A new report from NASA that looks like it could be interesting. Haven’t read yet, though.
6 thoughts on “Emerging Space”
Comments are closed.
A new report from NASA that looks like it could be interesting. Haven’t read yet, though.
Comments are closed.
Don’t bother. It’s just fluff. There are some nice reference lists of firms and chest-thumping about commercial cargo (warranted), commercial crew, and prizes (unwarranted). But the bulk is just vague summarizations without plans or commitments.
Of course there isn’t. NASA doesn’t announce new plans or commitments in reports of this sort.
This is meant to be a “state of the industry” document. It’s a little bit NASA-centric, but no more so than you would expect given NASA funded it.
And remarkably, it includes a small section on the space industry before NASA — something that is rarely acknowledged by writers, and almost never by NASA.
“NASA doesn’t announce new plans or commitments in reports of this sort. This is meant to be a “state of the industry” document.
I didn’t write (or expect) “new” plans or commitments. But in the absence of _any_ clear plan for or commitment to the emerging space sector, there’s no reason to spend half the document listing technologies NASA has no clear path to get to flight (whether they can help emerging industry or not). Or describing and mapping agency field centers that have nothing to do with the emerging space sector. Or repeating empty promises about commercial crew and ISS commercialization. Or lame myths about how Apollo brought about the space economy. Or a short piece of futuristic scifi with no clue or indication about how to get there.
I hesitate to even use the term “report” with this NASA puff piece. The FAA and its committees write annual and quarterly reports on the space launch industry that are actual (quantitative— gasp!) updates on the space launch industry. They’re not mere lists of companies and organizations, and they don’t waste half of those documents regurgitating FAA activities and structure that have nothing to do with the launch sector.
“And remarkably, it includes a small section on the space industry before NASA — something that is rarely acknowledged by writers, and almost never by NASA.”
It’s little more than a map of the pieces that NASA was drawn from. There are multiple histories of NASA’s formation — many contracted by the NASA history office — that have this info.
In the scale of ongoing waste at NASA, one fluffy document is a drop in the bucket. But if the agency actually wants to report on emerging space, then it should actually provide a regular update on emerging space activities, not PAO puff. And if the agency wants to take credit for the emergent space sector, then it actually has to put in place more than a grossly underfunded prize program and crippled ISS and crew commercialization initiatives, and actually succeed at more than COTS.
A lot of civil servant hours and/or taxpayer money went into producing a lot of gloss for a list of emerging space companies and organizations that one could probably get from a site or two on Rand’s blogroll (among other places). Not how I want the agency spending its time and resources.
My 2 cents… YMMV.
Did you expect NASA to have a clear policy or commitment to the emerging space sector? No wonder you’re disappointed. There is no Santa Claus at 300 E Street.
As for ISS “commercialization,” that’s a pipedream promoted by people who don’t understand the value of money. There’s no application for ISS that will repay the $3-4 billion required to maintain it, let alone the $100 billion to build it.
Expecting NASA to provide a commercially viable (i.e., affordable, cost-effective) space station is like expecting NASA to provide flying pigs. NASA will never care about cost — a fact shown once again by the Boeing “Commercial” Crew award. Commercial business must. The commercial sector needs to develop its own space stations, designed to commercial specs, taking cost into consideration — just as Harry Stine told us 30 years ago.
“Put not your faith in princes.”
“Did you expect NASA to have a clear policy or commitment to the emerging space sector?”
Nope.
I just called bullshit on a document that maintains the fiction that the agency does have such a plan.
We don’t have to believe a hypocrite’s lies in order to call them a hypocrite. Quite the opposite.
“There’s no application for ISS that will repay the $3-4 billion required to maintain it, let alone the $100 billion to build it.”
You’re preaching to the choir.
“No wonder you’re disappointed.”
“There is no Santa Claus…”
“Expecting NASA to provide a commercially viable…”
“‘Put not your faith in princes.'”
You repeatedly confuse my expectations about NASA with NASA’s myths about itself. They’re not the same thing.
Except for the use of too much flare (like the later Star Trek movies) not a bad document. It recognizes that NASA is not the center of the world.