Not. Some very useful thoughts from Miles O’Brien.
It is a shame how atrociously this has been reported, with all of the nonsensical talk about “ending human spaceflight.” Of course, it’s partly the administration’s fault, by springing it at the last minute. As Miles notes, anyone with their head in the sunlight could see that Constellation (or at least Ares — killing Orion as well was a legitimate surprise) couldn’t survive in the current (or really, any) environment, but it still came as a shock, with an inadequate description of what is to replace it. I hope that this will be rectified in the coming weeks and months.
Ken,
Correction, that is DOD as customer for the Falcon 1.
Hi All,
Some hints on how NASA will approach human rating commercial crew systems…
http://www.onorbit.com/node/2004
[[[There is a debate going on about human rating spacecraft – making them safe enough for people to fly on. It is really a debate about safety and how much NASA will be involved in ensuring that commercial providers of space transportation services are safe. There has been a lot said about human rating space vehicles lately, much of it confusing. Read NASA’s requirements document for yourself at this location: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=2B
Even if you read it thoroughly you willnot understand what is really being said unless you understand the context and the NASA culture in which it resides. Just reading the document without understanding the organization will lead you to wildly erroneous conclusions. Let me try to put this document in perspective and plain language.
The first conclusion is obviously this document was written for a government run program in the style of Shuttle or Station. The underlying assumption is that the NASA Program Manager makes the decisions within the framework of the NASA management structure. So to apply this document to commercial human spaceflight will take a re-writing. In fact, a committee is already working on a new version which would apply to vehicles on which NASA might buy seats.]]]
and
[[[I can remember one shuttle issue with the agency tribology expert (that’s lubrication to most folks). The technical expert would not budge a millimeter (0.254 inch) in requiring servicing of a part almost inaccessible deep in the bowels of the orbiter. The agency technical experts have absolutely no incentive to back off on their standards. They are independent of the program. They are not concerned with cost or schedule, only with compliance. Compliance brings about safety, why would we want them to do anything less?
How will that fit with a lean, entrepreneurial commercial organization with a profit/loss bottom line? Heck if I know.]]]
Enjoy the brave new world of New Space contracting and NASA Human Rating Standards…
Yes, it is very profitable being a government contractor, and having DOD a customer for the Falcon 9 did allow SpaceX to make a profit quickly.
Just to set the record straight, they were profitable before they ever got involved with any government contract. They were profitable before they ever got the F1 to orbit.
We are talking about building healthy sustainable commercial markets
Yes and I assert that SpaceX is doing exactly that. Government launches will be the minority of their business and they don’t and never did need the government for their success. However, it would certainly be foolish not to pursue that business when it’s available. Especially since it let them develop Dragon on the fast track (it was already a quiet project from the very beginning.) They have bigger fish to fry than even the billions that the government sends their way. I do worry that the government may derail some plans, but I instinctively feel that Elon will not let that happen.
To the question of designing for a market. We are in the infancy of space access (“we’re from the govt. and we’re here to help… there goes an industry.”) The Wright brothers had historic firsts and sold aircraft to the govt. but you don’t see many of their planes anymore. Others came up with better stuff. That’s free enterprise. Perhaps it will happen to SpaceX, but I’d bet against it. Latent demand is pretty important stuff when you’re just starting out. It’s tangible these days when it was just pipe dreams in the past. Nobody really knows what the market is, but just being able to get people to orbit with the potential of transferring to other vehicles is a hell of a good start. Perhaps they’ll bring the Pan Am name back.
Government launches will be the minority of their business and they don’t and never did need the government for their success. However, it would certainly be foolish not to pursue that business when it’s available.
One problem with pursuing government business is that it can limit your ability to cut deals with other customers. Government contracts, as I understand them, can have a clause saying you can’t sell anything to others at a lower price than you sell to the government. This kind of anti-corruption measure is understandable, but can reduce flexibility.
Ken,
[[[Just to set the record straight, they were profitable before they ever got involved with any government contract. They were profitable before they ever got the F1 to orbit.]]]
You do know what the payload was on their very first launch attempt, don’t you? A satellite built by the USAF Academy. You know, the USAF Academy that is funded by government dollars. And a payload that was funded by the USAF and DARPA… Which would make it a government payload and a government contract…
Please do some research before making wild statements…
How much did they charge the Air Force Academy and DARPA for that launch attempt? Did they offer it as a ride of opportunity or did they levy a cost?
SpaceX did try to launch a military university research satellite, but their first successful launch was for ATSB.
The USAF would have been nuts not to fund Falcon 1. There are presently few available solutions in that payload category that can be easily transported and quickly launched like that. The best available were Pegasus and Taurus, but the cost is way, way higher. If there ever is a war in space, responsive launch will be important.
SpaceX would have developed Falcon 9 regardless of NASA COTS like people in here said. Their costs have increased, but they needed extra staff to build the vehicles for COTS at the desired rate. I doubt their launch schedule would have been like this without COTS: they would probably only launch one or two Falcon 9 per year in the beggining of the program, needing a lot less staff. NASA also does not allow SpaceX to reuse vehicles between flights.
Larry J,
Nope, I ddin’t see any price on it, but then they are private so you have to just look at what they say and read between the lines. But the idea they were not a government contractor from the start is just false.
Yes, Elon would have built Falcon 9 eventually without COTS, as the market for Falcon 1 is very limited, and Falcon 5’s market was so limited they dropped development on it. So Elon eventually needed the Falcon 9 for servicing the substantial comsat and Earth imaging sat market that makes up the bulk of private demand for launch vehicles.
The COTS subsidy helped him more forward more quickly and will help him in undercutting the price of his competitors since it covered most of his R&D costs.
Thomas, your analysis about NewSpace companies that call themselves “commercial” but are really just NASA contractors is spot on. Dragon was obviously developed with NASA in mind, since the ISS is the only HSF destination in LEO. DragonLab was obviously developed with NASA front and center since NASA funds over 90% of the microgravity research in the U.S. So it should be no surprise whatsoever that nearly all Dragon funding comes from NASA. This stuff is very thoroughly about government funding and government contracting, not at all about real commerce. I admire your patience in repeatedly pointing out to people who have bought the the euphemistic nonsense about a supposed “commercial sector” of NASA contractors — who in fact get between the vast majority and all of their revenue from NASA. (OSC also gets a big chunk from the DoD).
So you are spot on when you talk about NASA quite drastically distoring the market. I’m afraid this goes off the rails when you start talking about what you think commerce would be doing if it weren’t for NASA. Alas, stuff about Lunar Development Corp. and the like is old NASA contractor propaganda designed to get funding for a NASA lunar base. Combined with the out-there wishful thinking unique to the space business (but very intimately tied to NASA propaganda — wishful thinking is how NASA gets its political support). The real starting place to look at for the future of real space commerce is what real commerce is already doing, e.g. the comsats in GEO, GPS (a big biz on earth courtesy DoD in space), recon sats / Google Earth, etc. Real commerce will grow from what it is already doing, it won’t recapitulate NASA daydreams.
NASA HSF is an economic fantasy, and an economic fantasy cannot be privatized. It can only be shut down when people grow tired of subsidizing it.
Not wishing to abuse Mr. Hale, but I seem to recall a NASA Mars orbiter that had a similar Metric conversion error.
I suspect we would all agree that…
you are spot on when you talk about NASA quite drastically distorting the market.
Which seems to be confirmed by the manifest which has changed dramatically toward NASA flights from an original list which I’ve been following since they launched the website (sorry, no historical link) which had few if any NASA flights. I presume those customers have looked to others (probably Europe) although I can’t really say.
However…
Dragon was obviously developed with NASA in mind, since the ISS is the only HSF destination in LEO.
In 2005, when they had a prototype capsule on the factory floor, certainly the ISS was a possible destination, but putting humans in orbit was the goal. A requirement before going anyplace else… and elsewhere has always been the goal. Reality that a big bucks uncle is ready and willing to subvert that goal (with the addition of a docking collar and a few other small items) doesn’t change those original goals (backing up humanity, not being talked about today, but certainly one of if not the original goal.) Face it. Elon is a whacked out visionary who had the money to follow his goals. He’s also a smart and adaptable businessman. Perhaps he’s toned it down because the adults in the room would snicker, but his motivation has always been much greater than money.
Ken Anthony writes:
In 2005, when they had a prototype capsule on the factory floor, certainly the ISS was a possible destination, but putting humans in orbit was the goal. A requirement before going anyplace else… and elsewhere has always been the goal. Reality that a big bucks uncle is ready and willing to subvert that goal (with the addition of a docking collar and a few other small items) doesn’t change those original goals (backing up humanity, not being talked about today, but certainly one of if not the original goal.)
Okay, but can anything be done to assist Elon in staying focused on his original goals rather than get sidetracked by Uncle Sugar’s goals?
I say getting a non-NASA LEO destination up there sooner rather than later would be one possibility and perhaps we should advocate that Bolden and Garver tweak their new plan to better encourage non-NASA owned LEO facilities, sooner rather than later.
Okay, but can anything be done to assist Elon in staying focused on his original goals rather than get sidetracked by Uncle Sugar’s goals?
Sure. Give him more money than NASA does.
NASA HSF is an economic fantasy, and an economic fantasy cannot be privatized. It can only be shut down when people grow tired of subsidizing it.
Maybe, and maybe it ought to be shut down. But don’t you agree there’s a big difference between cost plus contractors and fixed price contractors with milestone payments and perhaps performance bonds? As a taxpayer I want my government to procure the services it needs with as much supply side competition as possible. Services it doesn’t need it should simply *not* procure at all, instead of doing it with civil servants or cost plus contractors.
Martin:
don’t you agree there’s a big difference between cost plus contractors and fixed price contractors with milestone payments and perhaps performance bonds?
There is a substantial difference. But it’s still extremely distant from a free market.
COTS has some major weaknesses, but there is an easy way to greatly reduce them in the future. Three of these weaknesses are:
(1) It tends to lead to monopsony: to a market dominated by NASA’s highly distorted view of space economics.
(2) It ties NASA’s hands to have a contractor that depends on ongoing NASA funding to maintain the service. NASA is much better off if it has the option of cutting orders or even discontinuing a service while retaining the option to resume it later, with other customers’ orders to keep the company and the service funded in the meantime.
(3) It incentivizes the contractor to focus on the easier NASA money and cut back on seeking and servicing other customers. So it stunts the very market development it seeks to enhance.
These problems can be corrected by the simple but powerful mechanism of adding a new milestone requirement to COTS. Like the investment milestone, it’s a business requirement. The new milestone requires that the service sign up other customers. It could, for example, restrict NASA to purchasing no more services than the total of other customers that have already contracted orders. This is analogous to grant-matching in charity, where big money follows the lead of small money. Except here this is an additional requirement to COTS, so it’s still the case as with COTS that this should be a service NASA needs to buy, it’s not just goosing the market solely for the sake of goosing the market. (I c all this BTW “Super-COTS” or SCOTS for short, but if you don’t like this feel free to make up another name).
How much would it cost to put a BA330 in orbit configured and stocked as a hotel? How many tourists could it hold at a time (each paying $50m for a week stay?)
Bigelow would sell you one for $100m. Double that to put it into orbit ($200m) Double that to provision the hotel ($400m) Let’s define success as covering that cost in two years with profit thereafter.
Let’s say 5 tourists at a time (saving the 6th and 7th seat on the Dragon for the hotel staff.) I’d put the price of the ride per tourist to and from at $10m leaving $40m per week.
Three weeks to profit? We are going to have a lot of hotels in orbit and the price is going to go way down quickly. Sure wish I had $400m.
> No, I cannot believe Lori Garver and Charles Bolden intend to “end human
> spaceflight” but John Holdren? Eh, I am less certain about that.
One thing I and others have noticed in conversations or online correspondence/postings with space advocates is a very intense desire to read into Obamas “outline” a very rosey future plan that will be developed later. Though this has never been the case with Obama in the past (even he says his biggest political strength is folks read into whatever he says, whatever they want to hear) so its very possible like the space advocate community Lori and Bolden want to beleave that after a decade or two of downtime under this plan, maned space flight under NASA will come back in some big expansionist way. Thats laughable given what’s outlined and the history of Obama, but I do see a lot of folks closing their eyes, clicking their heals together, and hoping it will lead them to the promised land – not the cliff that it outlines.
> Do you honestly expect a FAA employee to go on the Congressional record
> that its acceptable to have lower standards of safety for the public then NASA
> has for its astronauts, who are seen universally as risk takers? And do you
> expect them to have a job afterward if they do?
Good point Thomas, and your right – at the very least FAA and AST will be pressured to raise the standards even more “..for civilians who expect more government protection then NASA government employees, who we can assume are better informed of the risks – and better trained to handle them…”
Given we have a administration that loves the nanny-state and the ability to put emergencies and disasters to good use —- and who think space is a waste of time,but a PR necessity — its not going to be the hands off wild frounteer the New.space folks are hoping for.
> Rand
> …The fact that NASA has killed astronauts in the past while spending untold
> billions attempting to prevent it doesn’t mean that their standards should be
> used as a baseline, except perhaps on Bizarro World. It means they should be suspect…
We are talking about the land of Oz known as DC Rand. The “wise men of Washington” adn of NASA are assumed to be the best adn brightest (remember how the X-prize got the $5million insurance policy because the “experts” assumed no one could do it better or cheaper then NASA?) so the evidence that NASA with all its expertise couldn’t do better without billions – certainly means that pour incompetent commercial star ups, must be incapable of doing better without the helping hand and detailed guidance of NASA.
[Excuse me while I retch.]
Yeah its bizzaro — its also the world we live in. NASA is the publicly agreed masters and experts in space. No politician or FAA bureaucrat is going to argue that just to make life easy for a couple completely unimportant start up alt.space companies. They wouldn’t even question it what NASA was killing astronauts and dropping billion dollar orbiters all over the place in lots of little peaces, on national TV.
> Rand
> It’s also useful to point out, in fighting off NASA standards, that NASA
> hasn’t built a vehicle that has met them since Apollo, so it’s unreasonable
> to expect private industry to do so…
Thats not actually usefull Rand. NASA simply needs to claim they met their standards, or that since they were NASA they could get by with less.
>googaw Says:
>February 25th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
>>NASA is not the biggest customer. Bigelow (and adventure travel companies) will be.
> Tense confusion alert! Let’s get our facts straight about the present point
> in time and our sense of certainty appropriate for the future. In fact NASA
> *is* not only the biggest customer it is the only customer of Dragon and
> Blue Origin and DreamChaser. The Bigelow thing *may be* in the
> future — or more likely may not.
True and a long standing issue. Like back in the ’90’s when various big aero firms offered SSTOs and RLVs to the market — the silence was deafening, except for NASA who offered a billion to L/M to be a good boy and drop the idea.
Not exactly a overwhelming market demand.
>Mark R. Whittington Says:
> February 26th, 2010 at 8:40 am
> It’s a charming thought to think that the only thing needed to sell this
> train wreck is more and better spin. But as our President once said,
> putting lipstick on a pig does not make it no longer a pig.
true, very true, but Obama utterly disagrees with it. When folkks disagree with him, they are just to stupid to understand how great his ideas is so heneeds to explain it more – not rethink.
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> My advice would be for the administration to enter into negotiations with
> Congress to come up with a budget that will be acceptable for all. And
> start looking for people to blame and fire.
A excellent suggestion from a political and practical sense — though about as likely as a flying pig wearing lipstick.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 26th, 2010 at 11:42 am
>==Carry capacity of the Dragon is suppose to be 7. So if its $200 million a
> flight to ISS that works out to around 28.5 million a seat, but I suspect that
> is a low figure as a human rated Dragon will cost more then a cargo rated one.
Actually other then the escape tower they are effectively identical craft. Musk figured since they needed the same capabilities (life support, flight control, etc etc – it made no sense to design 2.
Carry capacity of the Dragon is suppose to be 7. So if its $200 million a
flight to ISS that works out to around 28.5 million a seat
Those are COTS numbers, originally it would have been about $5m cost per seat… but then moneybags made a bigger offer and Elon said, “why sure!”
Lori and Bolden want to beleave that after a decade or two of downtime under this plan, maned space flight under NASA will come back in some big expansionist way.
No, Lori and Bolden believe that after a few years of “downtime” (which was happening anyway) under this plan that manned spaceflight will come back in some big expansionist way, regardless of what’s happening at NASA.
at the very least FAA and AST will be pressured to raise the standards even more “..for civilians who expect more government protection then NASA government employees, who we can assume are better informed of the risks – and better trained to handle them…”
Again, I don’t understand why you and Thomas are so naive as to think that the FAA will kowtow to NASA, and not defend their own turf. You seem to not understand at all how Washington bureaucracies work.
F9 price from spacex.com: GTO (s/c up to 4,680 kg) $51.5M
One seventh of that would be about $7.37m and the cost is of course lower.
The Bigelow thing *may be* in the future
Bigelow is selling his modules. He’s not the only one in the hotel business and where there are profit others will go. As others have pointed out, it’s the economics stupid. All the pieces are almost in place. The companies ready to sell tickets already exist. This is no longer an if. It’s going to happen.
where there are profit
What profit? There aren’t even any revenue or customers in the “space hotel” business.
Once you enter NASA sphere costs skyrocket.
Which NASA more than pays for… so it’s an accounting question. Can you compartmentalize NASA costs from actual costs? Keeping actual costs in line allows you to sell commercially for much less than you charge NASA and still justify the higher cost to NASA because of their ‘higher’ requirements.
Most of SpaceX increased cost has not really been NASA however. They went on a hiring spree as soon as they realized they would need to manufacture a lot of rockets. They are planning on a lot higher flight rate than most currently imagine.
it’s an accounting question. Can you compartmentalize NASA costs from actual costs?
Nope, it’s a cultural question. Can you compartmentalize NASA culture from real commercial culture?
What profit?
Keeping in mind that the pieces are not all in place yet, the profit is easy to show. We know people are willing to pay $20m because people have already paid that much. We know roughly what the cost of operations will be and it has nothing to do with COTS prices.
I projected a profit in three weeks at $50m per customer, but even at $20m you’d about break even. Keep in mind the example I gave could be tightened up considerably. The hotel staff could stay on station, giving you two more tourist seats per flight. The tourists could stay and pay for more than a week even at a discount considerably raising profits.
When I said, $200m for provisions, that’s a one time cost. Consumables would go up with the tourists. Profit? You bet!
Can you compartmentalize NASA culture from real commercial culture?
Some can’t, but others do it all the time… easily. The question is what kind of people are running these commercial space companies.
back in the ’90’s when various big aero firms offered SSTOs and RLVs to the market — the silence was deafening
If you believe that, Kelly, then you must be deaf.
After all this time, you still refuse to look at the marketing data. Any of it. Instead, you’re reasoning from a single data point — *your* opinion — and assuming that the whole world agrees with you. I hope you don’t do engineering the same way.
Are there people who wouldn’t be interested in flying on an SSTO or RLV? Sure. Lots of them. So what? There are lots of people who aren’t interested in sailing on cruise ships. I’m one of them — I don’t conclude from that that there’s no market for cruise ships. The fact that you or I aren’t in the market for something does not mean that no market for that thing exists.
A version of your argument, which I’ve heard many times, is “I work for NASA/Boeing/BigRocketCo, and none of my co-workers want to go. If space nuts like us aren’t interested, the general public certainly won’t be.” To which I can only say, to the extent that’s true, workers at NASA and in the space industry must be jaded and less interested in spaceflight than the general public, where there is a huge interest.
But I’m sure that even at NASA, there are plenty of people who would want to go. Ask your co-workers at JSC. As the astronauts. I’ll bet you won’t find many who tell you they do it for the pay (less than Mike Griffin makes as a college professor) or the chance to live in Houston with its heat and humidity.
we have a administration that loves the nanny-state and the ability to put emergencies and disasters to good use —- and who think space is a waste of time,but a PR necessity
They do not “think space is a waste of time.” I’m no fan of Obama — nor was I fan of Bush or McCain, either, I voted for Bob Barr — but please tell the truth.
Obama has said that he wants to use space to inspire the next generation. Whether you think that’s a worthwhile goal or not, it is not equivalent to “a waste of time.” General Bolden has said the same thing.
Do you think General Bolden spent all those years as an astronaut and then returned to become Administrator of NASA — a position he originally had no interest in — because he thinks space is a “waste of time”? Do you think Lori Garver was executive director of the National Space Society because she thought space was a “waste of time”?
Get real, Kelly. If you see no value in General Bolden’s goal — to “make travel to low Earth orbit and beyond more accessible and more affordable… enabling hundreds, even thousands of people to visit or live in low Earth orbit, while NASA firmly focuses its gaze on the cosmic horizon beyond Earth” –, if you think *that’s* a waste of time, fine. Argue for your own vision instead. But don’t distort what your opponents are saying.
Can you compartmentalize NASA culture from real commercial culture?
Some can’t, but others do it all the time… easily. The question is what kind of people are running these commercial space companies.
It also makes a big difference which part of NASA you’re dealing with. Tom’s concerns about human-rating orbital vehicles may have some basis in fact, but suborbital is another matter. There’s a big difference between JSC and Dryden.
DragonLab was obviously developed with NASA front and center since NASA funds over 90% of the microgravity research in the U.S.
The way spacex.com says it is…
SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”.
Emphasis mine. The parties they gave (after the success of the first one they had more) for DragonLab were to commercial customers who had a greater interest than NASA.
The point being that regardless of how NASA distorts things, Elon has always pursued private customers.
Obama has said that he wants to use space to inspire the next generation.
Obama says… whatever sounds good. He’s the worst example I’ve ever seen of his type of political animal. Any chance of good space policy is only a result of bad space policy in the previous admin.
>Edward Wright Says:
> February 27th, 2010 at 11:58 am
>>back in the ’90’s when various big aero firms offered SSTOs and
>>RLVs to the market — the silence was deafening
> If you believe that, Kelly, then you must be deaf.
>
> After all this time, you still refuse to look at the marketing data. ==
The marketing data your talking about is surveys of interest. Marketing data the big aero – and any other commercial firms – look at are the number of folks seriously express a interest in buying their products – and there were none. Worse one of the biggest customers, who’s flown the vast bulk of all people and materials sent into space in all of history, shelled out a billion to discorage them.
No Ed, hundreds of folks in a hotel saying they want to go to space, or millions saying that in a international pole, are not a market – anymore then millions saying they want to go to James Cameron’s Pandora are a voting block for space exploration. A market is folks with enough bucks to buy your product seriously inquiring about buying it. No one came forth to buy the RLV’s. Just like Boeing droped the Sonic Cruiser when (though folks did say they would like to ride in it)buyers said they weren’t interested in buying — but the straw man design they contrasted it with (which later became the 787) was interesting, so Boeing built that.
No Ed, hundreds of folks in a hotel saying they want to go to space, or millions saying that in a international pole, are not a market – anymore then millions saying they want to go to James Cameron’s Pandora are a voting block for space exploration.
One of those things is not like the other. Thanks for sharing your ignorance of how market research works.
>Edward Wright Says:
> February 27th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
>> we have a administration that loves the nanny-state and the
>> ability to put emergencies and disasters to good use —- and
>> who think space is a waste of time,but a PR necessity
> They do not “think space is a waste of time.” I’m no fan of
> Obama == but please tell the truth.
That is the truth that is what Obama said, he wanted to shut down nAA and transfer the money to other programs (education specifically if I remember) — then he was reminded that Florida has a lot of electoral votes
==
> Get real, Kelly. If you see no value in General Bolden’s goal — to
> “make travel to low Earth orbit and beyond more accessible and
> more affordable… enabling hundreds, even thousands of people
> to visit or live in low Earth orbit, while NASA firmly focuses its
> gaze on the cosmic horizon beyond Earth” –, if you think *that’s*
> a waste of time, fine. ==
Having fun with your straw man?
Of course I see that as a great goal -spectacular -AND NOTHING IN THE PROPOSED BUDGETS OR VAGUE OUTLINED PLANS WORK TOWARD IT. They are talking about flying dozens of people to the ISS until 2020. Thats it. Thats not opening any doors or frounteers. Its just getting out of the spaceflight busness.
>Rand Simberg Says:
>February 27th, 2010 at 10:39 am
>> Lori and Bolden want to beleave that after a decade or two of downtime
>> under this plan, maned space flight under NASA will come back in some
>> big expansionist way.
> No, Lori and Bolden believe that after a few years of “downtime” (which
> was happening anyway) under this plan that manned spaceflight will come
> back in some big expansionist way, regardless of what’s happening at NASA.
As a nit they mentioned decades. More importantly, theres no reason given to support that beleaf. Nothingin the budget supports it, no plans to do so. Possibly unrelated commercial activities like Bigelow might, but certainlynot exploration.
>> at the very least FAA and AST will be pressured to raise the standards
>> even more “..for civilians who expect more government protection then
>> NASA government employees, who we can assume are better informed
>> of the risks – and better trained to handle them…”
> Again, I don’t understand why you and Thomas are so naive as to think that
> the FAA will kowtow to NASA, and not defend their own turf. ==
Because thats how its worked for decades, and thats the political logic of the situation.
Also as a aside, NASA lousy safety record by aviation standards is not going to fly in Washington for civilians – which will further push FAA to go well beyond NASA’s standards.
So again, NASA standards are going to be the minimum.
Really, what possible incentive would the FAA have for going not just below their customary safety standards for space, but below NASA’s stated standards? Why fight for lower standards and put the agency at risk?
> ken anthony Says:
>February 27th, 2010 at 11:30 am
>> Once you enter NASA sphere costs skyrocket.
> Which NASA more than pays for… so it’s an accounting question. Can
> you compartmentalize NASA costs from actual costs? ==
No, because NASA and most Gov. programs demand you restructure your company from a organizational stand point, a operations standpoint, and even break things up and scatter parts to important districts. With all that waste and inefficiency integrated into every facet of your organization – you simply can’t do efficient economical projects. Its why Rutan and other companies bailed on their bid to build Orion. It would force them to become the kind of huge bloated buracracies the gov likes adn demands. Which would completely destroy the companies.
It could, for example, restrict NASA to purchasing no more services than the total of other customers that have already contracted orders.
A very interesting idea, though note that this isn’t and shouldn’t be used for aircraft carriers. Maybe another condition would be in order: if NASA can’t find anyone that satisfies that criterion, it can’t go into space itself.
That is the truth that is what Obama said, he wanted to shut down nAA and transfer the money to other programs (education specifically if I remember)
No, you’re making stuff up. What he said was that he wanted to delay Constellation for a few years and transfer $1 billion to education. “Delay” is not the same as “cancel,” Constellation is not the same as NASA (or “nAA”), and $1 billion does not equal the entire NASA budget.
Of course I see that as a great goal -spectacular -AND NOTHING IN THE PROPOSED BUDGETS OR VAGUE OUTLINED PLANS WORK TOWARD IT.
Then you know nothing about the budget or plans.
They are talking about flying dozens of people to the ISS until 2020. Thats it. Thats not opening any doors or frounteers. Its just getting out of the spaceflight busness.
No, that is not “it.” They are talking about expanding ISS by adding inflatable modules. One Bigelow module would nearly double the habitable volume of ISS (and allow for a larger crew size).
But it should be obvious that when General Bolden talks about thousands of people living and working in Low Earth Orbit, he is *not* talking about even an expanded ISS.
If you call increasing the number of humans who fly in space from 500, over the last 50 years, to thousands every year is “getting out of the spaceflight business,” then hurray for “getting out of the spaceflight business”!
> Again, I don’t understand why you and Thomas are so naive as to think that
> the FAA will kowtow to NASA, and not defend their own turf. ==
Because thats how its worked for decades, and thats the political logic of the situation.
Really? The FAA has been kowtowing to NASA for decades, and not defending their own turf?
On what planet did this occur? Can you provide an example? Or do just type stuff to see words on the screen?
NASA and most Gov. programs demand you restructure your company
I happen to agree with this, but not to the extent you suggest. For example, SpaceX opened an office in DC and hired some experienced people to deal with the government. I’ve seen the same thing with other companies. That’s not the company crippling reorganization that you suggest.
Another observation from when I worked for the FAA in Seattle. Many retired Boeing hired on at the FAA and many retired FAA hired on at Boeing. I heard of similar between Boeing and NASA. However, I’m not aware of any of this happening between FAA and NASA although this may just be due to my location in Seattle.
I worked TMO which was telecommunications management. The retired Boeing employees mostly worked in the regulatory side which came in handy for Boeing when they wanted to certify a new plane design (the 777 comes to mind.)
Having a problem with my broadband… sheesh.
Stupid semantic games and “I know economics do you?” arguments aside, NASA employees and stupid politicians keep saying that there is no-one who is interested in buying crew seats except NASA. That is either incredible ignorance or an outright lie.
Also as a aside, NASA lousy safety record by aviation standards is not going to fly in Washington for civilians – which will further push FAA to go well beyond NASA’s standards.
So again, NASA standards are going to be the minimum.
This is like saying that since NACA or USAF or whoemever had a lousy safety record with test pilots pushing the edge of the envelope, that civilian aviation safety standards would be much higher – or that since apples are redder than oranges, then we shall declare oranges to be much more orange than apples.
In other words, a research program is not the same as a commercial industry. American Airlines 747 pilots do not routinely attempt to break the speed of sound going up at a 70 degree angle like an X-15 pilot. Nor do they routinely put their aircraft through other maneuvers that could endanger their passengers or aircraft. And they know what the limits are, because of the work done by those earlier test pilots.
Of course the safety standards are high for commercial aviation. Those standards are unrelated, however, to any test program undertaken by anyone else. Likewise, commercial space safety standards will be unrelated to the standards in use for test programs and basic research programs, which is what NASA should be doing if it is going to do anything at all.
There’s a big difference between JSC and Dryden.
General Motors was “too big to fail” – so obviously it should have been broken up into smaller companies, some of which would have succeeded.
Is NASA “too big to fail”? Would the various centers better serve the American taxpayer if they were independent agencies? Or perhaps privatized outright?
Trent,
Its not a question of not wanting to buy, its a question of being able to deliver the seats at a price people are ready, willing and able to pay. That is when you have a market. Until then you have latent demand for a product or service.
There is a latent demand for many products, like jet packs and flying cars. The problem is not people not wanting to buy them. The problem is delivering them at a price the target market is ready, willing and able to buy them. That was the problem with the SSTO, it couldn’t be delivered at a price that would generate enough revenue to cover the development costs.
And its not semantics. If you are going to be discussing a marketing topic, you should learn the proper marketing terminology, just as people who are discussing rocket engines are expected to learn the proper terminology for rocket engines.
For example when most space advocates are talking about space tourism, or private spaceflight, they actually mean consumer markets. Consumer markets are where private individuals, like Dennis Tito, pay their own way. Commercial markets by contrast involves selling to organizations (government, corporations and other business users) who will be using the product/service to produce additional products/services or perform an organizational function. There is a major difference in how you qualify and approach consumer markets as opposed to commercial markets.
And it is important. I recall some years ago (early 1990s) when I was involved with the Southwest Regional Spaceport, this one advocate wrote to his senator in Santa Fe to ask if they had a policy on Commercial Space. He got back a copy of the New Mexico guidelines for renting/buying commercial real estate for the needs of state agencies, which of course was and has been the definition of commercial space for over 100 years. That is why I use the term space commerce, to avoid confusion when referring to commercial activities in space.
There is a latent demand for many products, like jet packs and flying cars.
Thomas, I think you’ve given a good example of where your argument fails. Latent demand is simply demand that can’t be serviced for any number of reasons and has absolutely nothing to do with whether a market exists or doesn’t exist. A product can have both a market and latent demand at the same time. That’s includes everyday products, not products that don’t exist. To say there is no market for something that has been purchased in the past is a contradiction.
However, to say the market is close to non existent… well, then we’d be on the same page. On the other, other hand, to dismiss latent demand as unimportant as a determinate of a potential market would also be a mistake. People are working to turn that latent demand into a real market and they are not far off from doing exactly that.
Tom, no… I accept your point about markets being different from “wanting to buy” and admit that you may have an argument to make there but it is irrelevant to the argument that I am trying to make. NASA employees and stupid congressmen are often saying no-one is wanting to buy seats on crew launch vehicles….