The Next Economic Revolution Just (re)Launched: Congratulate SpaceX, Thank NASA, OpEd, Greg Autry, Forbes
“Our global competitors in Russia, China and even Europe remain wedded to an antiquated socialist vision of space development. Their space “programs” are run by state-owned enterprises and quasi-governmental national champions. While they flirt with very small commercial endeavors and rebrand their government bureaucracies as “companies”, the political leaders of these nations are very unlikely to truly let go of a strategic national industry with military implications. The current trend already suggest that it is time to put a fork in China’s Great Wall Industry Corp, Russia’s TsSKB Progress and Europe’s Arianespace. In 2011, the U.S. had surrendered the entire mid-sized commercial space launch business to subsidized global competition. Just four years later, SpaceX had recaptured half of that market. SpaceX’s success has motivated ULA to aggressively pursue commercial launches as well. Reuse and new competitors will restore 80% or more of this business to America over the next few years.”
Defects Found in Almost Every Russian Proton Rocket Engine, Moscow Times
“An investigation into quality control issues in the Russian space industry has discovered that nearly every engine currently stockpiled for use in Proton rockets is defective, the RIA Novosti news agency reported March 30, citing Igor Arbuzov, head of state rocket engine manufacturer Energomash. … But over the past decade, Proton’s reliability and that of the Russian space industry as a whole has been thrown into sharp question amid a series of spectacular launch failures. The problem goes beyond engines, pointing to a general quality control crisis across multiple factories and rocket designs.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

20 replies on “A Resurgent American Commercial Launch Industry”

  2. I’d point out, lest some crow about the power of free enterprise, that NASA’s stumbles mightily aided SpaceX: our great space agency remains mired in a laughingly expensive super rocket rather than taking the more pragmatic approach favored by Mr. Musk. And the entire decision to empower ULA, while not often discussed herein, contributed equally.

    NASA had and still has the capability to do exactly what Mr. Musk has done.

    1. NASA surely can do what SpaceX has done, but at what cost? NASA cost models predicted commercial cargo and commercial crew to cost about an order of magnitude more if run as a traditional NASA program. And NASA would surely have not pursued making Falcon 9’s first stage reusable (SLS technology is still largely Apollo and space shuttle era technologies with reuse completely abandoned).

      The point is that today, NASA should be buying launch services, not designing, building, and launching their own vehicles. In my mind this applies to both launch vehicles, space taxis (Dragon V2 and Starliner), and a host of other components and modules that industry already knows how to build.

      NASA needs to go back to its roots and work on new technologies that help US industry make their products better. It’s what NACA did for aviation and should be what NASA does for space travel.

      NACA didn’t operate its own US Airline, so why should NASA be operating its own launch vehicle and manned space capsule? The US aerospace industry is perfectly capable of providing these services to NASA.

      1. I agree. NASA should work on the hard R&D for US aerospace manufacturers. Like their research in quiet supersonic aircraft, I’m sure there are many other areas of mutual interest. Having NASA act a bit more like DARPA would be great.

    2. Sir. How so?

      Mr Musk vertically integrates to control costs and speed development with most of build happening at Hawthorne (SpaceX’s HQ, mission control, and vehicle factory are all under one roof) with a little testing at McGregor.

      To do the same at NASA would require closing, moving and amalgamating JSC, the Michoud Assembly Facility and a slice of NASA HQ under one tent. If this impossibility were ever undertaken, then NASA’s value as multi-state employer would shrink along with its appropriations vote – and there’s the catch.

      NASA does not have, nor does it want, the capability to do exactly what Mr. Musk does….or at least not the same way he does it.

      What am I missing MS?

      2. My point was admittedly broad, but remains true: NASA is populated by engineers and scientists every bit as smart as those living in sunny California (the quality of the NASA work force being a fact taken on faith, not being familiar with more than a few genuine rocket scientists).

        A plainer version is this: it’s not brainpower that’s missing at NASA. It’s leadership. Leadership responsible for hugely expensive sunk costs, many of which you list, and to which I’d add as an example the world’s largest stir welder? Seriously? To build one rocket a year? Sure, it’s cool, but why?

        Leadership that has, as I’ve noted else where, created a mindset that has simply stated that space is expensive; it’s really really expensive; and if you turn off the tap, well, progress stops. Because, you know, space is expensive.

        Leadership that justifies costs in the hundreds of millions simply to store a delayed spacecraft. Because, as you know, space is expensive. Really expensive.

        So stunningly expensive that $40 Billion+ buys you part way into a new rocket based on tech from decades ago and that depends on engines we aren’t building.

        Leadership that has allowed ULA to bamboozle the military – ordinarily not a foolish bunch – and NASA as well. Because – well, because space is expensive. Really really expensive.

        And yes, I know, that SLS, LLC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Senate, a fact I don’t dispute nor do I think it’s inappropriate. Doesn’t matter. Because at this point we need some sort of Truth and Reconciliation activity to take a look at what’s around us.

        Just like the nose on your face.

    3. NASA’s work has also aided SpaceX greatly, and Musk makes no claim otherwise.

      For example, the landing algorithm for the F9 first stage has direct connection to the ongoing work for landing vehicles on other planets.

      There is also direct transfer of knowledge from NASA to SpaceX in the best way: by moving the heads containing that knowledge. Lots of former NASA people at SpaceX.

    4. NASA has had the capability to do what Elon Musk has done since the 1960’s, but unlike Elon Musk it just has no incentive to do so.

      First, the low flight rate NASA requires for it’s missions never really justified reusable boosters.

      Second, the easy access to taxpayer money means NASA doesn’t really have to worry about reducing costs, it just needs to worry about developing the right viewgraphs to show Congress at budget time.

      Third, given the choice of a simple approach or a very complex one, NASA always selects the later. Look at X-33. Of the three options it picked the one that was the most complex and least likely to succeed as a result.

      Fourth, because of the nature of Washington DC, any money saved from increased efficiency would not go to more space exploration, but would just be cut from its budget, which of course provides a disincentive for strategies that reduce the cost of space exploration.

      So, yes, although NASA had the engineering capability to do it, just as old Ma Bell had the engineering capability to do mobile phones decades ago, it had zero economic incentive to do so.

      1. NASA is bound by a large number of federal rules which reduce its speed and efficiency and increase cost. SpaceX resisted the normal contract process because of this and I believe are performing their NASA work using a different method than typical for NASA contractors.

        1. Do you know that factually? That statement is the kind of thing one hears a lot these days. It’s sort of a catch-phrase: “let’s throw off the shackles!”

          And maybe in the case of any governmental agencies there are moribund rules- appropriately or not. But to claim that there are “regulations” keeping us from great things is just shallow thinking, in my view.

  3. “…….an antiquated socialist vision of space “. Lost me right there.: NASA ~$18 billion PA (including SpaceX support).. DoD north of that (including ULA support). ESA: $3.5 billion (including A5 support). I really hate that characterization: Space access is a strategic issue and as such is entirely ‘socialist’, if that means government enabled. Prior to NASA (A government entity) contracts getting SpaceX over the hump the US secured its access by throwing money at ULA, It still does… Government supporting monopolies is what exactly? YMMV.

    1. Socialism is when the government insists on doing something the private sector does cheaper and better. The SLS (Socialist Launch System) and Orion being built by NASA is a clear example of that antiquated socialist vision.

      1. The use of socialist as a pejorative speaks volumes about the user and little about the object, particularly in the context of space.

        1. Yes, it speaks about their knowledge of both subjects. Socialism is an economic philosophy where the economic efficiency of the market is replaced by government administrators focusing on social justice.

          In the case of the SLS it is a program NASA doesn’t need created for the purpose of ensuring jobs for the majority of those that were losing their jobs when the Constellation Program was eliminated.

          The result is a rocket that is not very efficient, maybe flying 3-4 times a decade, assuming NASA finds missions for it. For now the only missions on tap are a stunt flight with astronauts around the Moon and a mission to Europa. As NASA Watch has documented, NASA is desperately searching for other missions for it.

          In short it exactly meets the requirement to label it socialists since it is a government program putting social justice (preserving jobs) above market efficiency, market efficiency being simply to use the large rockets being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin when NASA needs a large launch vehicle. Rockets that will also serve the needs of commercial payloads for heavy lift.

          1. “Socialism is an economic philosophy where the economic efficiency of the market is replaced by government administrators focusing on social justice.”

            I wonder what Karl Marx would have said about that definition. Historically, there have been many socialists who disliked big governments as much as big corporations.

    2. I have often wondered why the republicans are socialists above the Karman line and funding the SLS…

      1. That’s my joke from 6 years ago. Obama believed capitalism worked above the atmosphere, and Republicans believe it worked within the atmosphere, but neither the twain should meet.

      2. Mainly the Republicans, one a former Democrat (Shelby), who have NASA centers or establishment space outfits as constituents. Pork still matters more than party in such locals.

  4. The commercial space industry in the USA is developing rapidly, so soon they can refuse from using old Soyuz rockets to fly into space.

Comments are closed.