Political Commentary, Space

Should NASA Get Back Into The Launch R&D Business?

6 Comments

Frank Sietzen has kicked off a discussion over at NASA Watch:

While the present Orion-Ares 1 architecture may well be the “safe, simple, soonest” launch solution promised by ESMD, notice nobody is claiming an Orion-Ares 1 stack will be cheaper than a Shuttle flight. My question to readers: what is the government’s role and responsibility in reducing the cost of access to space? Would you bring back NGLT-or a revamped version of the SLI minus specific vehicle test beds such as the X-33/X-34? How would you revitalize spaceplane research? And would any of you remove funding from existing NASA programs such as exploration to fund research in advanced launch technologies? Or has that ship sailed?

I would certainly remove funding from Ares development for it (because I’d do that on general principles). But NASA wasn’t particularly good at funding launch R&D, as exemplified by the X-33 fiasco. What I would do is get NASA out of the launch development business entirely, and back into the R&T business, and start to view industry as the customer for it, as NACA did. If NASA really wanted to support commercial industry with VSE (as recommended by the Aldridge Commission), it would be doing two fundamental things, neither of which it’s doing much of right now. And no, COTS doesn’t count — it has nothing to do with the VSE.

First, it would be purchasing services, including launch services, from the commercial sector, as it does for unmanned exploration, and stop trying to develop and operate its own dedicated vehicles. Second, it would be canvassing those providers for input as to what high-risk technologies could reduce future costs and increase reliability, and start investing in those. That could include developing X-Vehicles, but they should be true X-Vehicles, each one focused on proving out one or (at most) two key technologies, and not relying on those technologies to be able to fly at all (the grand failing of X-33). They would also be much less risk averse for X programs, and not idiotically shut them down when almost complete out of fear of failure (e.g., X-34). Not to mention demanding that they incorporate some pet NASA project, like a Marshall-developed engine (X-34 again).

There are lots of lessons to be learned from space history, but unfortunately, the space policy establishment seems determined to learn the stupendously wrong ones (e.g., Shuttle proved reusables don’t work, so let’s do Apollo again), and ignore the sensible ones.

6 thoughts on “Should NASA Get Back Into The Launch R&D Business?”

  1. I’d be happy with a DARPA/Contractor model, where NASA does the blue sky risky stuff but buys production parts from the private sector. The occasional prize project might be good too.

    Most importantly though I’d make it clear that if less than 1/2 of their projects don’t result in apparent failure than they’re not taking enough risk.

  2. X-33 was still a good value for the money, compared to Ares I. Thats damning it with a faint praise, but at least there is a set of XRS-2200 engines now somewhere on the shelves. Did LMT ever try and build the RS-2200 version ?
    Anyway, even the uncompleted X-programs like DC-X or X-33 leave some crumbs behind, at least in a way of ideas. I’d tend to think that VTVLs wouldnt be half that popular these days, if not for DC-X demos.

  3. If NASA could fund a whole lot of TRL 1 –> 4(?), and purchase goods and services, that would satisfy me.

    It would likely not satisfy the Senators for Life(TM) in Alabama, Florida, and Texas, though.

  4. NASA has always been an Administration that advertises itself as an exploration group – but spends most of its time and energy on developing launch vehicles. That was understandable back in the Cold War days but not now.

    I wish that we could have two organizations – one that did exploration and one that competed with commercial firms for the launch business. I bet that the second organization might be able to be quietly dissolved without too much argument. But then I have been wrong before!

  5. I’ld love a DARPA like NASA, but in Washington and with voters, the point of NASA is that it went to the moon once adn it employs a lot of folks now. DARPA doesn’t feed city sized space centers with enough pork feed jobs.

  6. Maybe we need to spin off a launch systems DARPA? NASA sandbagged Lock/Mart on X-33/VentuerStar because it was a threat to shuttle ops, but if the developer and operation groups were seperate, developing a V* as a test for a craft that cuold support NASA adn military future needs?

    Course then both ops groups could then just ignore you as a think tank.

Comments are closed.