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

Bolden: "Private enterprise talks while NASA acts"

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 12, 2014
Filed under ,

Just Asking: Charles Bolden, NASA administrator
Space exploration is becoming more of a private enterprise. Is that a good thing?
“I don’t think space exploration is becoming more of a private enterprise. That’s where we want it to go, but today there hasn’t been a private enterprise go to Mars or go to the moon. Private enterprise talks while NASA acts. And that’s not meant to sound like an arrogant statement, but we’re trying to help people realize dreams, and we’re trying to help private enterprise and entrepreneurs realize their dreams of doing the stuff that up until now only nations have done. The problem that private enterprise finds is that it’s hard.”
Keith’s note: Huh? What happened to everything Bolden has said prior to this about the value of the private sector? Do we now ignore all of the pro-private sector speeches and reports from NASA? “Private enterprise talks while NASA acts”? Really? Does NASA have a way to send cargo to the ISS without use of a commercial vendor? Who is closer to sending crews into space? Certainly not NASA. Seems to me that the private sector is way out ahead of NASA – at a cost that is a fraction of what it would have cost NASA to do the exact same thing.
Keith’s update: On the heels of these anti-private sector remarks NASA has released a video wherein Charlie Bolden sings the praises of the private sector. Go figure. NASA wants it both ways, it would seem.

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

36 responses to “Bolden: "Private enterprise talks while NASA acts"”

  1. Andrew French says:
    0
    0

    This shows once again that he doesn’t understand or support commercial space “we’re trying to help private enterprise and entrepreneurs realize their dreams”? Really – how about we’re trying to reduce the costs of space exploration and expand the U.S. economic base?

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Bolden must be looking to the day when his current position is up for grabs. But would either SpaceX or ULA want this ex-shuttle commander as an employee?

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        It would be more for his political connections than anything else and, if the White House changes party at the next presidential cycle, those might not be worth much.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      No kidding. NASA keeps plodding along building the biggest, most expensive launch vehicle ever. How many years and how many billions have been spent on SLS (previously Ares V) to produce how many launches to date? I know Bolden wants to keep the politicians happy, but how long can the US keep throwing good money after bad? How many GAO reports have to point out funny business in SLS accounting which only serve to predict future cost increases?

      NASA has become so politically entrenched that it can’t even attempt to pursue sane programs that have a chance of producing actual results. The way things are going, we might get SLS to fly, but will still have zero money for payloads, because we’re getting the “lite” version first. Even more money will need to be spent to actually build an upper stage capable of a reasonably sized beyond LEO exploration mission.

  2. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    What is a private enterprise, that is the question?

    ULA with Boeing, LM have substantial government funding, and sell the occasional launch service to a ‘commercial’ satellite company, although the numbers have been declining. SpaceX is using significant government funding to provide a launch service that likely still requires government payloads, although launch costs are expected to be significantly lower once ‘certified’. Then there is SLS, a HLV with no known commercial market, being developed by the ‘commercial’ sector.

    IOW: what percent of the make/buy decision and/or what percent of sales define ‘commercial’?

    Technology transfer guarantees that industry stay even and then proceed way ahead of the government as it moves into other areas. For better or for worse, the politicians have elected to outsource 80% of the government functions. On the worse side, because of the way funds are allocated, NASA has a substantial number of technologies sitting on the sidelines while Congress has its ‘vendors’ build a LV to nowhere. While many other examples could be cited, Falcon cores are not yet certified, nor is *cough* commercial crew (not getting enough government funds!), nor is a domestic RD180–available on the commercial market (huh?). IOW: Congress has tough time moving forward and out of areas for many political considerations.

    “at a fraction of the cost of NASA”. Unfortunately, the folks in charge of NASA have not allowed “NASA and its broad community” to take on its number one challenge: Economic Access to Space. Once again, NASA takes the blame for ‘contracting out’ shuttle derived hardware that must launch 70 to 130mT to provide a sole source $100B program for decades–is this not relying on “private enterprise” Can private enterprise be faulted for maximizing their profit? profit off of the of the taxpayer? Go Figure.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      The question, what is commercial, in elevator minute terms, is defined by NASA at-http://www.nasa.gov/offi…

      I do wonder why this confuses so many, Bolden not getting it, and so many others as well. There is additional definition, yet if the kinder level is being missed, what hope is there for the more sophisticated financial and business distinctions?

    • Access to Space says:
      0
      0

      “SpaceX is using significant government funding” Please define your use of the term “significant”.

      I think you’ll find the pittance of support funding to the 3 development efforts (SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, and Sierra Nevada) to be miniscule compared to what the DOD paid ULA (Boeing/LM back then)(and continues to pay them to keep their marching army going).

  3. NX_0 says:
    0
    0

    Is this quote from “The Onion”?

  4. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    I hear him talkin’ but he don’t come in 😛

    Pure doubletalk

  5. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    Bolden has a point. How about all these suborbital research payloads that private enterprise was supposed to be flying on reusable rockets for years now and that NASA tried to support ?
    How about all these Google sponsored lunar rovers ? Yutu is still pretty lonely up there

  6. Red October says:
    0
    0

    didn’t nasa have its funding stripped a while back, only having it returned in order to compete with other countries that have made tremendous progress. It seems like nothing more than an ego boost. I wouldn’t worry about it, they’ll get left for dust soon enough, and do I care who’s the best/first/biggest/baddest. Not really, I just like the knowledge, and I don’t really trust nasa with that anyways.

  7. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    Commercial entities follow a market. The only markets in space are NASA, military, communications and weather forecasting. There is a small commercial market launching cubesats.

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      Andrew, with all respect, you need to do a wee bit of research, and you will realize how mistaken you seem to be regarding the size of the commercial space market, and number of satellites owned and operated by commercial entities, who also “commercially” payed for launch services.

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        Excluding obvious DoD and NASA/CRS flights I counted 10 US launches this year. Less than 1 a month is not a lot.
        http://forum.nasaspacefligh

        • Tritium3H says:
          0
          0

          Andrew, if I read your reply correctly, and the Nasaspaceflight you linked…it only counts US launches, on US rockets, in the year 2013, exclusively. Do you realize how many commercial satellites are orbited by non-US launch systems?? I will give you a hint — it is WAY more than what is launched by US launch services.

          In any event, your link indirectly proves the sad state of affairs, and the crux of the problem, which for some reason you appear to deny or ignore –> i.e., the expensive, noncompetitive launch costs for ULA launch systems. That is why commercial customers have and continue to turn to Russia (R-7/Soyuz, Proton, Rokot/Briz-KM, Zenit, Dnepr), China (CZ – Long March), ESA (Ariane 5), India (PSLV) and Japan (H-2).

          Here is a list of space launches from 2010 thru 2013, and I have limited the lists to the Top 5 or 6 launch systems.

          I will leave it to you to discover just how many of those launches involved commercial (non-military) satellites payed by commercial (non-government) customers. I will give you another hint. It is a huge percentage:

          2010:
          =============================
          Vehicle / Overall Launches (Failures)
          ============================
          CZ 15(0)

          R-7 13(0)

          Proton 12(1)

          Ariane 5 6(0)

          Atlas 5 4(0)

          2011:
          ==========================
          Vehicle / Overall Launches (Failures)
          ============================

          CZ 19(1)

          R-7 19(2)

          Proton 9(1)

          Ariane 5 5(0)

          Atlas 5 5(0)

          Zenit 5(0)

          2012:
          ============================
          Vehicle / Overall Launches (Failures)
          ============================
          CZ 19(0)

          R-7 14(0)

          Proton 11(2)

          Ariane 5 7(0)

          Atlas 5 6(0)

          2013:
          ===========================
          Vehicle / Overall Launches (Failures)
          ============================
          R-7 15(0)

          CZ 14(1)

          Proton 10(1)

          Atlas 5 8(0)

          Ariane 5 4(0)

          Rokot/Briz KM 4(0)

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Reading your list I will change ‘small’ to ‘tiny’, but expensive.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      Yea, that $300 billion dollar a year communications market. NASA is about 1/18th the size in market reach.

  8. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Bolden is clearly referring to “exploration” flights to the moon and Mars, not to launching comsats into GEO or ISS logistics. He’s right. Entrepreneurs have talked up lunar and Mars flights but nothing has gelled, because there is no commercial market at the prices currently charged. Bolden is a strong supporter of commercial spaceflight as several recent Congressional hearings have demonstrated.

  9. ASFalcon13 says:
    0
    0

    Perhaps the word in operation here is “exploration”, in which case he’s right. For the most part, the private companies aren’t trying to engage in any sort of exploration. That’s not to say that the commercial stuff isn’t important, but Cygnus or Dragon dropping off supplies at the ISS isn’t “exploration” any more than the UPS guy dropping a package on my doorstep. Isn’t that the point though, routine access to space? If it’s routine, it isn’t exploration.

    The few entities that have been pursuing commercial exploration have been underwhelming at best so far. Dennis Tito’s Inspiration Mars turned out to be a big SLS bait-and-switch. But hey, who knows? Mars One’s reality TV show (which will likely resemble those NASA TV ISS reports that darn near nobody in the world appears to be clamoring for) might just pull in the Super-Bowl-level ad dollars they’ll need to actually operate a series of crewed Mars missions.

    As far as *exploration* goes, Bolden’s right. Right now, we’ve heard talk from the likes of Mars One and Inspiration Mars, but none are bending metal. Meanwhile, even without an indigenous capability to launch crew, NASA has a fleet of robotic explorers exploring the solar system and peering into the depths of the universe. That being said, I can’t say that I blame the commercial folks. Telecommunications, Earth sensing, and cargo delivery aren’t sexy, but those are the space applications that bring in the money, and money is what ultimately drives business. The sort of exploration being performed by NASA is still currently better performed by government organizations, who are able to pursue raw science goals in lieu of sales targets and profit margins.

  10. Bernardo de la Paz says:
    0
    0

    Mr. Kowing, I certainly concur with your cynicism about the “NASA acts” part of his statement given that current NASA policies and direction are closer to inaction than ever before.

    However, Bolden does make a valid point in that other than a partially subsidized comsat industry, there is essentially still no commercial space flight industry in existence, especially in the human space flight field. The so called ISS cargo and crew contracts are exactly that – government contract missions. They are no more commercial endeavors than any other government contract, just different forms of contracting than have been recent common practice. Nor does the minority investment of private capital in the development of these systems constitute a commercial enterprise given that said investors fully expect to make back their investment plus profit on the business of their sole public sector customer. There isn’t even anything novel in that approach – private capitol has been invested up front in the hopes of financial return from winning government contracts for decades, if not centuries.

    As I’ve stated before on this forum, as a taxpayer, my opinion is that NASA’s (originally N.A.C.A.’s) reason for being created and principal justification for continuation is precisely to foster development of commercial enterprises and I think it is fantastic that concept is finally gaining some traction in the space flight arena despite the fact that almost all players still have naive and ineffective notions of what that really means and how to execute it.

    As I’ve also said here before, look to the history of N.A.C.A.’s role in successfully fostering development of the commercial aviation industry to understand what NASA’s goals, policies, and roles must be in order to bootstrap a commercially viable space industry into existence. Monetary subsidy either by direct expenditure or by contracts for provision of services to the government are not an effective or efficient means to this end and to the extent they may play a role, they are not the type of incentive for which N.A.C.A. / NASA was intended and organized to provide. Undeniably military investment in the aviation sector played a major role in the development of commercial aviation in part through the financial investment of government contracts, but that was purely a secondary effect to the military’s need to fight wars. The N.A.C.A. provided essentially nothing in the way of monetary subsidies or contracts, but instead directly and impartially provided technology and assistance with research and development without which the commercial aviation industry as we know it would not and could not exist. From it’s founding 99 years ago up to the present day, N.A.C.A. / NASA has played a pivotal role by investing in technology advancement that private sector capital cannot justify investing in, yet which is an essential element to creation of a commercially viable aviation industry.

    It is exactly this role of a technology developer and provider that NASA should and must take on in the space sector as well in order to foster development of a commercially successful spaceflight industry. Attempting to do so through provision of monetary subsidy either by government funding for development contracts of by promise of contracts for provision of services to the government is like trying to raise a child on a diet of candy and ice cream when meat and vegetables are what is required. Sure, it may be more expedient and pleasing to the child in the moment, but such a diet will utterly fail to raise a healthy adult. This is the reason that the space flight sector has failed to replicate the success of the commercial aviation sector after half a century of effort and colossal expenditure. Present NASA space flight contracts, however necessary they may or may not be to immediate NASA operational goals, have no hope of resulting in a space flight industry that can stand on its own without principal and permanent reliance on government funding and should not be mistaken for development of commercial space flight no matter how much that language is bandied about by politicians and their entourages.

    Furthermore, what current NASA space flight technology development efforts that do exist are largely misdirected and ineffective due to being focused on the problems that are multiple generations down the road at the expense of addressing the problems of today. It is nonsensical to prioritize development of technologies for human deep space exploration when nobody has yet to even figure out how to get into Earth orbit at sustainable costs (let alone at any cost for the moment) and when the best efforts at doing so to date were no more (and arguably less) affordable than the first human space flight efforts 50 years ago. It’s pretty sad that half a century of effort sees NASA struggling to recreate the capabilities of Mercury and Gemini, let alone to progress at all towards making space flight more routinely accessible. When even the most optimistic projections hope to achieve no better of a space access capability than first generation systems with a handful of flights per year of systems that cost tens of millions of dollars per seat to operate, that can be considered nothing but a failure so bad that mere refinement is meaningless. The problem is a wholesale deficit of technology, as was well recognized at the end of the Apollo era. Just because the shuttle failed to achieve its purpose of addressing the need for sustainable basic access to space does not excuse walking away from that goal to go play with some other shiny toy. Focusing current NASA development activity on human deep space exploration when they can’y even do basic LEO space flight properly is analogous to setting N.A.C.A. to work on developing satcom based internet access for passengers of jumbo jets the day after the Wright brothers flew 800 feet at Kittyhawk.

    Given the history of his administration, I see no reason for giving Bolden credit for understanding these issues, but I must defend his statement for being at least partially correct, not withstanding accidentally so.

  11. Victor G. D. de Moraes says:
    0
    0

    Keith … you censored my comment?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Huh? What are you talking about?

      • Victor G. D. de Moraes says:
        0
        0

        I said that Bolden was not unhappy. Who really banking space exploration is NASA. With very few exceptions (see SpaceX and Orbital) the majority speaks more than it does. Some say take a trip to Mars for no return. Other leading to Mars and bring back, but without stepping on Mars. Others say they will mine asteroids, but so far only made ​​ad. Much prose. NASA did not really do what we can, leaving commercial companies that can do at a lower cost. But remember. Who developed the technologies, NASA was, and now, after all, it’s easy to make a low cost rocket. But what to go to Mars? Only NASA can. The rest is illusion. Bolden was misunderstood. I believe he meant that yes, NASA is that whoever is in front. It is fact.

    • Enceladus says:
      0
      0

      Get used to it Victor. Cowing is well known as a coward.

      • Bernardo de la Paz says:
        0
        0

        I have often disagreed with and argued with Mr. Cowing on this forum, but I take very serious exception to your statement. Sometimes I think he is right and sometimes wrong and in my personal opinion he can sometimes become more ‘enthusiastic’ in his debating techniques than I might myself prefer, but in the years I have followed his blog, I can’t imagine any justification for calling him a coward. Perhaps occasionally dancing on the line between courageous and obstinate, but never cowardly. Agree or disagree with his points, all of us who participate in this blog should be grateful for his service and refrain from unjustified slurs like that.

  12. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    So the guy is protecting his own turf and got a little touchy. So? What CEO would not stand up for his team and his people? God knows NASA has been punched about over the past decade. I can’t imagine what the morale is like at the various centers.

    He’s in a tough spot: every administrator walks a tightrope. Some more deftly that others ( You listening, Mike?). This is what makes politicians seem so slimy, I suppose.

    And let’s not forget the other parts of NASA (admittedly, what’s left): planetary science, Hubble, etc. All of those programs are world-leading. Private enterprise has no interest in them.

  13. NASA QA Guy says:
    0
    0

    The man should just not speak to the public. In fact, he should just sit in his office and wait to be relieved when the next administration comes into office. He is an embarassment…

  14. Enceladus says:
    0
    0

    Notice the bias in the photos……….Ares mistake vs. Space-X perfection……I know for sure that a picture of the Falcon 9 engine explosion would not have been used.

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      The Ares 1-X lower stage actually flew. It is the upper stage that was missing.

      Thinking about it could the Ares 1-X be put into production as the first stage of a cargo launcher?

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        No it never even made it to close to orbit. SS1 got closer. It was a failure plain and simple and a rather obvious attempt to demonstrate progress – which it didn’t.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          There are two rockets here the Ares 1 and the Ares 1-X. The Ares 1 never flew. The Ares 1-X was a solid first stage and a dummy upper stage. As shown in the photograph above the Ares 1-X first stage flew successfully,
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

          The Ares 1-X first stage was a concept demonstration cobbled together from existing components but it could still act as a first stage of a cargo launcher. The Antares needs is a cargo launcher that needs a new first stage made in the USA.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

  15. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    History repeats. Keep things in perspective. A Ma’Bell ‘system’ stifles competition then Ma’Bell says all the so called competitors are not producing.

  16. Bernardo de la Paz says:
    0
    0

    I agree – kudos and admiration to SpaceX for leveraging their government contract business into such of a commercial launch market as there is at present and shame on the EELV guys for giving up on it when that was half the reason for their development in the first place.
    However, your comment points out exactly the problem – the current and prospective comsat launch market is too small to provide the earnings potential necessary to sustain a commercial space industry. None of the existing players – not SpaceX, not ULA, not Ariane, not ILS, & so on could have attracted the capital necessary to develop their systems on the basis of comsat launch profits. They are able to address that market only by using systems developed at government expense for other purposes to chase the residual profit potential of the comsat industry. Even just follow on systems like Ariane 6 and Angara are requiring funding predominately from the European and Russian governments. On top of that, a large portion of the contemporary comsat industry is itself actually propped up by government investment. Under such circumstances, the space flight industry will continue to exist only as long as the politicians are willing to continue spending the voter’s tax dollars on it.
    Kudos to SpaceX also for striving to achieve cost break throughs and I personally agree that booster reusability looks like a prime candidate for doing so. However, SpaceX has yet to demonstrate even successful recovery of a first stage, let alone refurbishment, reuse, and most importantly a break through in costs by doing so. But even if they are ultimately as successful in reducing costs as they hope to be, the costs that they are projecting are still not a sufficient revolution to enable the industry to grow to a size that is self sustainable on a commercial basis, hence the technology deficit that I spoke of previously and which is why it cannot be said that commercial space flight is alive and well. At present, and for the foreseeable future if the current course is maintained, space flight remains dependent on government subsidies, which places it at the mercy of the whims of politicians. I see no fundamental transformation, just some new faces playing the same old games.

    On a historical note, you are incorrect that NASA failed to ever successfully demonstrate launch vehicle recovery. On the contrary, they are the only organization that has ever (so far) demonstrated recovery, let alone successful reuse of launch vehicles. Obviously you overlooked the shuttle, which was a more reusable system than even SpaceX is proposing to achieve. However, I think we are all agreed that shuttle reusability failed to demonstrate the hoped for costs savings and certainly not the sort of revolutionary cost savings which would enable a commercially sustainable industry, which is why I stated before that shuttle ultimately failed to achieve its primary goal. To repeat myself though, that is precisely why NASA needs to try again until they succeed, and they deserve nothing but shame and scorn for failing to do so. Given present circumstances, development of technologies for cost effective launch vehicle reusability should be NASA’s number one priority above all else. Their complete failure to even address the subject outrages me as a taxpayer, as it should everyone. This is why I said that Bolden’s statement was only partially correct – while the corporate industry players do not appear themselves to be capable of making the kinds of technology investments necessary, at least folks like SpaceX are doing what they can to try and congratulations to them. As for NASA though, this is exactly their job and courtesy of the taxpayers they have the means to do it, but they are willfully abrogating their responsibility so shame on them.

  17. Richard H. Shores says:
    0
    0

    Bolden no longer has Lori Garver to clean up his mistakes.

  18. NX_0 says:
    0
    0

    Today (5/15) is two weeks since the last F9-R test and two weeks until Dragon Mk-II is unveiled. With Orbcomm launch on hold, I wonder if we will hear from Space-X today?