…is new again. In doing some research, I was reading the old Agnew Space Task Group report, and I came across this paragraph:
The Space Task Group is convinced that a decision to phase out manned space flight operations, although painful, is the only way to achieve significant reductions in NASA budgets over the long term. At any level of mission activity, a continuing program of manned space flight, following use of launch vehicles and spacecraft purchased as part of Apollo, would require continued production of hardware, continued operation of extensive test, launch support and mission control facilities, and the maintenance of highly skilled teams of engineers, technicians, managers, and support personnel. Stretch-out of mission or production schedules, which can initially reduce total annual costs, would result in higher unit costs. More importantly, very low-level operations are highly wasteful of the skilled manpower required to carry out these operations and would risk deterioration of safety and reliability throughout the manned program. At some low level of activity, the viability at [sic] the program is in question. It is our belief that the interests of this Nation would not be served by a manned space flight program conducted at such levels.
Hello? Shuttle extenders?
They’re talking to you.
Which resulted in the 40 year long focus by NASA on a push approach to CATS, starting with the Shuttle…
From the report’s recommendations
[[[b. A space transportation system that will:
Provide a major improvement over the present way of doing business in terms of cost and operational capability.
Carry passengers, supplies, rocket fuel, other spacecraft, equipment, or additional rocket stages to and from orbit on a routine aircraft-like basis.
Be directed toward supporting a spectrum of both DoD and NASA missions.
Although the concept of such a space transportation capability is not new, advances in rocket engine technology, additional experience in design for reentry conditions, and improved guidance, navigation and automated check-out systems now permit initiation of on experimental effort for a Space Transportation System with technical, operational, and economic characteristics satisfying the needs of both NASA and DoD. An orderly, phased, step-by-step development program could then be implemented including as potential components:
A reusable chemically fueled shuttle operating between the surface of the Earth and low-earth orbit in an airline-type mode.]]]
Now commercial crew is the great hope for CATS, but without a market pull its as unlikely to be any more successful then any of the other NASA attempts at CATS.
Remember – Markets create demand that creates technological advances. Other wise you have orphan technology, like the Antikythera Mechanism and Heronas’ steam engine.
You need to first find an economic justification for high volume human space operations, i.e. Markets, then the demand for the systems needed for CATS will drive their development. And unfortunately NASA is not very good at creating markets.
Of course a contributing factor was that NASA stopped using the Shuttle to push new technology after Challenger, nor did they use Challenger as an opportunity to develop a Shuttle II, a TSTO RLV based on Shuttle experience.
Thomas, I have to disagree somewhat. We’ve been seeing a long term decline in the cost of launch providers over decades even in the absence of significant increase in demand. SpaceX has claimed that they’ll be able to launch for significantly less than even the Russians have been able to. If they can deliver much of that boast, it’ll mean a significant drop in launch costs even in the absence of market growth.
NASA doesn’t need to create markets. Instead, it can get far by adding to existing and near future markets. For example, it’s likely that some sort of commercial manned activity will occur in the near future (5 years). There are several serious players bending metal right now for manned vehicles (I include suborbital vehicles here). There is an obvious market, that of space tourists to drive significant demand for these services. NASA could merely add to that volume rather than provide a distinct market.
By doing it this way, it’s not so big a problem, if NASA doesn’t order a lot of trips or changes its ways in the future. It’s not the sole source of business so that greatly reduces the uncertainty for the commercial vehicle providers and doesn’t constrain the size of the market.
Karl,
There has been a gradual decline due to the learning curve, but its not the revolutionary one required.
Also the markets would not come from NASA. NASA is ill suited to create markets as commercial crew will show. You need a different institutional model to create markets. Comsat/Intelsat is a good one, having created the market for comsats which now accounts for the vast majority of space commerce activity. Indeed, if Falcon 9 is a commercial success, which is likely, it won’t be thanks to COTS, but the value it provides to the Comsat market.
Similar development corporations, built around lunar industrialization and Earth orbital industrialization, are the institutions that would create the market demand to drive true commercial RLV development.
Thomas:
“Carry passengers, supplies, rocket fuel, other spacecraft, equipment, or additional rocket stages to and from orbit on a routine aircraft-like basis.”
Note that it says “or” not “and”, and it doesn’t say “all on one vehicle”.
Because the capital expenditures required have been so high there’s always been a bootstrapping problem with commercial space. Two bicycle mechanics could build an airplane but they couldn’t build an orbital launch vehicle, at least not without many millions of dollars and a lot of outside help. Now that help is coming from several directions and we appear, finally, to be poised on the brink of true commercial spaceflight. NASA can be part of the answer, but not the complete solution, by deciding as a matter of policy to be a customer of these private commercial ventures. Finally that is happening.
The other parts of the puzzle are the recognition, thanks to the X-Prize, that suborbital space can be both a stepping stone and a legitimate market in its own right. Another factor is the advent of a new generation of high tech multi-millionaires who are willing to put their capital at risk for non-economic reasons. And last but not least, the rapid advance of technology in other areas, some of which can be applied to space flight, helps lower the cost. These include advances in CAD, materials, manufacturing and electronics.
All these other factors will eventually lead to private commercial space travel, but NASA, by adopting commercial-friendly policies, can considerably accelerate it.
Bill,
[[[but NASA, by adopting commercial-friendly policies, can considerably accelerate it.]]]
No, because NASA’s promise of R&D funding will slow it down, not speed it up. And may well produce something as unsuitable for commercial needs as the Shuttle was.
Note these statements from Elon Musk
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=21153
[[[Crew flights depend on the NASA budget in negotiations between the Administration and Congress
– Plan for 2 years plus 1 year of margin from the time the commercial crew award is signed to first crew flights.]]]
and
[[[Long term plan is to open space to everyone who wants to go there.
– Could perhaps start private passenger flights in 5-7 years.]]]
Bigelow has been in a holding pattern for years waiting for the emergence of true commercial crew to serve his stations. That is the only thing keeping Sundancer from being launched. If NASA was not out there as the big distraction Elon would probably be using private money to focus on servicing Bigelow’s needs instead of waiting for NASA funding to do HSF.
If Elon started now on true commercial systems to meet Bigelow’s needs you could have private human orbital spaceflight in 3 years or less. As it is, thanks to the promise of NASA money for commercial crew, Bigelow will have to wait 5-7 years for a system to serve his needs as NASA, via the promise of government dollars, has put itself first in line.
After all, why would Elon want to give up more shares of SpaceX to raise private funds for developing commercial crew when there is the promise of NASA providing the funding instead?
And why would another firm want to risk private funds to meet Bigelow’s needs when it will have to compete with one or more NASA funded systems?
And so the market for commercial crew is distorted by the new policy and the emergence of true commercial crew for commercial customers is delayed for years. No, NASA is not accelerating the emergence of a private human spaceflight industry, it is delaying it by several years.
Thomas, I do not think Dragon would be poised to fly this summer if SpaceX had not secured $278 million in funding via the COTS contract. Self-funded it would have taken a lot longer. Also, having NASA and Bigelow as potential customers for commercial crew instead of just NASA or Bigelow helps close the business case.
Bill,
My understanding, based on statements of New Space Advocates, was that Elon was funding Falcon 9 himself and COTS was just a nice bonus in terms of funding. Are you arguing that without COTS Falcon 9 would not exist for many years into the future?
Yes, I am arguing that. He has put in about $100 million of his own money and other investors subsequently invested about $20 million. NASA has paid about $248 billion of the $278 billion for COTS milestones so far, if I recall correctly. And I seem to recall that NASA has also paid about another $100 million for milestone payments on the ISS resupply missions. They have collected some payments from other customers, too, although the dollar amounts are not large compared to the NASA funds. The company claims to be profitable on the accrual accounting method, but that doesn’t mean they’ve actually collected the money.
They were already building Falcon 9 and Dragon before they won the COTS contract. But there is no way they could have completed either this rapidly without NASA’s help. They would have sunk all their funds into Falcon 9 and Dragon would have been a back-burner project.
You can argue that they would have sought additional private investment. But that would have been hard to do without a strong revenue stream. Musk even said that a couple of years ago (before the CRS contract) he had preliminary talks with Northrup Grumman about buying the company. But they weren’t very interested. This brings us back to one of the other factors I cited: the importance of having some very rich guys willing to invest their own money in their dream of space travel. Most dispassionate investors, prior to the NASA contracts, would have considered SpaceX too risky a venture.
“NASA has paid about $248 billion of the $278 billion for COTS milestones ”
I’m sure you mean millions there.
@Ed – Wishful thinking.
Sorry Bill, NASA ain’t Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac.
Bill,
[[[Most dispassionate investors, prior to the NASA contracts, would have considered SpaceX too risky a venture.]]]
So SpaceX owes its success to being a government contractor. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for private space markets.
Which again rises the question, exactly what is “commercial” about “commercial crew”? It appears to be a simple variation on traditional government contracting in which ownership of the spacecraft, and the liability that goes with ownership, says with the contractor rather then the government.
Now serving Bigelow’s needs, that would be commercial 🙂
So SpaceX owes its success to being a government contractor.
No, it owes the acceleration of its success to being a (fixed-price) government contractor. That’s not to say that in the absence of COTS it would be a failure.
Which again rises the question, exactly what is “commercial” about “commercial crew”? It appears to be a simple variation on traditional government contracting in which ownership of the spacecraft, and the liability that goes with ownership, says with the contractor rather then the government.
That’s a pretty significant variation, and what makes it commercial.
Now serving Bigelow’s needs, that would be commercial
Yes, that will also be commercial.
My very first act in support of commercial space was a letter I wrote to then Vice President Spiro Agnew, outlining a high-schooler’s vision of how to open the moon to industrial activities. The reply I received was actually a thoughtful commentary on my suggestions, and this looks a lot like what I remember about it. I have no idea where that letter is now, but it was signed by Agnew…
Rand,
By definition firms that sell products to the government are government contractors. Firms that sell products to industry and consumers are in commercial markets. And the reason for the definition is that the purchase process involved is different because of federal procurement process that governs the purchase of government goods and services.
And fixed priced contracts are not the innovation New Space advocates seem to believe, but were actually the only way products were sold to the government prior to World War II. Even today about 2/3 of current government contracts are still fixed priced. Cost plus contracting was adopted by NASA in the early 1960’s because of the technical uncertainty in high tech hardware development. And because NASA was pushing the technological envelope in the development of its systems.
COTS is succeeding financially only because SpaceX and Orbital are being very conservative in the technology they are developing to meet its requirements. This is in keeping with the nature of fixed priced contracts. You control costs under fixed price contracts because you a limiting the risk of investing in radical new technology. But that also means you are not likely to see any major technological breakthroughs as a result. The cost savings are instead from efficiencies in manufacturing and because the legacy costs of firms like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are limited since they have not been around long enough to accumulate them. It will be interesting watch if they are able to reduce costs beyond those savings.
By definition firms that sell products to the government are government contractors.
Microsoft is a government contractor? And it’s not a commercial firm? Who knew?
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> June 13th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
>
>== Which again rises the question, exactly what
> is “commercial” about “commercial crew”? It appears
> to be a simple variation on traditional government
> contracting in which ownership of the spacecraft, and
> the liability that goes with ownership, says with the
> contractor rather then the government. ==
How much variation is still hotly debated. With no existing “acceptable” commercial maned craft, and NASA talking about tailoring any new design – even talking about going to cost + contracting on it. …assuming anyone will bid..
By the way. The quote in the old task force said:
“..decision to phase out manned space flight operations, although painful, is the only way to achieve significant reductions in NASA budgets over the long term..”
It didn’t say change how you contract for services (crew or otherwise) for manned space flight operations – it said you need to phase them out.
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> June 13th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
>
> Rand,
>
> By definition firms that sell products to the government
> are government contractors. Firms that sell products to
> industry and consumers are in commercial markets.==
Thats not quite it. It the gov buys a commercial product (say a PC or desk or something) thats still a commercial product. If they contract someone to develop a custom product (like a custom “commercial” crew capsule), or suply a service (like the bulk of the staffs in all NASA departments) they are government contractors.
Course this raises the question of how “commercial” can commercial crew transport be, given its unclear if anyone secured any other market for human spaceflight (Biggelow new confirmed they would exercise and of their options), or if NASA will accept any existing humman carry system? (Musk has stated he figures at best SpaceX might get a fraction of commercial crew busness.)
Rand,
[[[By definition firms that sell products to the government are government contractors.
Microsoft is a government contractor? And it’s not a commercial firm? Who knew?]]]
When Microsoft provide goods and services to the government they are indeed a government contractor.
If you are going to use business terms you should use them properly just as you use engineering terms. This is one of the biggest problems I see with space advocates, their inability to use business terminology properly.
Most folks business would wonder about you even using the term commercial firm. There are for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations. For-profits generate revenue from which ever market, government, For-profit organization, non-profit corporation and consumer, buys their goods and services. But each of the four basic market buys and consumes products differently and require different marketing strategies. But your “commercial firms” may and usually does serve all four markets.
And ANY firm that provides goods and services to the Government is a government contractor. Period. They may also provide goods and services to the non-government markets, and most do. But its not a black and white situation, government contractor or “commercial firm” as you are trying to make it, merely different markets, with different buyer decisions processes and requirements. Boeing for example is both a government contractor and a provider of commercial aircraft. And commercial launch services when a private organization buys a launch from ULA.
And as Bill noted, SpaceX main success so far, and revenue stream, has been as a government contractor, serving the government market. Nothing wrong with that as the government is a profitable market to serve. But trying to insist they are something else makes it sound like you have no idea of how business terms are used. Or just don’t care to learn there proper use.
And my point, that SpaceX current focus on serving government markets may well be delaying its serving commercial markets like Bigelow stands. Firms have limited resources and NASA money is easier and less risky to earn then serving for-profit markets. So its natural SpaceX is focusing on its government contracts first. Its a wise business decision for SpaceX even if its holding private firms like Bigelow back in their business plans.
And that of course brings us back to the point I keep making on how the so called “Commercial Crew” policy may be more of a hindrance to the emergence of non-government markets for commercial human spaceflight than an enabler. Time will tell how transferable the systems developed are to the needs of the non-government markets.
And as Bill noted, SpaceX main success so far, and revenue stream, has been as a government contractor, serving the government market.
Their numerous commercial customers will be surprised to hear that.
Kelly,
[[[It the gov buys a commercial product (say a PC or desk or something) thats still a commercial product.]]]
The government may be making a COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf – what COTS mean to the 99% of the business world beyond Space Advocates…) purchase, but it still makes the firm a government contractor in that its selling to the government.
It always amazes me how Space Advocates try to twist the definition of that term for purposes of ideology so they main remain “pure”.
It always amazes me how Space Advocates try to twist the definition of that term for purposes of ideology so they main remain “pure”.
It always amazes me the degree to which you miss the point in order to maintain your imaginary and arbitrary definitions.
Rand,
[[[And as Bill noted, SpaceX main success so far, and revenue stream, has been as a government contractor, serving the government market.
Their numerous commercial customers will be surprised to hear that.]]]
So far their only “non-government” launch has been for the a package of remains for Celestis as one of 4 payloads on the failed Launch 3 of the Falcon 1. All the other customer payloads launched have been for governments. Yes, the RazakSAT was a government payload for the Malaysian National Space Agency. There are other governments then the U.S. government you know.
So the statement that the BULK of their revenue and success has been on government contracts stands and is accurate. When SpaceX starts fulfilling their non-government contracts, and earning the deposits given them for those launches, that will change, but so far those non-government launches are all in the future.
Rand,
[[[It always amazes me the degree to which you miss the point in order to maintain your imaginary and arbitrary definitions.]]]
Pick up and read a business textbook sometime. Or talk to someone outside the isolated world of space advocacy. If you are going to discuss policies and strategies for privatizing space you need to start thinking in terms of the business world and properly using the language if you want to be understood beyond the narrow space advocate community.
Loose terminology always lead to loose thinking.
Or would you prefer I refer to rocket engine Thrust as that power source?
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> June 14th, 2010 at 8:34 am
> … but it still makes the firm a government contractor in
> that its selling to the government.
Contractor to the gov meens something different then selling to the gov. Though in the cash of COTS or something where theres little other market (if any) for the product — it gets pretty murky..
> == It always amazes me how Space Advocates try to
> twist the definition of that term for purposes of ideology
> so they main remain “pure”.
True. Also how and what they count. Talk to a “Commercial Crew supporter and the cost per flight for a shuttle or Ares/Orion must be the the total program cost divided by the number of flights. But for commercial crew they only count what they expect SpaceX or whoever will list as a direct cost per fight – the billions of overhead NASA is scheduled to add to the program (largely to shut Sen. Nelson up), or KSC etc support costs, is NOT to be counted per flight — and your to assume dozens of other flights for the CCP post the 10 defined to ISS from 2015-2020.
;/
So far their only “non-government” launch has been for the a package of remains for Celestis as one of 4 payloads on the failed Launch 3 of the Falcon 1.
[rolling eyes]
They’ve hardly had any launches at all. I’m talking about their orders. Are you being deliberately obtuse? And no, I see no useful functional difference between a commercial customer and a foreign government.
All I know is that as a taxpayer I’m not going to have to help contribute tens of billions of dollars to a useless new launch system, and that as a space enthusiast, companies that promise to reduce costs dramatically have additional market. I think that’s a good thing. You want to play irrelevant word games with yourself.
Rand,
You remind me of a space advocate I knew when I was working on the spaceport in the early 1990’s in New Mexico. He called his state representative and was delighted to hear the state had a commercial space policy. Three weeks later when he received a copy in the mail he was surprised that is was the state’s policies and procedures on renting/buying commercial real estate for state needs. Yes, that is what the rest of the world considers commercial space, and what his representative thought he was referring to.
Language is as important as equations when working in areas like policy and misusing words is just as bad as misusing equations in engineering. I suspect that why so many new space advocates have problems explaining their views to reporters and others outside the microscopic space advocate community.
They talk of SpaceX as a “commercial firm” like Boeing and Lockheed are not… When reporters know they are all for-profit corporations simply seeking revenues in whatever markets are available.
And representing the government using fixed price contracts for commercial crew as if its something new when the government has had fixed priced contracts with the Russians for Soyuz for many, many years. Yes, I suspect many reporters wonder in private what the difference is, other then country of origin for the services provided.
Yes, present commercial crew is simply returning to the U.S. the contracts that would be going to foreign firms and you will see a real change in support for the idea. Its something the public understands instead of the vague ideological differences between cost plus and fixed price contracts space advocates are so fixated on. But instead because of space advocates, the public sees commercial crew as money being taken from one of the few government agencies they respect, throwing thousands of workers out of jobs in the process and given to for-profit corporations….
Really, the more you try to represent commercial crew as a radical innovation rather then just an alternative to out sourcing to Russia and represent SpaceX as something more then it is, a simple for-profit aerospace firm using government contracts to get started just as Orbital Science and SpaceHab did, the more difficult time you are going to have selling the Obama space policy both to space advocates and the vast world beyond.
You remind me of a space advocate I knew when I was working on the spaceport in the early 1990’s in New Mexico.
Why would I care what foolish and irrelevant things I remind you of?
They talk of SpaceX as a “commercial firm” like Boeing and Lockheed are not… When reporters know they are all for-profit corporations simply seeking revenues in whatever markets are available.
I don’t know who this “they” is of whom you speak, but I have never made such a claim. Why don’t you go waste your time at “their” web site?
Really, the more you try to represent commercial crew as a radical innovation rather then just an alternative to out sourcing to Russia and represent SpaceX as something more then it is, a simple for-profit aerospace firm using government contracts to get started just as Orbital Science and SpaceHab did, the more difficult time you are going to have selling the Obama space policy both to space advocates and the vast world beyond.
If I am having trouble selling the Obama space policy (is that really my job? Where’s my check?), that is certainly at the bottom of the reasons, if it’s one at all.
>== All I know is that as a taxpayer I’m not going to have to
> help contribute tens of billions of dollars to a useless new
> launch system, and that as a space enthusiast, companies
> that promise to reduce costs dramatically have additional
> market. ==
No as a taxpayer your just contributing billion for a program – that may or may not spend money no anything related to launching.
And “reduce costs dramatically” comparesd to Ares/Orion? Or to other legacy systems? No ones really proposing the later.
No as a taxpayer your just contributing billion for a program – that may or may not spend money no anything related to launching.
It has a lot higher probability of doing so than Ares/Orion. Particularly since it is already launching.
> Thomas Matula Says:
>== Really, the more you [Rand] try to represent commercial
> crew as a radical innovation rather then just an
> alternative to out sourcing to Russia and represent
> SpaceX as something more then it is ===
Thats been a big problem I have with this. Space Advocates raving like this is a revolution in space launches, a huge stride forward for “commercial space”, etc.
Really its gutting out the bulk of US commercial and national maned space flight capacity and skill base, with a possible change of launch services contracting proceedures — and new buzz words. Not thnigs I’ld expect space advocates to rave about.
The Pied piper lives I guess.
>== It has a lot higher probability of doing so than
> Ares/Orion. Particularly since it is already launching.
Actually if you mean SpaceX – it (the billions allocated) has no potential to go there, even if SpaceX somehow gets a commercial crew contract (which it has marginally a snowballs chance in hell at) since spaceX is to far along.
If you mean EELV based CCP – potentialy they could get some of the billions.
The one advantage of Ares/Orion over Commercial crew is the former retains the industrial (and less valuable NASA) teams, knowledge, and infrastructure to do significant space projects later. So if your interested in developing or exploring space there is at least resources available. Otherwise your starting back from scratch after they are all scraped out.
Given its the same tax money each way, its also less of a waste of tax dollars. Though granted spending the money on actually do something ort developing something usefull wuold be better then Obamas all pork, or Ares Orions turd on a stick, products.
Rand,
[[[is that really my job? Where’s my check?]]]
You seem to spend at lot of time on selling Obama Space so it looks you feel it is 🙂
>> You seem to spend at lot of time on selling Obama Space so it looks you feel it is
Its Obama psychic conditioning. The whole pied piper thing. They fear if their confidence in the nonsence is shaken, Obama will turn them into pumpkins and have his kids Jack-o-lantern their ass.
😉
The company claims to be profitable on the accrual accounting method
This is an absolutely true statement. The problem is the way it’s said. As if maybe their claims are false, or perhaps accrual is some kind of fraud.
SpaceX is a profitable company. Period. They have been for several years.
Calling a company a government contractor can be misleading if you suggest exclusivity. It can also be a slander when used to suggest they couldn’t compete otherwise. A company is a government contractor when the government buys product or services off of a procurement contract. Period. The company is commercial if it sells a product or service for profit. Period.
The exciting thing about SpaceX vs. ULA is their emphasis to make space more affordable to everybody. To wit, DragonLab.
the statement that the BULK of [SpaceX] revenue and success has been on government contracts stands and is accurate.
Perhaps, but very misleading. It suggests they don’t have much interest in non-government customers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actual number of customer, non-governmental represent the BULK of their business.
Referring just to launches is an arbitrary way to obscure the facts.
Saying the Bigelow is being pushed to the back of the line is also obscuring facts. It costs money to develop crew capability regardless of the source. Once that capability exists, SpaceX will sell that service to anyone that is willing to pay.
What are the limiting factors? Launch facilities and production capabilities. Well they have already got their production up. Launch facility limits are weeks or months, not years of delay.
So I don’t see how you can say, selling to the government hurts Bigelow or anyone else.
As an example: They gone to orbit 3 times. 2 of those were test flights. 1 was for a foreign government.
Based on that you’d have to say they’re just a company testing rockets to sell services to foreign governments.
Highly misleading.
>== Calling a company a government contractor can be
> misleading if you suggest exclusivity. It can also be a
> slander when used to suggest they couldn’t compete
> otherwise. ===
Thats been a problem. Space advocates assume big aero companise are niatly inefficent and uncompetative, and were shocked when L/M turned in a completly competative bid to SpaceX for flights to Biggelos stations. Alternatly SpaceX’s COTS per flight costs came out to a couple times theire retail costs.
Gov contracts cost that much because that the law and political reality of doing gov contracts. If a real market for space launches develops, the alt.space firms will lose it to the big old aerofirms. Partly because they won’t realize the old firms are better at commercial then they are.
If a real market for space launches develops, the alt.space firms will lose it to the big old aerofirms.
Perhaps, but what is definitely true is competition is good and more competition is better.
As the market grows it looks better for new competition to enter although the entry barriers are pretty high. Often, executives within an existing company see an opportunity to compete and go look for funding for their own venture. Although if I remember correctly, Boeing started as an outsider in aircraft in a similar way to SpaceX today.