Henry Spencer isn’t mourning the loss of Constellation, because the only loss was the opportunity to waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that would likely have never even repeated Apollo.
[Update a few minutes later]
Also, thoughts from Jeff Krukin: Do we need destinations and deadlines? No, but we do need goals and milestones. This will be NASA’s challenge in the next few weeks.
Jeff Krukin:
First we get it working… profitably… in sub-orbital flight, then to LEO, and then beyond.
Until there are revenue streams that are not taxpayer based, there is no profit. Finding buyers of human spaceflight who don’t need tax dollars to pay the bills is the mission critical breakthrough point.
Until there are revenue streams that are not taxpayer based, there is no profit.
That is accounting nonsense.
Rand, do you believe the profit ATK makes selling RSRM for Shuttle is the type of profit Jeff Krukin is referring to in his piece?
I don’t know what you mean by “type of” profit. Profit is profit.
Rand,
Firms like SpaceX seem to have no problem with profits coming from government money.
Tom
[[[First we get it working… profitably… in sub-orbital flight, then to LEO, and then beyond.]]]
If that is true then why does New Space need to become NASA contractors? This has always been one of the problems I have with the New Space Rhetoric. They want a space program that is based on private markets yet they spend their time looking at how to close their business models with NASA money. They are disappointed they are not able to find private markets…
In the 1960’s there were two paths to building a wide body aircraft. One was the Government’s C-5 program. It produced a great plane for government airlift needs. But for some reason private industry just didn’t buy any of the L-500’s Lockheed offered. When the production run for the USAF ended the line was shut down. I guess there wasn’t much demand in private industry to haul tanks, jeeps and helicopters to the battle front.
Boeing based its design on what the airline industry, starting with Pan Am, needed for a wide body. the B747 is still in production 40 years later. In fact Boeing just had its first flight of its newest version, the B747-8 this week and the B747 will probably be in production on its 50th anniversary.
Any lessons here perhaps for New Space? And why NASA going “commercial” is not the victory they think it is?
The path to a sustainable private space launch industry is not through NASA. That’s a path into a dead end as New Space will soon find out. Its through focusing on the Comsat and suborbital markets you will get a private industry. Not just tourism, but the larger suborbital science and education markets. Yes, it will take longer that way, but a good foundation always takes time to build. And if New Space started in that direction in the 1990’s, instead of pushing for RLV programs at NASA we would probably be there now.
The airline industry wasn’t built on recycling bombers and military cargo aircraft design into civil airliners. It was build on aircraft designed to meet civil airline needs. The same is going to be true for space commerce, which is why its sad that Blue Origin is appears to be drinking the kool-aid of commercial crew launch with its new capsule design
There is a role for government stimulating it, but its not commercial crew. Its actually doing what worked for the airlines which was creating a civilian market. But that would take looking beyond NASA.
Until there are revenue streams that are not taxpayer based, there is no profit.
Just because there is one buyer (not quite true actually) doesn’t mean there should be one supplier. NASA’s money doesn’t come from the generosity of its employees and contractors, it comes from hard working taxpayers. When there is competition on the supply side innovative companies like Masten get a chance. When there isn’t, MSFC continues to build it empire.
The absence of large scale commercial demand cannot justify government design bureaus.
There actually is more than one customer for the space industry right now. Unfortunately, most of them are governments at this point (US-NASA, US-DOD, Russia, Japan, ESA, China, India, etc.) and American aerospace companies are severely crippled by ITAR restrictions.
The major risk of working for government customers seems to be that your company is seriously warped by regulation and the vagaries of annual budgets. Still, income is income. Sovereign customers are (probably) better than no customers. In the US we can hope and seek for government programs that, like COTS, foster businesses that can serve both government and commercial markets. We can also seek serious ITAR reform to allow American firms to compete in international markets.
My biggest concern right now is that with Constellation canceled, NASA will turn its fairly radioactive attention in full force on the nascent human spaceflight industry and smother it, whether they mean to or not. At the very least I am very leery of NASA decreeing transport safety standards.
Henry Spencer’s article was right on the money (as usual), but the commentators at the New Scientist blog were nearly all nihilistic.
Tom D.
[[[The major risk of working for government customers seems to be that your company is seriously warped by regulation and the vagaries of annual budgets.]]]
That is exactly right, which is why Boeing has a Commercial Aircraft division separated from the one that works as a contractor for the government. Lockheed use to have a separate commercial division as well back in the old days when they were still selling the L1011.
That might be one strategy for New Space firms to follow to salvage some of their push to develop a commercial human spaceflight industry, basically fire walling their government contracting from the rest of their business.
There actually is more than one customer for the space industry right now. Unfortunately, most of them are governments at this point (US-NASA, US-DOD, Russia, Japan, ESA, China, India, etc.) and American aerospace companies are severely crippled by ITAR restrictions.
Bingo!
There would be ample profit for NewSpace if they were allowed to sell “flags and footprints” missions to other countries. And we do need to increase our exports, right?
A half dozen flights per year to ISS, when divided between multiple commercial providers, is a tiny market. Hardly enough to support robust commercial competition.
What’s your point Bill?
Every company jumps through hoops for it’s customers. Government is just another customer (regardless of the paperwork demands.) The danger is not having a broad base of customers. The reason we don’t have a larger customer base is because they all live on the Earth. The market will never get much larger until that changes. Unfortunately, that change will not initially be profit driven. I don’t see any gold rush driving people to this frontier.
SpaceX is a profitable company, but none of it is coming from it’s goal to go to Mars and that’s not likely to change in the next few decades. But once colonies create market needs, that will create profit driven markets.
Regarding the C-5 Galaxy AFAIK it was a good plane which enabled some missions which otherwise would have been hard or impossible (Operation Nickel Grass comes to mind). But it also had some teething problems, and was expensive to purchase and maintain. It got a bad rep, just like the F-111 did, even after most problems were resolved.
The Soviet Union equivalent (An-124) has had some commercial success so it seems this kind of transport capability is required. But it costs nearly half as much.
Godzilla,
Yes, the C-5 was expensive to build and operate, mostly because of what the USAF wanted it to do. The same will be true for the commercial crew vehicles.
The AN-124 represents the Russian focus on simple, rugged aircraft produced in volume. Different culture, different result.
Excellent Essay by Henry Spencer, especially his conclusion…
“The one aspect of the announcement that is worrisome is the vagueness of the long-term plans. “We’ll do neat stuff someday” is a recipe for going back into the holding pattern NASA has been stuck in for many years, driving endlessly around the parking lot without ever getting out onto the road. Even if the transportation is going to come from commercial providers and the details will depend on them, they need some rough idea of what NASA wants to do and when. A clearer explanation of NASA’s new exploration goals is urgently needed.”
I’d say it looks like VSE is dead.
>== “We’ll do neat stuff someday” is a recipe for going back into the
> holding pattern NASA has been stuck in for many years, driving
> endlessly around the parking lot without ever getting out onto the road.==
Yeah, the point of VSE was to get NASA focused on a goal they would have to accompich, not just endless studies.
Brad,
[[[I’d say it looks like VSE is dead.]]]
The big question will be if its death sets back the creation of a Cislunar economy for a generation by transforming New Space firms into being NASA contractors as NASA, once again, pursues CATS…
> The big question will be if [VSE] death sets back the creation of a
> Cislunar economy for a generation by transforming New Space
> firms into being NASA contractors as NASA, once again, pursues CATS…
Not the later. NASA leads state they think CATS adn RLVs or any reusable space ship is impossible. They are just shelving VSE -not working to foster commercial space.
I’d say it looks like VSE is dead.
Or at least it looks as if NASA isn’t going to be playing a large part in it. Big difference.
> Martijn Meijering Says:
>> I’d say it looks like VSE is dead.
> Or at least it looks as if NASA isn’t going to be playing a large part in it. =
VSE was a NASA federal exploration program, and no private group intends to pick it up, so i don’t get what you mean?