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.
TrumpSpace

National Space Council Users Advisory Group Has Few Users

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 21, 2018
Filed under ,
National Space Council Users Advisory Group Has Few Users

Vice President Pence Announces National Space Council Users Advisory Group
“Vice President Mike Pence, Chairman of the National Space Council, today announced the candidates selected to serve on the National Space Council’s Users Advisory Group. Pending official appointment by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the selected members of the Users Advisory Group will serve to fulfill President Trump’s mandate to “foster close coordination, cooperation, and technology and information exchange” across our nation’s space enterprise. The announcement as made on the eve of the second meeting of the National Space Council. “Moon, Mars, and World Beyond: Winning the next Frontier” includes testimonials from leaders in the civil, commercial, and national security sectors about the importance of the United States’ space enterprise.”
Keith’s note: I find this comment posted by Mark Uhran to be most apt: “These are almost exclusively “sellers” of space services. This is supposed to be a “Users Advisory Group”– users are potential “buyers”. This is a fundamental distinction. The failure to recognize the difference between the supply side and demand side is troubling, and persistent in the civil space culture. There is far more space infrastructure available than ever previously in history, yet few non-government buyers (COMSATS are the notable exception). The “build it and they will come” approach has not succeeded. Good luck to Dave Wolf and Pete Worden in trying to bring any user (buyer) perspective to this group.”
Of the 29 names, 12 (listed below) are from big aerospace, new/old space, and/or its trade organizations. Only a few of the people listed are currently in the business of developing payloads. Back when I worked at NASA on the space station – with Mark Uhran – we called those people who were going to utilize the space station “users”. This Users Advisory Group is sadly lacking users.
Tory Bruno, President and CEO of United Launch Alliance
Wes Bush, CEO of Northrop Grumman
Mary Lynne Dittmar, President and CEO of The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
Adm. Jim Ellis, member of the Space Foundation Board of Directors
Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation
Dennis Muilenberg, CEO of the Boeing Company
Faith Ozmen, CEO of the Sierra Nevada Corporation
Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX
Bob Smith, CEO of Blue Origin
David Thompson, Founder and CEO of Orbital ATK
Eric Stallmer, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Mandy Vaughn, President of VOX Launch Company

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

35 responses to “National Space Council Users Advisory Group Has Few Users”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Looks like a good group, but I disappointed not to see anyone from Bigelow Aerospace. But still the best evidence yet the world is changing with all the New Spacers on it. There is real hope that space development will be moving beyond the NASA monopoly. The Congress Critters that want SLS, Orion, and the new pork project DSG/LOP should be worried.

    • JadedObs says:
      0
      0

      Again referencing Mark Uhran: The “build it and they will come” approach has not succeeded.” Space development beyond Earth orbit will, for the foreseeable be by and for governments whether they build it “commercially” like the commercial crew spacecraft or more traditionally. “New Spacers” only escape the “NASA Monopoly” when there is a real commercial market which there isn’t.

  2. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    So only two people (maybe) who are not CEOs, Astronauts, politicians, or others of noteworthy title.
    Where are the people who work in the trenches of the space program? Where are the front line scientists who work in the space program every day? In other words, the people who see, from the ground up all the good and bad decisions and results of our day-to-day efforts. Which is more difficult or more efficient, to be able to see and understand the necessities of the future from a golden mountain top or from the gutters of the streets?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      “Where are the people who work in the trenches of the space program?”

      Presumably in the trenched. This isn’t an unusual management problem. There are too many people working at the nuts-and-bolts level to include all of them, or even all of them with strong opinions (many but far from all consider policy “above their pay grade.”) How would you pick a dozen out of thousands to be on the Users’ Advisory Group? Lottery?

      They current practice seems picking people who have become senior or highly placed. That isn’t a great system either, because they may or may not have any knowledge of, or non-obsolete experience with, the concerns of the people doing the actual work. As I said, this isn’t a new problem. How many trade union leaders are really, personally and currently in touch with the concerns of people on the factory floor?

      • Donald Barker says:
        0
        0

        How about at least one person from the trenches level, instead of none? Many times the higher you get the less connected you are with the realities at hand. And just because this is not a new problem does not mean we “should” consider it a modus operandi and not fix it. Oh and yes, I did apply for one of those openings.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          When I said this wasn’t a new problem, I meant people have been thinking about it and failing to find a good solution for a long time. How would you do it? How would you pick that one person (or even two or three) out of thousands? If that person acts responsibly, he’d end up spending lots of time talking with his coworkers, to make sure he knows their concerns and interests (as opposed to his own personal ones) and can really represent them. At that point, he’s working more as their representative and no longer really “from the trenches level.” (Trade unions have this problem.) So what’s your solution?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Actually the lack of any scientists on it is very encouraging as it shows that they see space as more than merely NASA and science. Instead they see space as an important part of the national economy and national defense.

  3. MarkUhran says:
    0
    0

    These are almost exclusively “sellers” of space services. This is supposed to be a “Users Advisory Group”– users are potential “buyers”. This is a fundamental distinction. The failure to recognize the difference between the supply side and demand side is troubling, and persistent in the civil space culture. There is far more space infrastructure available than ever previously in history, yet few non-government buyers (COMSATS are the notable exception). The “build it and they will come” approach has not succeeded.

    Good luck to Dave Wolf and Pete Worden in trying to bring any user (buyer) perspective to this group.

    • Henry Vanderbilt says:
      0
      0

      “The “build it and they will come” approach has not succeeded” – yet. And practically speaking can’t be expected to have, yet.

      Put another way, creating an expanded low-cost launch market by providing a new low-cost capability on spec – “build it and they will come” – inevitably will involve some years of lagtime from the capability convincingly coming on-line (arguably, only now, as SpaceX overcomes teething problems and gets their cadence up) to the new payloads being conceived, financed and built.

      This National Space Council’s priority task (and huge opportunity) as I see it is to manage the government’s adaptation to the new low-cost launch state of affairs in a way that both enhances growth of the new-markets commercial sector while maximizing the large potential increase in government space results from the more or less fixed amount of government space funding.

      Interesting times over the next five years, as “they” do come (as long as government policy isn’t so atrociously bad as to scare them all off.)

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Totally on target. All transportation, suppliers of a ride, not users. No demand, payloads, users of the service. Disturbing.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      The most encouraging thing of the hearing was the recommendations to streamline and centralize regulation and licensing. This will make it easier for users to emerge. There is a lot of potential for micro-gravity and lunar commerce, but not the NASA way. The challenge for firms like Bigelow Space Operations is to convince firms that there are now truly commercial opportunities in space.

      Comsats are the exception because many of the members of Congress that were there when NASA was created recognized NASA would be ill-suited to create and operate a telecommunications infrastructure so they created a public-private corporation, Comsat, to do it. NASA was simply limited to providing support for it.

  4. Michael Kaplan says:
    0
    0

    Spot on Keith. Users = consumers of space products and services. Who will buy data comunications and imagery? Who will buy or lease lab space? Other services? This isn’t “rocket science”…

  5. Doc H. Chen says:
    0
    0

    The utilization of reusable space development is in the baby stage for the users in the private, commercial, or government. The business market growth in user’s field such as space tour and the settlement is coming soon.

  6. Not Invented Here says:
    0
    0

    The original intent of UAG from NASA Authorization Act 1991 is this:

    ” (4) The function of the Users’ Advisory Group shall be to ensure that the
    interests of industries and other non-Federal entities involved in space
    activities, including in particular commercial entities, are adequately
    represented in the National Space Council.”

    So I don’t think the narrow interpretation of “User” as “Buyer” is correct, “User” here meant anyone who uses space in some fashion, doesn’t have to be a buyer of space services.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Perhaps, but the current Users’ Advisory Group does reflect an opinion on the subject. They were (in some way) selected as representatives of “entities involved in space activities.” The fact that they predominantly represent service providers rather than end users tells us something. Specifically what the people who selected them think of when they consider who the “entities involved in space activities” are.

      • Tim Blaxland says:
        0
        0

        That’s true, but concerns of the end-users should filter up through the service providers because the service providers ultimately need to satisfy their customers. That’s in principal…in practice the filtering mechanism has a tendency to block useful information.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I think you are confusing ‘end users’ with ‘customers’, no?

          Not a bad thing, in itself; but filtered through profit making (also a worthwhile effort), examples of customers not exactly benefiting are legion.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That’s being a bit charitable. The service providers ultimately need to make money for their shareholders. Satisfying their customers is just a means to that end. Historically, it isn’t even a necessary means. I’m not a tremendous fan of regulation. But I’d worry if, for example, the FAA only listened to the airlines and didn’t bother getting any input from the passengers.

  7. NArmstrong says:
    0
    0

    They ought to find some of the legit non-NASA payload developers and researchers who placed payloads on past programs and platforms and look into why so few of them have any interest in ISS.

    I think they’d find a direct correlation to lack of funding, lack of NASA support or interest, very difficult, tedious and never ending review process; inconsistent, changing, nonsensical requirements and processes….There were plenty of lessons learned and applied on prior programs in decades of research on Apollo, Skylab, Spacelab, Spacehab, Shuttle, Mir, and absolutely none were applied to ISS. Billions$$ of wasted knowledge.

    Look into how and why that happened and who created the problem. Many of the same problem people are still there; are still in charge.

    Trying to find a users group made up of a bunch of fake users, more nonsense, wasted time, money and effort. A $100 billion waste. Wonder why CASIS did not work? More fakesters who knew nothing about utilization. Why would you put non-scientists, little to no experience in science, research or user industries in charge of that sort of an organization? Who makes these nonsensical decisions? The house needs a cleaning and those people should be the first to go. Too bad NASA did not put any effort into fixing the problem 20 years ago. I doubt they can ever recapture the missed opportunity.

  8. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I have been repeatedly and roundly criticized here for asking a simple question: what exactly is the market for space assets? Leaving aside earth-facing devices like imagery and communications, what exactly will be for sale in space? What are the opportunities, exactly?

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      There is some market for keeping humans alive in orbit, which includes infrastructure, resupply, crew transp. There are secondary markets for satellite servicing/refueling. There may be a market for in-space propellant supply. There is a potential market for space-to-space power-beaming. There is an extant but supply-limited market for lunar samples. Anywhere NASA goes there is a potential market for resupply and infrastructure lease, assuming NASA allows the market to exist.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Thank you.

        “Some money…in orbit”. That’s about how I see it, too.

        If there is a market of any type (HSF or robotic), outside servicing NASA or Terra-facing satellites, it as yet to be named.

        Many posting here, including you, are scientists, engineers, technical or related space-active people, all with deep abilities. They possess a deep space-related portfolio. I do not.

        On the level of an interested citizen, I do follow space technology and space policy (while holding a day job). And when I look at human space efforts, I see all sorts of smart people bringing new tech to market, a list that starts with Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, et.al., but certainly does not end there; a new micro-sat launcher was announced just a few days ago.

        But space policy? Nothing is happening in HSF space policy that can match the audaciousness of New Space.

        There’s a lot written, but new ideas are difficult to find. Thinkers are largely busy defending notions of Mars-first or Luna-first; should we have a deep space presence, or not, and similar tired ideas like defending or ripping SLS.

        This simple fact explains much of our current aimlessness.

      • MarkUhran says:
        0
        0

        Assuming those markets are robust enough to support the existing, and growing, space services infrastructure, then those users (buyers) need to be more visible and active in this UAG. Personally, I see those markets as highly limited and quickly saturated, not to mention largely governmental (except of course for satellite servicing).

        • DP Huntsman says:
          0
          0

          Hey, Mark.

          Your basic point, of course, is well taken. But, seeing the markets Jim points out as highly limited, quickly saturated, largely governmental, misses a main argument, I think: No markets exist in space at all unless and until some government(s) lead the way/enable the way beforehand the vast majority of the time. Even the poster child, telecom, required government development of rockets and satellite technologies; not to mention a (relatively) favorable regulatory and competitive environment. (I say ‘relatively’ because creating and enabling monopolies in the ‘60s like COMSAT and INTELSAT ended up being a two-edged sword). And government leadership on telecom didn’t end in the ‘60s, as NASA’s leadership with the ACTS et al satellite decades later ended up jump-starting a new segment of that industry.

          Commercial resupply of LEO is currently de facto 100% governmental; tho even now, commercial companies have started riding on those coat-tails. But without that whole COTS/CRS/Commercial crew role, there would be absolutely zero chance of any commercial space stations in LEO happening in the next ten years – or, ever. And almost certainly, no chance of a later cis-lunar economy either. And that sort of lesson, of course, goes back much farther; one of the new NACA’s first ever policy suggestions, that the USG jump start the creation of regular air transportation in the US by creating/subsidizing air mail, was just one example where we can say, “…and the rest is history”.

          BTW, the one thing I’d add more explicitly to Jim’s list is ISRU/space resources in general (which he kinda touched on with propellant resupply). Contrary to the hype, the main use of resources in space would be to use them in space (not exporting resources to the ground, with the possible exception of solar); but, the products/services of using resources in space, can then actually lead to new products, services, and industries on Earth.

          What matters is not that government will, the vast majority of the time, have to not only jump-start whole new markets; they often (most of the time?) will actually be those markets for awhile. But without that, a whole lot of good stuff I think we all support won’t come afterwards.

          Dave Huntsman

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        space art, reality tv, zero G manufacturing, product testing, horticulture products.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, G. Harry Stine’s “The Third Industrial Revolution” outlines the potential that will exist when entrepreneurs have easy access to space.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        You left out resource mining. Both that and in-space power generation needed this next generation of lift capacity and pricing to be workable.
        The human component is huge as people need resupply and robots don’t. “Space Tourism” (I put it in quotes because it could include researchers), and the long-term space habs that they need have been waiting for CCDev. However, that part will die very quickly if limited to Earth orbit.
        Michael is right (and yes, I’m one of the people who has been abusing him here…sorry Michael ;-), there is still no “unobtainium”.

        Bigelow should be on the list of attendees.
        NOAA (and other research organizations) should be on the list of attendees.
        The USGS should also. And the FAA. And the military.

        I know I’ve just stuck my head in the lion’s mouth with some of those suggestions. Give me a minute to don my safety glasses before you start throwing pencils at me. 😉

  9. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    “oh ye of little faith”

    I have absolutely no idea what will be invented in space that creates the first super product. But I do have faith one will come. As more minds are in space and thinking about space someone will have their Archimedes moment and shout “Eureka”.

    It will be something unique and rare because only a few can be created with limited manufacturing facilities in orbit. The profits will be staggering and capital will come flooding in like a freight train as speculation sets in. Manufacturing will increase to the point of over production, price slashes and bankruptcies and new innovations just to stay alive… and then .. equilibrium for the masses.

    We have seen this passion play before .. over and over again in our economy and we are the tipping point of seeing it happen in space.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Space Super Food!

      How much would a salad cost that was grown in LEO and flown down? Well only the rich could tell you …

      Can this kind of marketing work for space products like it does on the ground?

      Can some perceived “toy” for the rich be created utilizing zero G manufacturing like “the brick” and successfully marketed?

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        It’s been tried. A brewery flew some yeast to orbit, for some nominally-scientific, biological experiment, returned the stuff, and used it to produce a strain they use to brew a “space” beer. How effective is this as marketing? Well, I don’t remember the name of the brewery or the brand, so which may say something.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Wasn’t done under the idea that it was going to be sold immediately .. and it was not a “space” product made in space and shipped down to the rare customer.. it was more like tang or astronaut icecream .. I am referring to more of an actual product that can only come FROM space. through a zero G process ect..

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          If the grains had been grown in space, brewed and bottled in space and then shipped down.. I would call it a space beer..

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      If the profits are there it won’t be limited manufacturing facilities. That is a legacy of NASA type thinking that space must always be expensive and difficult to reach.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Over next two to three years some of those legacy ideas are finally going to the dust bin… Once capital it just a bit free of the Congressional/NASA harness movement of capital will maybe start resembling the movement on the ground…

  10. John Campbell says:
    0
    0

    I’m used to seeing this in the IT world; A test phase usually called UAT really seems to mean “User Avoided Testing”.

    (chuckles)

    I once named three test systems– function test, system test and user test servers– as “flog, flail and flaunt”. It’s great to “own” the DNS subdomain.