29 thoughts on “Space Policy, Explained…”

  1. Great video.

    Do you have a source for the statement that Russia is helping Iran build “nukes” and delivery systems?

    I know that Russia built the Bushehr power reactor, but I don’t think it’s relevant to a weapons program.

    The Shahab-3 ballistic missiles are based on the Scud, but I think Iran got the technology from North Korea in the form of the Nodong-1, not directly from Russia. As far as I know, the Safir and Simorgh orbital launch vehicles were indigenously designed.

    Russia backed out of its deal to sell S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran due partly to US pressure, so I don’t think buying Soyuz rides will hurt American strategic interests too much.

  2. Whoops, I should have googled “nasa russia iran”. I found Rand’s article on the subject from 2009. David Albright disagrees that Russia is helping Iran as a matter of official policy, but says that rogue individuals may be operating a nuclear smuggling ring assisting Iran, North Korea, and Libya. I can see how suspending Soyuz purchases could encourage the government to crack down on rogues, though.

    Trent: for sure, I think NASA should be funding at least CST-100 and manned Dragon, so competition can drive the price down, and so we’re not stuck if there’s an accident with the sole system. I just meant “strategic interests” vis a vis foreign policy.

  3. re: Ashley’s comment to Trent. NASA shouldn’t fund anyone. In a better, more rational world, they would simply request bids from any comer for a certain number of flights or payload per year with the proviso that the spacecraft mates properly with whatever it’s flying to. Finis. If there are any takers then NASA can pick one. If there are no takers, well too bad – maybe NASA should reconsider what it’s doing up there.

  4. Jardinero1

    Gee, a REAL free market approach. Buy seats to space the same way the government buys seats on commercial airlines. No subsidies for development. How radical 🙂

  5. Buy seats to space the same way the government buys seats on commercial airlines. No subsidies for development.

    But then NASA wouldn’t have a say in how the spacecraft is built. You do realize, Matula, that is why NASA wants to subsidize. I suspect you don’t realize, because your past comments seem incapable of understanding the otherside of the argument.

  6. I still think “subsidize” is the wrong word.

    I have been assured that CCDev will be run much like COTS was run. Specifically, winners will be picked and assigned a series of milestones, including some “financial milestones”. Upon completion of a milestone the entrant will be paid a fixed amount. When sufficient development milestones have been achieved, a procurement will occur.

    Yes, this is pretty far from “please submit bids”, picking the winners and then waiting for them to deliver, but that difference is directly measurable in risk reduction.

    If an entrant fails to meet a milestone they can be bumped and replaced with someone else. It happened to Kistler.

  7. I agree, subsidy is the wrong word. From the inside looking out, it seems NASA is wanting to buy access to COTS system. Much of the money will go into system integration of interfaces, such as the LIDS docking collar. I mean, SpaceX could just as easily use the probe and drogue system or even purchase the Kurs system like ESA. Of course a better system would be to dock with CBM, but that would require grapple fixtures.

  8. a LACK of FAITH based initiative

    That’s a chuckle. NASA is not the American way (or truth or justice either.)

    But we were all so enthralled by landing on the moon the first time that we all went along.

    Jardinero is right on target (and I agree w/Matula???) The FAA made the same mistake after the breakup of MA BELL. They built the fourth largest telecom network at the time when before it was just a person at a desk ordering services (PaaDOS.) Later they made a contract (I’m forgetting with which telecomm now, it’s been years) that basically went back to the PaaDOS (although I’m sure they continue to use much of the assets they built.) NASA should be PaaDOS.

    NASA is suppose to be focusing on BEO. Using the PaaDOS model, they should send out a RFP defining objectives rather than implementation. They shouldn’t build anything (or even run it.) Let industry do their innovative thing (isn’t that how we got concrete liberty ships?)

  9. Leland,

    [[[But then NASA wouldn’t have a say in how the spacecraft is built.]]]

    Exactly!

  10. Trent,

    [[[I have been assured that CCDev will be run much like COTS was run.]]]

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. COTS was not in the critical path since NASA was focused on Ares/Orion, so it was not in NASA’s spotlight. CCDev by contrast will be the critical path, which means each Center and every manager will need to provide their input and “guidance” to make the program a “success…”. Too many cooks are nothing to too many bureaucrats…

  11. What I find interesting is that SpaceX developed the Falcon I, a complete launch system, for around 100 million dollars, but now says it will take $150 million to build just the LAS for Dragon. And SpaceX has no plans to start on it unless NASA “shows them the money”, even though folks like Bigelow would be more then happy to buy rides on it when available.

    Makes me wonder if all NASA has done with COTS/CCDev is teach a new generation of firms how to play the government contracting game :=)

  12. SpaceX has no plans to start on it unless NASA “shows them the money”

    SpaceX always had no plans to have a LAS. What they are saying is if NASA wants it, then they can pay for it. Now please provide an explanation of how this is “New Spacers” wanting subsidies?

    As to why it would cost $150 million, perhaps you should look at how much was spent on just PA-1.

  13. Leland,

    [[[SpaceX always had no plans to have a LAS. What they are saying is if NASA wants it, then they can pay for it.]]]

    You mean there were going to fly tourists to Bigelow habitats without one?

    [[[As to why it would cost $150 million, perhaps you should look at how much was spent on just PA-1.]]]

    So? One of the talking points was that New Space was supposed to be much less expensive than old space.

  14. So? One of the talking points was that New Space was supposed to be much less expensive than old space.

    You think $150 million for an operational system is more costly than a single flight test of roughly $220 million. Not only is your ability to politic suck, so does your math.

  15. Leland,

    Compare the gap between the LAS to the gap between Falcon 9 and Ares I. Note how its closing?

  16. What gap? The time from drawing board to flight test? Yeah, I see it is closing. Is that your point?

  17. Leland,

    I was referring to the cost gap, but I forget that you must be specific on everything to a new spacer, just like to a computer…

  18. “even though folks like Bigelow would be more then happy to buy rides on it when available. ”

    Bigelow’s actual demand is nebulous and his business model speculative and unproven/possibly not viable.

  19. Makes me wonder if all NASA has done with COTS/CCDev is teach a new generation of firms how to play the government contracting game

    That’s a reasonable speculation, but from you it sounds more like an assertion which isn’t reasonable.

    SpaceX has their own internal goals (some of which we can speculate on based on what’s been public.) The LAS they plan to build, unlike most LAS, is actually going to be used (every flight?) on reentry to land on land. This is indicative of the type of thinking about waste that goes on in that company.

    This also makes you wonder what other places they may intend to land Dragon on?

    SpaceX has no plans to start on [LAS] unless NASA “shows them the money”

    You know SpaceX unpublished plans? Please share. Good business often requires good timing; when you show your cards is important. I think they play the game pretty well and have all along.

  20. I meant to also point out that a LAS adds failure modes which might kill rather than save lives in some cases. It might be perfectly reasonable not to have one; or to have one for political rather than engineering reasons.

  21. SpaceX has enough on their plate without dividing engineer attention to work on unfunded projects. If and when they get a contract they’ll hire engineers to work on it.

    And I don’t know where you got $150M from, sounds low.

  22. SpaceX actually built an unfunded Dragon prototype. Once they do get funding for a thing, don’t be surprised if a lot of the preliminary work is already done. Anticipating the future is what a good software guy does.

  23. ken, they had less to do back then. There’s something like 46 flights on the manifest now.. they have to get those launches into the pipeline before the customers start asking for their deposits back, or worse, defaulting.

  24. I meant to also point out that a LAS adds failure modes which might kill rather than save lives in some cases.

    One would think the first commercial jet airliners had ejection seats for all the passengers. I mean, they went really fast and the USAF had ejection seats in their jets!

  25. Trent, they built that prototype with 100 employees. They now have 1250 and growing. Yes, they do need to keep their focus, but they have much more to work with now.

  26. Plus I like Elon’s authorization process. “We just lost a rocket? Ok then, let’s build two more.” (Having fixed the flaw.)

    The manufacturing process to meet demand has it’s managers. His accountants are in place to report trouble. Elon’s job is almost entirely looking to the future as it should be.

Comments are closed.