Why Won't NASA Talk About the Latest Bigelow Agreement?
Suits in space? A North Las Vegas company is working with NASA to recruit executives for space missions, Vegas Inc.
“Just months after reaching a deal with NASA to build an inflatable space room, local entrepreneur Robert Bigelow is working with agency officials to find ways for business executives to take part in human space missions. His company, Bigelow Aerospace, signed a deal with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration last month to explore how the private sector can contribute to missions beyond the area known as “Low Earth Orbit,” about 1,200 miles above sea level. That could include missions to the moon, which is about 240,000 miles away, and Mars, which is at least 33.9 million miles from Earth.”
Keith’s note: So why won’t NASA openly admit that it has signed this Space Act Agreement? Where is the press release? I asked for a copy of ths SAA weeks ago and NASA never sent it to me – despite the fact that these agreements are supposed to be made public and are usually provided by NASA PAO upon request. Alas, I obtained it through other means. Baffling PR tactics at work.
– Full Text of the NASA/Bigelow Space Act Agreement, earlier post
– Is NASA Going to Buy a Moon Base From Bob Bigelow?, earlier post
I know that this might sound bizarre but… maybe they don’t want anyone knowing about it. Could they be trying to head off a confrontation with Commercial Space sceptics in Congress by trying to stop anyone from finding out about it?
That doesn’t sound bizarre to me. That sounds smart.
Ben:
I agree. Cat’s out of the bag now!
Oh well, maybe Congress won’t find out.
tinker
Could NASA’s reticence simply be a reflection of the fact that, realistically, many programs and projects are in a state of uncertainty given the sequestration, the divisions over debt management strategies, and the failure of Congress to bring out a budget in a reasonable period of time?
Publicizing any new program details and then having them change drastically in the short term would almost certainly be labeled as broken promises, even though the changes were bought about because of budget changes. It may simply be less painful for NASA to play a waiting game instead. But this is just a possibility pulled out of thin air; I have nothing to back it up.
Indeed, it seems to me that it would be more useful for NASA to wait to publicize it until after there is some sort of result to publicize.
NASA doesn’t want to publicly admit about any interest in returning to the moon but if questioned “off the record” I’d wager they’d prefer lunar missions to that stupid asteroid proposal.
Curious. Going to the Moon would either be a flags and footprints waste of time and money, or an exercise in learning how to use extraterrestrial resources. The asteroid mission would likewise be an exercise in learning how to use extraterrestrial resources. Yet you imply that one is good but call the other stupid. That seems like pure emotional bias to me, devoid of any logic, especially when you consider that the “stupid” one has far more follow-on potential. This seems like more short-term thinking to me.
We know that in the long-term U.S. companies are investing in mining asteroids. It makes sense for NASA to pave the way, as it should, for the private sector to swoop in once the risks have gone down. That was the strategy for LEO and I think that is the strategy for the asteroid capture. Also, although international law suggests that mining either the moon or an asteroid is illegal, whether by a government or private entity, it makes sense to test the international reaction with an asteroid before spending a lot more on the moon only to be deterred. We should only go back to the moon if we can be sure we can exploit its resources, because any base or outpost will have to do that in some way to survive.
Actually, I don’t think it’s ever been clearly agreed, based on the the two relevant treaties, that you can’t mine asteroids or the Moon, only that you can’t “claim” them or any part of them, thereby asserting either ownership or control over them. In theory, they belong to everyone, so anyone can mine them. The catch will be that what you “grab” you’ll have to defend, because there’s no law enforcement, lawyers or courts. Despite Hollywood, I don’t foresee a problem with this since it’s expensive enough to be out there without adding the cost, and losses, of corporate warfare.
One interesting question, though, if one “miner” should steal from or murder another (or commit any other crime), can they be charged? While still out there? Or only after returning to Earth? Hmmm…
I foresee the only major problem with mining being the fact that the current treaties make the nation in which a party resides legally liable for any damages, etc., as opposed to the company or individual at fault. I suspect the governments will want to change that situation pretty quickly.
A final note: not every nation on Earth has signed the space treaties. Most of the signers are small and/or poor countries who have no space capability at all but signed simply in an attempt to stay involved and thereby not let the big guys get control over everything for ever.
The Outer Space Treaty gives the US Government jurisdiction over people over people US companies send into space. US law may need changing to actually arrest them.
Exactly!
What sounds like a better way forward?
NASA and commercial space companies team up to return to the moon and use that as jumping off point to Mars and the rest of the solar system or the “one-trick pony” of grabbing an itty-bitty space rock and bring it to an orbit around the moon then use a vastly over powered (for the job) rocket to take a few astronauts there and bring back even smaller rocks.
Been to the moon before but not a rock circling the moon.
Would you publicise someone who says he’s looking for projects that the private sector can accomplish with a tenth the money NASA would need?
Correct answer lolol
Noah,
I’ll bet lots of them do reference NASA Watch, since it will inevitably provide them with both ammunition and armor in their battles with their own mistakes and each other. NW is unbiased, which makes it a somewhat unique resource in this field. And, of course, relevant breaking news shows up faster on NW, much faster than getting your info from NASA (the horse’s mouth seems to be closed much of the time).
I doubt that all of the related Reps and Senators read it themselves, but I’ll bet that everyone on the relevant committees has a staff member who checks NASA Watch every morning.
Steve