Looks like Henry is now recognizing that COTS/CCP has the potential to place NASA in a position to replace the FAA AST in space commerce regulation, something I warned about from the beginning of the COTS/CCP effort when everyone what cheering it on.
[[[In support of that same goal, to attempt to capture the commercial human spaceflight regulation job away from FAA AST. (We’d overlooked this one in our last Update, as being such a blatant conflict of interest with such huge scope for old NASA bureaucratic turf-defense mischief-making that nobody could possibly take it seriously. We’ve now been reminded that far too many don’t yet understand this.)]]]
But than that was an easy prediction if you take time to understand the NASA mindset, which is why NASA will never be on the path to cheap access to space.
Two points: One, yes, it’s been obvious for years old NASA wants to capture the regulatory process for commercial human spaceflight. There was no point in making a fuss about it till now, because it was a long way off and there were more urgent problems. Focus matters.
And two, just to be clear, it’s not the COTS/CCP people who are pushing this capture – they have their hands full just trying to achieve the actual program objectives, fostering useful commercial capabilities. Other parts of NASA with more time on their hands are the ones trying to hijack both CCP and commercial regulation.
What urgent problems? There is and hasn’t been any problem more urgent over the last 30 years than breaking the NASA monopoly on orbital HSF. Commercial Crew is just a continuation of that monopoly under a false flag. NASA has a history going back to the 1960’s of assimilating all American HSF and COTS/CCP is in that grand tradition.
Before NASA involvement SpaceX was talking about flying humans aboard the Dragon in 2012, and BA was building a true commercial habitat in orbit for the Dragon to go to. Now SpaceX has slowed Dragon development to the pace of NASA funding and BA is in a holding pattern until NASA gets out of the way and spare HSF capacity becomes available for something besides ISS.
But the worst part of CCP has always been the danger of NASA using certification to set the standards for HSF and endangering the future of the industry. Its a legacy that could damage the entire industry even if CCP collapses and was reason enough to oppose CCP since day one.
Now SpaceX has slowed Dragon development to the pace of NASA funding
There is no reason to think that Dragon development has been slowed by NASA’s funding. That makes no sense at all. SpaceX has always been overoptimistic with its schedules.
Rand,
SpaceX used to be overoptimistic in its early days but has learned a lot since then, including how the government contracting system works 🙂
Well, I see that, as usual, you have nothing useful or informative to contribute to the conversation.
Rand,
And you still keep looking at the world through rose colored glasses and refuse to see how SpaceX is being assimilated via COTS/CCP as a NASA contractor.
Its probably before you time but check out some of the early history and press releases of Orbital Sciences, from the early 1980’s, before they became assimilated as a government contractor. They had some grand visions.
Two broad points – NASA is not a monolith, it’s a whole bunch of different organizations flying in loose (sometimes very loose) formation. And politics is the art of the possible.
You presume COTS/CCP were captives of the old NASA manned-space mafia from the start. If so, why would COTS (Commercial Cargo) have been allowed to succeed to the point where it’s an existence-proof that old NASA’s ways are far from the best possible? And why would old NASA have been expending so much effort to capture CCP (Commercial Crew) if it’s already theirs? NASA is not a monolith, and by the evidence to date, the COTS/CCP management are genuinely trying (despite considerable organizational/political pressure) to accomplish their nominal job: Produce commercial cargo and crew capabilities that NASA can then buy at vastly lower cost than an old NASA development project.
As for priorities, last time there was a crisis for CCP, it was the attempt to impose FARS-based contracting (with attendant old NASA management intrusion and capture) two years ago. Certification was still years away, so we fought the immediate battle. (And won it, I might add, although alas not yet the war.)
Now, we’re seeing a second attempt to impose FARS-based contracting, combined with the “certification” phase where the effort to preempt FAA AST will get into high gear. So we’re fighting both dangers.
Agreed entirely that it’s a possibility that could damage the entire industry. So, help us fight it. CCP exists, and can still be either very good or very bad for the industry. Standing aside and saying it never should have existed in the first place (we very much disagree, but it’s a moot point now) doesn’t accomplish much to prevent the result you fear.
Henry,
I have been following space politics for decades and find your arguments about COTS/CCP less than convincing.
I recall the feeling in Las Cruces when NASA took over DC-X and created the X-33 program. Most of the folks on the Southwest Spaceport Task Force, generally long time WSMR veterans, expected NASA to run it so bad into the ground the entire idea of SSTO would be discredited. They were not disappointed.
Yes, there are some pockets of good folks at NASA, I have worked with many on space policy issues over the years, but once a promising project pops up the radar of the “old NASA” as you call it, is it assimilated into irrelevance. The mere fact COTS/CCP involved ISS ensured it would pop up on the “old NASA” radar and doomed it for the start. Oh, there will be “commercial” vehicles to ISS, like the Dragon, but it will be commercial only in name. They will be as ill suited to the commercial market as the Lockheed L-500.
Really, there are few if any successes of government funding development of commercial aircraft, why do folks expect space will be different?
Yes, that is why I am fighting CCP, but I am not limiting my fight to preventing FARS from being imposed on it. I think it should be killed entirely so those vehicles are developed as true commercial vehicles serving true commercial markets like BA, not government contractor vehicles pretending to be “commercial” spacecraft.
Tom,
I was there when NASA took over DC-X also. (I was there when SSX was sold to the government in the first place, and also when it was downsized to DC-X, but that’s another story.)
Agreed that once a promising project comes above the radar horizon, old NASA tries to assimilate it into irrelevance. Times have changed and they have lost clout, however – not least because of their history of expensive botches, but also because some of us have been calling them on it a long time.
We fight, we gain a little ground each time, we move on to the next fight. For a point of comparison between current commercial and government developments, F9/Dragon carries more payload than the european ATV at roughly a quarter of the per-mission cost, and has a return capability too. And that’s at NASA-paperwork prices, and includes the $400m NASA put up toward F9/Dragon development.
If that had been an old NASA project, $400m wouldn’t have paid for the viewgraphs…
I’d guess that when Bigelow gets to where they’re ready to put resupply out to bid, they’ll be able to negotiate a considerably better deal than that. “Commercial only in name”? That’s a danger for Commercial Crew, yes – but far from the current reality for Commercial Cargo.
Anyway, we’re not pointed in directions fatally different. Let’s agree to disagree, and push on.
Henry,
Yes, I remember the original vision for DC-X as well as the original vision for the Southwest Regional Spaceport built around a DC-1 type system.
However Bigalow Aerospace has been ready to bid for years. Recall his American Space Prize from 2004? But $50 million for an American commercial system to take humans to orbit was not enough to compete with NASA’s billions for COTS/CRS, especially as cargo is always easier than crew and NASA was giving out most of the COTS money out up front as “milestone” payments.
Really how could a mere billionaire compete when his own tax dollars are used against him?
Its also no surprise he is now talking with Jeff Bezos. Blue Origin apparently is recognizing the assimilation risks associated with NASA and are breaking free.
Looks like Henry is now recognizing that COTS/CCP has the potential to place NASA in a position to replace the FAA AST in space commerce regulation, something I warned about from the beginning of the COTS/CCP effort when everyone what cheering it on.
[[[In support of that same goal, to attempt to capture the commercial human spaceflight regulation job away from FAA AST. (We’d overlooked this one in our last Update, as being such a blatant conflict of interest with such huge scope for old NASA bureaucratic turf-defense mischief-making that nobody could possibly take it seriously. We’ve now been reminded that far too many don’t yet understand this.)]]]
But than that was an easy prediction if you take time to understand the NASA mindset, which is why NASA will never be on the path to cheap access to space.
Two points: One, yes, it’s been obvious for years old NASA wants to capture the regulatory process for commercial human spaceflight. There was no point in making a fuss about it till now, because it was a long way off and there were more urgent problems. Focus matters.
And two, just to be clear, it’s not the COTS/CCP people who are pushing this capture – they have their hands full just trying to achieve the actual program objectives, fostering useful commercial capabilities. Other parts of NASA with more time on their hands are the ones trying to hijack both CCP and commercial regulation.
What urgent problems? There is and hasn’t been any problem more urgent over the last 30 years than breaking the NASA monopoly on orbital HSF. Commercial Crew is just a continuation of that monopoly under a false flag. NASA has a history going back to the 1960’s of assimilating all American HSF and COTS/CCP is in that grand tradition.
Before NASA involvement SpaceX was talking about flying humans aboard the Dragon in 2012, and BA was building a true commercial habitat in orbit for the Dragon to go to. Now SpaceX has slowed Dragon development to the pace of NASA funding and BA is in a holding pattern until NASA gets out of the way and spare HSF capacity becomes available for something besides ISS.
But the worst part of CCP has always been the danger of NASA using certification to set the standards for HSF and endangering the future of the industry. Its a legacy that could damage the entire industry even if CCP collapses and was reason enough to oppose CCP since day one.
Now SpaceX has slowed Dragon development to the pace of NASA funding
There is no reason to think that Dragon development has been slowed by NASA’s funding. That makes no sense at all. SpaceX has always been overoptimistic with its schedules.
Rand,
SpaceX used to be overoptimistic in its early days but has learned a lot since then, including how the government contracting system works 🙂
Well, I see that, as usual, you have nothing useful or informative to contribute to the conversation.
Rand,
And you still keep looking at the world through rose colored glasses and refuse to see how SpaceX is being assimilated via COTS/CCP as a NASA contractor.
Its probably before you time but check out some of the early history and press releases of Orbital Sciences, from the early 1980’s, before they became assimilated as a government contractor. They had some grand visions.
Two broad points – NASA is not a monolith, it’s a whole bunch of different organizations flying in loose (sometimes very loose) formation. And politics is the art of the possible.
You presume COTS/CCP were captives of the old NASA manned-space mafia from the start. If so, why would COTS (Commercial Cargo) have been allowed to succeed to the point where it’s an existence-proof that old NASA’s ways are far from the best possible? And why would old NASA have been expending so much effort to capture CCP (Commercial Crew) if it’s already theirs? NASA is not a monolith, and by the evidence to date, the COTS/CCP management are genuinely trying (despite considerable organizational/political pressure) to accomplish their nominal job: Produce commercial cargo and crew capabilities that NASA can then buy at vastly lower cost than an old NASA development project.
As for priorities, last time there was a crisis for CCP, it was the attempt to impose FARS-based contracting (with attendant old NASA management intrusion and capture) two years ago. Certification was still years away, so we fought the immediate battle. (And won it, I might add, although alas not yet the war.)
Now, we’re seeing a second attempt to impose FARS-based contracting, combined with the “certification” phase where the effort to preempt FAA AST will get into high gear. So we’re fighting both dangers.
Agreed entirely that it’s a possibility that could damage the entire industry. So, help us fight it. CCP exists, and can still be either very good or very bad for the industry. Standing aside and saying it never should have existed in the first place (we very much disagree, but it’s a moot point now) doesn’t accomplish much to prevent the result you fear.
Henry,
I have been following space politics for decades and find your arguments about COTS/CCP less than convincing.
I recall the feeling in Las Cruces when NASA took over DC-X and created the X-33 program. Most of the folks on the Southwest Spaceport Task Force, generally long time WSMR veterans, expected NASA to run it so bad into the ground the entire idea of SSTO would be discredited. They were not disappointed.
Yes, there are some pockets of good folks at NASA, I have worked with many on space policy issues over the years, but once a promising project pops up the radar of the “old NASA” as you call it, is it assimilated into irrelevance. The mere fact COTS/CCP involved ISS ensured it would pop up on the “old NASA” radar and doomed it for the start. Oh, there will be “commercial” vehicles to ISS, like the Dragon, but it will be commercial only in name. They will be as ill suited to the commercial market as the Lockheed L-500.
Really, there are few if any successes of government funding development of commercial aircraft, why do folks expect space will be different?
Yes, that is why I am fighting CCP, but I am not limiting my fight to preventing FARS from being imposed on it. I think it should be killed entirely so those vehicles are developed as true commercial vehicles serving true commercial markets like BA, not government contractor vehicles pretending to be “commercial” spacecraft.
Tom,
I was there when NASA took over DC-X also. (I was there when SSX was sold to the government in the first place, and also when it was downsized to DC-X, but that’s another story.)
Agreed that once a promising project comes above the radar horizon, old NASA tries to assimilate it into irrelevance. Times have changed and they have lost clout, however – not least because of their history of expensive botches, but also because some of us have been calling them on it a long time.
We fight, we gain a little ground each time, we move on to the next fight. For a point of comparison between current commercial and government developments, F9/Dragon carries more payload than the european ATV at roughly a quarter of the per-mission cost, and has a return capability too. And that’s at NASA-paperwork prices, and includes the $400m NASA put up toward F9/Dragon development.
If that had been an old NASA project, $400m wouldn’t have paid for the viewgraphs…
I’d guess that when Bigelow gets to where they’re ready to put resupply out to bid, they’ll be able to negotiate a considerably better deal than that. “Commercial only in name”? That’s a danger for Commercial Crew, yes – but far from the current reality for Commercial Cargo.
Anyway, we’re not pointed in directions fatally different. Let’s agree to disagree, and push on.
Henry,
Yes, I remember the original vision for DC-X as well as the original vision for the Southwest Regional Spaceport built around a DC-1 type system.
However Bigalow Aerospace has been ready to bid for years. Recall his American Space Prize from 2004? But $50 million for an American commercial system to take humans to orbit was not enough to compete with NASA’s billions for COTS/CRS, especially as cargo is always easier than crew and NASA was giving out most of the COTS money out up front as “milestone” payments.
Really how could a mere billionaire compete when his own tax dollars are used against him?
Its also no surprise he is now talking with Jeff Bezos. Blue Origin apparently is recognizing the assimilation risks associated with NASA and are breaking free.