Neil Woodward of ESMD is chairing a panel on how commercial activities can fit into the Vision.

Dallas Bienhoff of Boeing gave a short presentation on the value of having propellant depots in cis-lunar space (he calls them “gasteroids” to the collective groan of the audience). They have the capability of increasing landed mass on the moon from 18 to 51 tons of cargo. They provide a market for commercial providers (300 tons of propellant per year). They also provide a means for international participation that doesn’t put them on the critical path (international partners could provide both the propellant and the extra lunar cargo). And it’s not in NASA’s current plans.

Ken Davidian talked about the need to reduce or remove barriers of entry for commercial space companies.
— Investor funding
— Production of commercial space goods and services
— Demand for commercial space goods and services
– Example of Multi-Phase procurements
— prize competitors
— funded space act
— FAR 12 Contracts
– X PRIZE essentially led to COTS

[Note, above Davidian comments, which I was distracted during, gratefully stolen from Clark Lindsey]

Jim Dunstan: Describing relative difficulties between working with NASA and the Russians. Thinks NASA’s biggest problem is hubris. “Get over yourselves.”

NASA does not own space.
There is on inalienable right to explore space.
The public doesn’t care that much about space.
Neither NASA or the current private space companies know much about business.

Wants to get rid of Space Act Agreements. No enforceability clauses, so any money spent is wasted. Doesn’t like FARs and government contracting, but at least they’re available. Have to kill “cancel for convenience.” Without stiff penalties, hard to get investment. NASA needs to hire business people, not engineers or ex-military people. Same thing for engineers. Need good business help and good legal help.

Remember Dreamtime. A disaster between Hollywood media types and engineers at NASA who had no clue how to put a business together.

Jeff Greason: What does government do well? Railroads were big hit, but government running railroads less than successful. Government did a good job of creating aircraft industry in the US, after the disaster of attempting to have the government own/operate vehicles. No economic activity in Antarctica.

By government’s nature, it’s an unreliable customer and unreliable supplier, due to being a creature of politics. Private sector much more predictable. Whether or not greed is good, it’s predictable. No government infrastructure to guarantee continuing supply of tennis shoes, but they’re always available.

If the government has a mission to create a lunar infrastructure, it has to be with heavy commercial involvement to be affordable, but it seems to be the other way around. If the government is the only customer, hard to raise private money. Would have made sense to utilize transportation that other satellite customers also wanted to use.

Points out fragility of having a single government-developed vehicle, so if a commercial customer of a lunar base, you’ll be out of luck if the system goes down. Agrees with Dallas that propellant depots make sense as a market. Also critical on lunar end regardless of location. Will eventually need to produce propellant on the moon, and will need places to store it. Architecture in mind doesn’t look like one NASA is building. Unclear whether it’s opportunity lost or deferred, because unclear whether or not this architecture will be completed.

The notion that you’ll build something, then operate it for a while, then hope you can pawn it off on someone else is not a good plan. If a lunar base isn’t pre-leased, there’s something wrong with it, either in transportation infrastructure or base design or something else, but NASA won’t feel the pain, unlike a private company.

NASA has a disease of no pain receptors.

NASA can’t successfully run the railroad, or be a property developer, or be a landlord without even talking to the customers, but that’s what’s happening.

Wants the government to spend its money in such a way as to at least potentially be useful, but understands that this isn’t a guarantee.