASA is working at a slower pace but SpaceX is racing ahead – they developed reusable rockets. The various imaging companies (what ever their names are as of today) are racing ahead to provide Earth resources imagery. Companies are racing ahead to provide communications to the world.
That is because computers reached a tipping point where commercial uses, and markets, were far more important than government ones. But don’t forget the first electronic computers emerged out of military needs during WWII and the early Cold War.
So yes, competition by private firms will be the eventual driver of space technology. But with NASA funding being the big driver via COTS, CCP, etc., today, a nationalist approach will help advance it.
Computers were just one of a very large set of possible examples.
My point is that a nationalist approach will possibly alienate the many brilliant and innovative colleagues that we have in Japan, Canada, and Europe. I would be sad to see possible cooperation with Russia and China to be not possible but the Russians especially are working HARD to make it difficult to cooperate with them. We need to avoid making “space” an effort which is one that is a zero sum game, where a win by someone is a loss by “the opposition”. If we are smart even a Russian success could answer questions that we have.
But that is the entire point. Competition is never a zero sum game, it always advances everyone. Think of it in terms of a race where folks run faster if they have someone else’s record to beat.
No, not always. National-level competition is often a negative sum game precisely because its driven by factors that have nothing to do with the value or utility of the task chosen. And Apollo is a perfect example. 4% of the US national budget for what? Flags’n’footprints and a nation bored with space-travel within two flights, and the Soviets spending the next 20+ years pretending it had no interest in your capitalist space-race to the moon.
The US didn’t just get to the moon and stop. They got to the moon and then went backwards. Because “going to the moon” left nothing permanent, nothing of value. Not even the lunar equivalent of ISS or the Antarctic research bases. Nothing. Everything the US did beyond Earth orbit, during that mad rush, was wasted. Negative value.
It’s the difference between building the biggest (but glass-jawed) battleship versus having an effective navy. Anything short of war tends to produce the former.
The technology of Apollo didn’t disappear, it created a lot of modern world, especially Silicon Valley and Route 128. The real problem was that Russia just couldn’t match us. If they had made it to the Moon we would have used NERVA and gone on to Mars. Indeed, that is why President Kennedy started funding it.
Thomas – apparently you will always feel that if we just had some huge rallies and dumped our international partners we would be on the way to Mars next year. Believe what you want. And even had NERVA worked it would not overcome the many challenges we have today that prevent us from going to Mars.
You have your history very confused. NERVA ended in the early 1970’s when we no longer needed to go to Mars. We didn’t bail out the Russian space program until the 1990’s when we partnered with them to prevent their unemployed rocket engineers from going to Iran to help them build rockets.
Paul – Very good point here, often nationalistic projects are started to accomplish some very visible goal. The goal is often NOT useful but it is easy to describe. What did we get out of Apollo/Soyuz? Nothing. We got a lot out of Skylab. Had the world set some reasonable goals and worked together to accomplish them we would probably be far ahead of where we are today. We got a fair amount of good out of the Shuttle/Mir dockings and the exchange of people.
Charles wrote: “What did we get out of Apollo/Soyuz? Nothing. We got a lot out of Skylab.”
I think you are bit confused about history. The advances made across a whole host of technologies needed to pull off the landing on Luna and the experiments conducting under the programs under Apollo, in LEO, BEO Lunar orbit and on the surface off the moon absolutely and totally surpass the grand total of 82 experiments that occurred on Skylab.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov…
I think he means the Apollo Soyuz Test Program in 1975. When an Apollo CSM and a Soyuz docked in low Earth orbit and the crews spent a hair under two days together. I presume there were some experiments, but it was mostly a good will and detente thing.
And Skylab flew at the same time the Soviets were flying their Saylut stations. Competition again.
If we loudly proclaim that this mission or that mission is an America First mission, that we are looking to advance America at the expense of any other country – our colleagues will go work with the Russians or Chinese. That would be terrible.
LOL. Do you really think Russia and China fund science research because they are “enlighten”? They fund it because a nation’s military capability is directly related to its capability in science.
“Cooperation always leads to technology stagnation.” Huh? Data would seem to reflect the opposite is true. NASA’s SMD is built upon international cooperation as just about all missions include international partnerships. It’s is unquestionably the world’s leader.
But how could it be the world’s leader if there is no competition? A leader implies followers less advance in the competition that NASA is ahead of. Also alliances are one competition strategy as with the U.S and U.K. in WW II that led to jet aircraft and nuclear weapons. Most of what NASA SMD does really would qualify as alliances. The P-51 was also a great example, with an U.K. engine in an American airframe, both built in large numbers in the U.S. But it would have never been built if not in the competitive environment of WW II.
I think what you are actually showing is that with well selected alliances NASA has kept the NASA SMD in the lead in space science versus other nations like China despite restrictive funding from the end of the formal “Space Race”. Also how much of the technological lead is due to advances in software, AI and electronics from market based competition by commercial firms?
But be honest, has the pace really been faster than in the era 1957 to 1975 when in competition with Russia we launched missions to every planet in the Solar System, placed landers on Mars and sent over a dozen missions to the Moon?
Teams also have leaders.
NASA SMD is in only one competition; to understand the universe. SMD seeks to maximize the science return for the available budget. It also may address other national needs. But it’s focus is on science. Major missions are aimed at Decadal Survey top priorities. Smaller ones fill in the knowledge gaps. It turns out that NASA’s science priorities are usually pretty well-aligned with the scientific priorities of other spacefaring nations, so if budgets are available, international collaborations are created. It set up several in my tenure at NASA Hqs. It’s not at all the way that you describe it as using collaborations as means to achieve leadership. NASA is the leader in space science because of the significant investment in resources made available, over $5 billion/year (probably more than the rest of the world combined), the size and quality of the space science community, and the tech base. It’s not a part of some nationalist “America first”, nationalist agenda, that’s for sure.
The government doesn’t fund science because it wants to understand the universe, it funds science because WW II showed that a nation’s capability in science is directly related to its ability to defend itself. That was why the NSF and NASA were created. That is why China and India are turning out scientists and engineers.
Don’t mistake the PR for the real motive. If governments ever bought into the kumbaya argument funding for science by national governments would disappear quickly.
Of course. But did NASA team with ESA on Cassini and accept the Huygens probe because it makes the US defense base stronger? Of course not. You said that “Cooperation always leads to technology stagnation.” And that assertion is wrong. I speak out when someone makes an incorrect statement. International collaborations take place in NASA SMD because it enhances the scientific return of the missions. It also contributes to maintaining and/or building international good will. Other countries love teaming with NASA SMD because how else are they going to get a locally-built spectrometer getting data on a deep space object as well as feeding local scientists? It’s totally win-win. It’s not about some nationalist agenda as you assert. NASA SMD has thrived because of international collaborations. It has not “stagnated technology” as you incorrectly asserted.
Actually by strengthening the defense firms, in the case of Huygens, Aerospatiale, of our European allies it does help the U.S. in terms of its defense of Europe.
Why do you think Congress is OK with NASA teaming with nations that we have defense pacts, or shared interests with and doesn’t allowing teaming with nations like China or Iran we may be fighting some day. Indeed, why do you think ITAR exists?
It was no different than the U.S. launching the first British satellite, Ariel 1, or taking foreign astronauts on the Shuttle.
Its done as part of the U.S. foreign policy strategy to reward nations that are on our side against the Russians, Chinese, or other potentially hostile nations.
Like you said, it allows the locals to do research they wouldn’t be able to do without NASA. This adds prestige to that nation’s science efforts, a way of rewarding our friends.
And of course Russia and China are doing the same sort of outreach to build their alliances in the great geopolitical game. So yes, the Huygens is an example of international competition in terms of that larger game of geopolitics.
You’re changing the subject.
You said: “Cooperation always leads to technology stagnation.”
Your statement is incorrect.
Michael – I absolutely agree with you.
Economic history has shown it is correct. It is why socialist nations fall behind in technology, because there is no longer competition to advance it. They may do incremential advances and brag about it, but the pace is much slower.
A good example is the slow pace of phone development when AT&T was a monoply. There were incremential improvements in quality and reliability, but it was so slow an individual from 1900 would have few problems using a phone from 1985. It may look a bit strange but they would figure out to use it. But then AT&T was broken and competition took over. Give them a smart phone from 2010 and the wouldn’t know how to even turn it on, nor would someone from 1985. That is how technology leaps forward under a competitive environment.
You imply that what we observe about “fruit” also apples to “trains.” I purposely chose two highly disparate topics to demonstrate my point that what might be true for one arena doesn’t automatically make it true in another UNLESS ONE CAN PROVE IT TO BE TRUE. You’re arguments have failed to do that and as you continue to cite examples in other industries in other settings with other players. Kinda like playing chess using the rules of checkers.
These must be the arguments of an academic with little to no real experience in the space business. That’s ok. This is a free form discussion hosted by a well-intentioned former NASA colleague who I’m sure is getting quite a chuckle out of all of this.
It amazes me how some people can make broad generalizations without any proof that they might be true, then think that they can apply them to this business, and then still cling to them when examples in the business demonstrate that they can’t always be true. I’ve demonstrated that space science and its associated technology at NASA has made enormous leaps in a highly cooperative setting and yet I’m seeing arguments that what might describe AT&T, GE, and smart phones also applies to NASA. Excuse me while I enjoy eating a train before retiring this evening.
You comments represent someone with little knowledge of the current research in economics, especially complexity economics which is based on evolutionary systems theory. Space is no different in terms of economics as you seem to think.
You are referring in your examples to minor incremental technical advances coming from cooperation and claiming they are some type of major advancement. Its one sign of an industry that has become stagnate. What I am referring to the is type innovations that push an industry to a new level. That is what competition brings.
Think of Project Mercury. In less than 40 months from an idea to a capsule in orbit. In an era of slide rules, drafting boards and no one even knowing if a human would be able to survive in space. And how many years have been spent now on CCP without any flights even? 8 years? 10 years? That is also a sign of a stagnate industry.
The reason I need to use illustrations from other industries is simply because of the lack of examples of leaps forward in space since the end of the space race.
Indeed, you could transport an aerospace engineer from the 1960’s to today and they would have little trouble adapting to the industry. Not so for computer programmers, electronic technicians, or even engineers from the old Bell System of the era.
The focus on cooperation since the 1970’s in the space field is why there are no examples yet to show. SpaceX and the New Glenn may be examples in the future as the two firms move beyond NASA go into competition with each other, but in terms of the rest of the field radical innovations like the Smart Phone are simply not there.
And the advances that have taken place in space are largely the result of important advances in electronics and software from the competitive marketplace. Yes, Cubesats come to mind. IBut really, just compare the state of the space art control room JPL uses for the Mars rovers to the industrial version Rio Tinto uses to control dozens of pieces of robotic mining equipment,some the size of houses and railroad trains in the Australian outback from their facility thousands of miles away in Perth Australia.
Sad to say, rocket science and spacecraft technology has long ceased to be the cutting edge of technology. New Space firms like SpaceX (BFR) and Blue Origins New Glenn hold the promise of changing it, but that is because of them being in competition, not cooperating, and being run by CEOs from industries with very fierce competition pushing it forward. No kumbaya for them 🙂
The research on the advantages of competition over industry wide cooperation in advancing technology is very solid. Eric D. Beinhocker summarizes a lot of the academic literature well in his book, “Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics” which it targeted at explaining it to non-economists.
You really need to stop admiring the trees in your small industry, and the space industry is small compared to most others, and start looking at the forest its a part of. And then recognize how little your industry has changed from the 1960’s compared to others.
“Sad to say, rocket science and spacecraft technology has long ceased to be the cutting edge of technology.”
Scientific measurement needs of the space science community have driven significant progress in many fields. Who else tries to measure fractions of a photon/sec at 35 deg K? Additionally the infusion of s/w and h/w developed by the info tech boom has also played a major role.
“The focus on cooperation since the 1970’s in the space field is why there are no examples yet to show. “
So you think that economics and history of other industries always apply to the space program. Yet you also said that you have no evidence to prove it. Sounds like faith healing. In this business, if you make a statement, you need to back it up with relevant data and facts. I kinda thought that economics might operate under those same “rules” as well. For example, you don’t fly unless you’ve tested and confirmed that your system works. So you’re selling an “idea” and wanted it taken on FAITH when you admit you have no relevant environment data. Try claiming that the modeling worked so let’s just skip environmental testing and launch.
Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Who’s the consumer of space science? The science community, the public and the Government. Who pays for it? The Government. Although it’s great that some people are trying to get non-government funding for space science – a commendable cause — it’s a tough hill to climb to fuel the growth of our understanding of the universe. There’s a great deal of public interest and excitement in space science. Educational angles, too.
So the science community drives the direction and the Government fuels the engine. So progress is “fuel limited.” Just look at the Planetary Science community. To fully leverage recent discoveries relating to all of the icy moons, Pluto and Mars, as well as to start the next phase of exploration at Venus, Uranus and Neptune, you’d need to at least double the budget to >$4B/yr. Would that investment satisfy the customers? Of course. So value increases at least linearly with investment. Any chance of the Government doing that? Pretty darn small. So the science community – the customers – need international cooperation to sufficiently fuel the engine of scientific progress. That’s the objective. The Government derives a greater return with other countries providing fuel and technologies as well. It leverages its fuel contribution and the public gets images from the surface of Titan Is there another realistic source of fuel? The private sector? What would SpaceX want in return from NASA to launching JWST? Observing time? A large neon billboard on the back of the solar arrays? How about funding a near-IR instrument with a Blue Origin advertising watermark on all imagery?
International collaboration is essential for progress to continue in space science. So is incorporating “commercial” technologies as well. The customers get maximum benefit when everyone collaborates on a mission rather than each nation wanting too launch their own to “out image” the other guy?
That model makes no sense at all.
Again, what you see as breakthrough is just an incremental advance in the bigger economy.
I know you think space is exempt from the basic principles of history and economics but the problem you won’t recognize because you have spent your career in space science is that it is niche industry entirely on life support by the government. That is why it seems to operate outside traditional economics.
Tell me, how many thousands of Mars researchers are there. Or is it more like a few dozen? Be realistic. 99.9% of the public are not followers of space science outside of being proud the U.S. leads, a legacy of the space race. We just became the first nation to reach Pluto. We were the first nation to send spacecraft to the outer planets. That matters more than the knowledge gained to most folks.
But then just look at how few belong to groups like the Planetary Society (40,000) or subscribe to Sky and Telescope (about 78,000). By contrast the Audubon Society has about 550,000 members. Bird watching, a niche hobby, is over 10 times as large. Most optic firms make their money selling binoculars to bird watchers and hunters, not amateur astronomers.
I know international cooperation is pushed in space science which is why you believe in it, it is pushed because it has useful geopolitical applications. That was why foreign astronauts were flown on the Shuttle. Its all part of today’s low level of competition between geopolitcal blocks, not the intense one on one competition that drove the space race which is why the most advances to space come from outside the industry.
Which, bringing us back to this thread, it is a good thing if the folks funding space science want to see it again as national competition as it was decades ago. It means you may get those extra billions so the U.S. is the first to _____.
That suggests an interesting study, if someone has the time (or a student looking for a senior thesis topic…) Public attention to space science is very nation-dependent. The Chinese Chang’e 3 lunar landing and the Yutu rover in particular, got a tremendous amount of public and social media attention. In China. In the US, most people (even planetary scientists) have never heard of it. The ESA Rosetta mission got far more public attention and interest in Europe than in the US. I suspect the reverse was true of NASA’s New Horizons mission. It would be interesting if someone were to compile statistics on this. Missions do track media coverage, hits on their web pages, etc. The breakdown by nationality would be interesting to see.
But I do disagree about to some extent about national competition in planetary science. I think Cassini is a good example where the Europeans got more publicity in the US and US scientists got more exposure in Europa, than separate and non-collaborative missions would have been. And that led to quite a bit of funding which also wouldn’t have happened without the collaboration. And that doesn’t even consider the scientific benefits.
Oh, you asked about how many scientists study Mars. I think that was rhetorical, but for the record, there was a joint American Astronomical Society/Division of Planetary Science and European Planetary Science Conference last year. 1437 scientists attended. I think the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference generally pulls a bit over 1500 people, but I can’t find the exact number on their web page. Given scientists who didn’t attend either, and duplication from those who attended both, I’d guess there are about two or three thousand US and European planetary scientists.
Yes, I had an abstract at the Lunar and Planetary Conference in 2010. So its a good measure of interest in the topic. But how many of those earn their living in planetary science and how many teach in other fields and just attend or only do occasional unfunded research?
Still that number seems reasonable given the amount of federal support and also the number of schools with programs in planetary science.
Two points:
“Who else tries to measure fractions of a photon/sec at 35 deg K?”
In a sense, that’s the point. Who would want to, and why is that a measure of state-of-the-art technology. Let me put that a different way. If you had a good, low-noise detector, and you were interested in improving it, would you increase sensitivity or reduce noise? Most scientists probably would focus on things like that. But if the detector also had commercial applications, someone in industry might focus on a miniaturized cryocooler or a detector with the same performance but which could operate at liquid nitrogen temperatures rather than 35 K.
“How about funding a near-IR instrument with a Blue Origin advertising watermark on all imagery?”
W. M. Keck’s heirs did pay quite a bit to get his name on a pair of world-class telescopes. Overall, I think it was about the cost of a Small Explorer.
Actually, why do CubeSats come to mind? If anything, I’d call them an example of your idea. The quality of the hardware is improving rapidly, and I think that is partially due to competition. The flight rates are high enough to support competing companies. If someone can buy a Clyde Space bus, but insist on having a Blue Canyon attitude control system replace the stock Clyde Space one, that’s a motivation to improve the product.
Yes, they have the potential to be disruptive. But remember, its the advances in electronics and software from commercial competition, especially with smart phones, that is driving it.
CubeSats have benefited from commercial electronics, but it’s more than that. A deep space radio transponder isn’t exactly a consumer electronics. But JPL (yes JPL) developed one for CubeSats. In only about five years, they are on their third version and the current IRIS 2.1 is a tremendous improvement the original. That sort of development cycle is almost unheard of for other scientific spacecraft.
It also represents that there is competition going on as consumers are choosing between alternatives.
I’ve heard other theories for the failure of socialist economies. (Actually, Leninist directed economies, if you want to be precise.) One was that market forces are a form of communication. If they aren’t making enough of a product, empty shelves and customer willingness to pay more communicate the demand to the manufacturers. If they’re making too much, it doesn’t sell, and that also communicates the (lack of) demand. Directed economies with government-fixed prices don’t have that sort of communications. Since this is a problem even without competition, I don’t think you can definitively connect competition to the failure of these economies.
Yes, under economic theories price is a automatic feedback mechanism that quickly communicates information between suppliers and buyers.
Under socialism systems a small group of experts attempt to preform the same function, but is unable to do so because of the complexity of the factors involved, the time delay on the information they receive and the lack of complete information.
Since you mention Cassini, it isn’t exactly competition, but during development, the project scientist came up with the idea of a commodities market. If one instrument team was running over on mass, but had plenty of power margin, they could literally announce to the other teams, “How many kilograms will someone trade for 3 watts?” That was before my time, but I’m told it managed the resources better than more conventional approaches.
Markets, even internal markets, always do. That is the lesson from Complexity Economics.
In practice, just about everything SMD does involves competition. Competition with other researchers to get grant funding. Competition to get your instrument (or mission) selected for flight. Competition to get your ideas for future missions written into the Decadal Surveys and recommended by them.
To some extent, that’s a good thing. But I can think of people who take it too far. Once people get carried away with “winning”, they sometimes focus on the proposal writing, presentation and grantsmanship. Sometimes NASA selects technically inferior but very well-presented proposals. I’d say that’s equivalent to a company with a technically inferior product which they market brilliantly. That can “beat” the competition. But that doesn’t really advance anything (baring their bank accounts and the state of the art in marketing…)
Except that isn’t marketing, it’s grantsmanship as you note, as the decision is made by a team of experts, not the market.
In the real world a good promotion strategy may get a new product temporary success, but when it fails to meet consumer desires it will fail in the long one. Also, and this is often a shock to engineers, consumers don’t always want a technically superior product. The may see other aspects of the products are being more important.
Engineers at Western Electric spent decades made phones that were extremely reliable. But when the AT&T monopoly was broken consumers showed they were not interested in the reliability of a $200 Western Electric phone. They rather buy a much cheaper $9.95 phone and then when it broken just buy a replacement that wait for a tech to fix an expensive AT&T phone. It’s not clever marketing, but simply the consumers had a different view of the product and it’s attributes then the engineers had.
I was actually considering cost as part of technical merits. And, rather than telephones, I was thinking more in terms of things like sneakers. With the right endorsements from famous athletes and the right marketing, wearing the right ones can become a status symbol. Even if they are more expensive, wear out sooner, aren’t as ergonomic as competing brands. In fact, for a status symbol, being more expensive might even be a plus.
Before you say that’s what the customer wants, not necessarily a technically superior product, I’ll agree. Nor am I objecting, or saying the shouldn’t spend their money on it. (Although I would give that advice if a friend or relative asked for it.) But your claim was that competition always leads to technological advances. I the above case, I don’t see that.
I was addressing the competition among nations, and the argument that an “America First” strategy would result in more technological growth than a strategy advocating the kind of international collaboration that has existed for decades. I fail to see any evidence that a nationalistic approach would produce more technological growth in the space business.
Looking at HEOMD, I believe that lack of consistent strategic direction coupled with insufficient funding AND a the lack of a healthy competition of ideas has stymied advancement. NASA also needs to come to grips with what’s the long-term roles of the NASA centers.
The healthy competition within the US space science community insures that superior ideas, science and technology advance. The success of SMD is proof that it works pretty well. It’s not perfect, but it’s resulted in significant scientific and technological advancements that are largely responsible for SMD’s success.
And buried deep in such sentiments and human behaviors is exactly why we will drive ourselves to extinction. No one seems to want to accept or address this because most people feel we are invincible.
Actually if you are using a natural history argument the opposite is the case. A lack of competition results in species being less adaptable and more subject to extinction. That is why island species are often at a disadvantage to species that come from a far more competitive environment. So if anything will lead to human extinction it will be international cooperation to the point competition between nations disappears.
Actually that is one of the things Jared Diamond covered in his book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Faith of Human Societies” as to why the West dominated the world with all its “Stuff”, namely the intense competition between the nations of Europe that expanded to the world’s stage.
Who knows? Maybe that is the answer to the Fermi Paradox, intelligent species talk themselves into deciding to “evolve” beyond competition, stagnate and then go extinct.
US vs. Others is what I sadly I saw … Sigh. Well i might be wrong his staff was aware of NASA Watch..
They would have picked up Keith’s complaints on twitter, since he was using their hashtag. It’s doesn’t mean they read the site.
Its easy for this, and previous, Administrations to feign interest. But the US program needs more than interest, and it is not necessarily a lot more money either. I do worry about the US setting a path forward and then turning over the responsibility for implementation to its international partners. The US needs to maintain its design, development, production and research capabilities. NASA has given most of these up in favor of ‘operations’. At one point when they had systems to operate, maybe that made sense; though keep in mind they were operating Shuttle and did a pretty poor job, killing a crew and wasting the vehicles rather than improving them and making their operations more cost effective. NASA has little left now so having large complex, expensive operations organizations to operate very little makes no sense. NASA should be relegated to some job but I am not sure what it is. Maybe they should go back to their roots as a research organization? Research of things that industry won’t pay for is a logical government role.
As far as the US way forward, I think Mr. Musk has been demonstrating how innovation, development, competitiveness, and capability is done. The US government ought to go with that. It is our best hope today. The US government should offer what it can to support innovators like Mr. Musk.
Go back to the Moon? Maybe. It ought to be on its own merits; return on investment. If we can map out what progress ought to look like and begin towards it, it might make sense. But going back to the moon for “exploration and discovery”. That is nonsense which was not supported in 1972 and will not be supported today.
Huge expenditures to support “NASA”? Why? NASA has not shown it is capable of managing the funding it has been getting.
I have to agree with Pence that America’s position in the space economy needs to be improved. There is an ad on TV now for training welders. It says welding is important, and it winds up in airplanes, trains, ships, cars, and salaries are good and there are not enough welders. Then it asks: welding, not rocket science? And goes on to say even rockets rely on welding, and then the ad ends with a Soyuz launch from Baikonur. That is America’s competitive position today-we have relegated the important stuff to others so that some in the government-industrial complex can claim they have the inside track, but in reality today the US cannot even launch its own people into space.
I agree. The last school I was at had an AS in Welding. The folks were often hired while still in the program for salaries of $60,000 plus, especially by the mining firms that were located in the service region (northern Nevada). In fact. when the state cut the school’s funding one of the firms even provided an endowment to hire another welding instructor because their need was so great.
“Commercial space companies didn’t ask for a handout and will be doing other things – with their own money.” While they are not overtly asking for handouts, they certainly are ready to capitalize on government spending. It is no coincidence that after years of ignoring the moon, SpaceX suddenly thinks it would be great to go to the moon on its way to Mars. If there is NASA’s money to be had, it will likely be moon-related.
Note that I’m not faulting SpaceX for this pivot. It is the smart thing to do. They have spent a lot of their own money achieving their overwhelming success, but let’s not claim that it hasn’t come without any government funding. Without CRS, SpaceX likely would not be where it is today. Without NASA “handouts” for the moon, SpaceX will likely never get to Mars.
The government is just another market for private firms. Should Southwest Airlines turn government fliers away because they are paying with government funds?
BTW Pan Am’s early success with the China and Atlantic Clippers was largely due to government passengers who could afford the high prices for air fare, about $10,000 to $15,000 in today’s dollars. This was a part of Pan Am’s strategy for both.
“Commercial space companies didn’t ask for a handout and will be doing other things – with their own money.”
Nonsense! True, SpaceX’s reusable boosters were developed on their own nickel but the “commercial” crew Dragon capsule – already years late – has gotten huge cash infusions from NASA and now, Musk seems to have decided to ditch it and go off in his BFR direction. I’d love to hear how he will explain to NASA that he will stop flying crewed Dragons, mostly funded at taxpayer expense to create a competitive backup to Boeing’s CST-100, to pursue his latest vision of the future. Musk’s new system will take years to get off the ground or even be certified for crewed flight (if ever) by which time the ISS will likely be awaiting retirement.
BFR is not being developed with any NASA money.
It’s not being developed with NASA funding, but the profit from NASA’s Dragon cargo/crew contracts and any other launches over the next few years will made up a decent chunk of BFRs dev costs.
Additionally, the USAF has recently put out an RFD for SHLVs. SpaceX has already accepted USAF money for Raptor development, I doubt they’ll be shy about bidding for the new program if it goes ahead.
[Aside: The existence of the RFD does seem to reiterate how worthless SLS is, and how bogus the SLS “unit price” that was given to Congress in sworn testimony.]
The profit from NASA contracts is going into go into BFR development costs? Sure. But once it goes into SpaceX bank account, it’s their money and not NASA’s. So BFR isn’t in any way being developed with NASA money.
I checked the launch manifest; including today’s launch, SpaceX plans five more Falcon 9 launches this year, and one Falcon Heavy launch. Only one is for the US government. But the profits for those launches will also go into BFR development. Do you interpret that as meaning BFR is being underwritten by SES or Iridium?
Or, to take this logic to a more absurd level, would you say fans on online shopping are underwriting Blue Origin? It is funded out of Mr. Bezos personal wealth, but all that money was from profits Amazon made from their customers. But I think most people wouldn’t agree with that logic. If not, why apply it to profits from government contracts?
My point is merely that money is fungible.
[On another site, a regular crowed to high heaven because Shotwell said that the Dragon funding helped fund F9 development. Look!!! the stupid fanbois are wrong!!11! she said it!!! woo!!! blah blah blah. Even thought the Dragon contract did no such thing.]
Don’t know about Iridium, but I expect the SES bosses are hoping their satellite launchers are helping underwrite SpaceX’s development. They seem unusually enthusiastic about New Space for a European company; it’s delightful to see.
Those are SpaceX’s profits and not NASA’s money any longer or the taxpayers.
I think the lines/sources of funding are extremely blurry behind closed doors.
True – though it will be interesting to see if they try to get USAF development money for the BFR under the EELV replacement contract.
If it is going to take years, as you say, before the BFR is flying than SpaceX would still be flying the dragon. Exactly how long should a innovative transportation company stay will last years model? Forever? Like the Russians?
737’s have been flying in an evolved form since the mid 1960’s and are the predominant low cost airframe of choice for low cost carriers like Southwest and Ryan Air. You don’t need to radically reinvent every few years – it can be counterproductive – especially not if you want to be commercially successful! That’s one of the big risks of the BFR.
and how many does the transportation company, Boeing, fly of these 737’s that they build? You are making incorrect comparisons.
Boeing introduced the 737 in 1968 for OTHER transportation companies to buy and use. They were and are selling a product and NOT a transportation service. This was a short to mid-range airplane.
The Boeing 747 or “Jumbo” airplane was for servicing LONGER distance transportation service providers. The 747 was put into service in 1970 only TWO YEARS after the 737 so that transportation service providers could provide long range services to customers.
Companies do not want to buy the Falcon 9 rocket and operate it themselves. They are buying a transportation SERVICE not a product. As such the customer doesn’t care with rocket SpaceX utilizes to put their payload into LEO-GEO-LLO etc … as long as their payload is delivered.
The fact that they don’t want to own the rocket is not really relevant; my point is that Boeing continues to make the 737 because that’s what the transportation service market wants to meet its safety, cost and reliability objectives. Soyuz still sells for this same reason – six decades after introduction. BFR is not being done by Musk because the LEO market demands it – but because he wants to colonize Mars. That’s all very well and good but the economics are likely very difficult – as shown by him grasping at trans atmospheric travel on Earth markets to cudgel a business case together. Innovation for innovation’s sake is a fools’ errand and in fact, using Saturn class launchers to meet Commercial launch requirements will likely prove as sensible as using a jumbo jet when a piper cub would do.
yes it is relevant .. one is selling a product and the other is selling a service … sheesh
I think he’s got a point, although it may be longer-term than he thinks. Regardless of who is building it who is operating it, multi-purpose designs tend to be less optimal than designs focused on one application. A BFR designed to land large payloads on Mars will be less optimal for launching medium-sized satellites to low Earth orbit (or for fast trips from New York to Singapore.)
But that’s less optimal than another vehicle based on similar technology and design principles. BFR might end up being a better choice for low Earth orbit launches than a non-reusable launch vehicle designed over a decade ago. But once BFR is flying, could someone (SpaceX or a competitor) develop a reusable vehicle which was better for low Earth orbit? I think that’s almost certain.
But if SpaceX fulfills it’s commitments to its customers, using a suboptimal vehicle designed for big Mars missions, I don’t see why most customers should mind. But NASA might. As Mr. Musk said, some of his customers are very conservative. NASA will want all sorts of certifications and reviews of BFR before they would accept it as a Falcon/Dragon replacement. And they may not be happy about the cost all that work will require.
Since when was Dragon 2 “mostly funded at taxpayer expense to create a competitive backup to Boeing’s CST-100”? The selection of two vehicles was pretty clearly to reduce programatic risk, but I’m not sure if NASA actually came out and said so. I am pretty sure they never described either as a primary or backup. As far as I know, NASA has always described them as equals.
Nor did Mr. Musk say he’d stop flying Dragon 2. He said he was going to stop _producing_ them. Specifically, he was going to build up a stockpile of Dragons and Falcons before he shut down the line. That should let him could keep flying them and meeting his contractual obligations.
While I grant that Musk could continue to fly Dragon 2’s to meet his Commercial Crew obligations (assuming they are reusable over enough flights given the stockpile), the stated objective of NASA was to both reduce total program risk AND create a competitive human LEO transportation market to meet NASA and as yet to be determined requirements.
As to SpaceX getting NASA funding to do Commercial Crew Development – that’s what the $1.7 -1.9B annually (for the past several years) is covering; it isn’t all going to Boeing! Musk talks a great a commercial story but to make these business cases close, he’s still getting NASA funding and also excess government assets – they are not a pure commercial activity although they are closer than a traditional cost plus contact.
I know you feel it’s important to try to blur the distinction between companies like SpaceX and the old Primes, but you only need to look at the National Space Council itself to see that they see the clear distinction, as shown by the make up of the panels.
Not as late as Orion.
Certainly the entrepreneur driven companies are different – mostly because they are privately held and, in the case of SpaceX and Blue, not necessarily profit driven. That doesn’t make them better over the long run since they are essentially hobbies for billionaires – is that really sustainable?
As for Orion being late – it’s just like the “commercial” crew vehicles – subject to delays when Congress doesn’t meet the budgets originally assumed in their plans.
“1. Big aerospace companies said that they’d be happy to do whatever the government will pay them to do.
2. Commercial space companies didn’t ask for a handout and will be doing other things – with their own money.”
So…nothing new on that score.
New Space : “We’re planning a trip…you comin’?”
Old Space : “You’re planning on a trip? We can build it!”
Although it seems in style nowadays to praise international cooperation and put down national competition it is well to consider where we be in space today without it.
First, there would be no NASA. NASA was a direct result of Russia beating the U.S. to space. Since the Russian effort was a secret military program the U.S. decided to one up them by making our effort an open civilian program. No NASA, no NASA SMD. Thank international competition for NASA.
Instead the USN and USAF would have just drifted into space. When the US Army closed down Redstone the rocket team there would have been dispersed since there would have been no NASA to take it over and create Marshal Spaceflight Center.
The first American astronaut would have likely been a X-15 pilot while the first American in orbit would have either flown on a Vostok mission or on the X-20. The 70’s and 80’s would have seen a series of joint US-Russian space station based on MOL/Saylut technology. In the 90’s a larger one would replace it. But there would be no Shuttle to build it as there would be no standing army of rocket engineers left over from Apollo to build it. We would still be talking of landing on the Moon, and maybe even have done an loop around it in an upgraded Vostok, but that would be it.
Without the spur of a space race and NASA there wouldn’t be much of a planetary program. There would have been some joint US/USSR landers/rovers to the Moon scouting out a base site for some future date when humans go, but without national competition there be little reason for the military, US or Russian, to spend much on planetary missions. Needless to say there would have been no Vikings to Mars, but we would have probably sent a joint US/USSR rover there. It’s unlikely that the Pioneers or Voyagers would have been sent out under the military space programs that existed, although we might have done a flyby of Jupiter. But our knowledge of the outer planets would be limited to what telescopes in Earth orbit show (no Hubble of course with a Shuttle).
But then that is how progress slows with cooperation instead of competition. There is no need to put out that extra effort to win so folks just do the minimum. Really, just look at ESA. It’s members have a combined GDP greater than the US but spent only a fraction on space since they are cooperating rather then in competition with each other. It would be the same if America’s space program had been driven by cooperation at the start rather than a space race.
” 4. Earth and space science – no one talked about that. “
A good Epitaph. Short and to the point.