36 thoughts on “NASA And Private Space”

  1. “Here’s catch No. 1: NASA has not decided if it can fund more than one program. It intends to cut one of the three in what government procurement people call a “downselect.””

    Only having one would ignore one of the main reasons for having the CCDEV program in the first place. Weren’t the reasons safety, redundancy, self sufficiency, and $$?

  2. That depends on who you ask and how you define “sour.”

    The deal will continue to get worse and worse all the time. It’s already sour, by the standards of what “NewSpace” was asking for just a few years ago. NewSpace has no political leverage because the powers that be know they will never walk away from the table, no matter what is laid in front of them. Having put all their eggs in the CCDev basket, NewSpace has no fallback plan. So, they’ll take whatever Congress offers them and pretend it’s what they wanted.

    1. The only participant that would really apply to is SNC. Boeing isn’t NewSpace, and SpaceX has a backlog of dozens of revenue-generating launches (doesn’t sound like all their eggs are in the CCDev basket to me).

      I don’t think he will, but if Elon gets sufficiently fed up he could bow out and still have a successful company launching government and commercial payloads, and still make progress (albeit likely slower progress) on Dragon Rider.

    2. NewSpace has no fallback plan.

      Au contraire, mon frere; Newspacers are the only ones with fallback plans. Elon Musk is on record as saying Dragonrider will fly regardless of gov’t. funding. I believe him. Given how much has already been accomplished toward this end, I’m inclined to think SpaceX might actually get Dragonrider to first flight status more quickly if they were downselected by NASA in the next round than they will if included.

      Sierra Nevada, already making do on the leanest slice of NASA funding, has the lowest bar to get over to replace potential lost NASA revenue and keep going. They have inked recent technology sharing deals with both ESA and the German national space agency. If NASA downselects Dream Chaser in the next round, they may well be able to cut new deals with both agencies across the pond to get at least some funding from each.

      The only current participant with no apparent “Plan B” in view is Boeing. If, as politically improbable as it may seem, CST-100 is dropped or even cut back to “halfsies” in the next round, it’s probably toast.

      1. Dick, you can’t understand Ed’s comment without understanding that he seems to completely buy into the nutty notion that a few people in the Space Frontier Foundation (as opposed to actual private space companies) are “Newspace.”

        1. Rand, you seem to be laboring under some misconception about the origin of the NewSpace “brand” (as SFF calls it). The following documents describe how it was “derived from a collaboration of a few Advocates of the Space Frontier Foundation.”

          http://spacefrontier.org/history-of-newspace/
          http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/100117193

          Being an “actual private space company” is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be invited into the NewSpace club.

          Until 2004, for example, NewSpace conference speakers were forbidden to even *mention* the X-Prize Foundation or any X-Prize team, because SFF officers couldn’t get along with the people running the X-Prize. That ban didn’t end until the first X-Prize flight was imminent and SFF suddenly realized that how foolish it was going to look.

          The ATK Liberty Rocket (formerly Ares I) was initially welcomed into the NewSpace tent, then kicked out. Now it’s back again, after ATK wrote a big sponsorship check.

          2. You may not care, but Congress does. A large number of staffers I speak to think commercial space is simply SpaceX because that’s all they ever hear about.

            Journalists do, too. The most annoying is Jason Rhian, who keeps insisting that I am part of NewSpace and attributing all sorts of views to me, despite constant attempts to correct him.

          3. The spats over self-identification in the various fanboy and “advocate” tribes haven’t interested me much since the L5 Society folded up.

            I use the term “NewSpace” to refer, collectively, to all the entrepreneurial launch vehicle and other space hardware companies, living and dead, but especially those still living, that have popped up since Gary Hudson’s early days.

            “OldSpace” are, hence, the historical aircraft metal benders with pre-WW2 roots like LockMart, Boeing and Northrup-Grumman who diversified into space stuff when it became a well-funded gov’t. monopoly in the 60’s.

            Orbital Sciences, I regard as being all by itself in a category I like to call “Middle-AgedSpace”.

          4. Dick, there are people who call all soft drinks “Coke” and all conservatives “Republicans.” That doesn’t make it so.

            Being entrepreneurial is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being invited to “NewSpace.”

            If you had paid attention to NewSpace the last couple of years, you would have seen their conferences are more about NASA than entrepreneurial space. (Not surprising, since most of their funding comes from NASA.)

            At last year’s NewSpace Conference, it was stated over and over again that the only “correct” way to do space is through “public-private partnerships” (i.e., political connections to NASA).

            “NewSpace” is a private club, and you have to pay to play. How did ATK’s “Liberty Rocket” (formerly Ares I) get to be NewSpace? It’s not entrepreneurial in any meaningful way, and NewSpace actually opposed it at one time. That was before ATK became their second largest donor, however.

          6. You may not care, but Congress does

            I don’t believe you. Congress has collectively shown a profound disinterest in space related affairs. I’m sure that I could get them to care just as much about oh, “plaid-space” by cutting suitably large checks or organizing tens of thousands of irate voters.

          7. Karl, I suggest you spend some time on Capitol Hill, instead of just imagining what you think Congress thinks.

            After 20 or 30 meetings, I think you will realize that Elon Musk is *not* popular on the Hill — despite his “large checks.”

      2. Saying that SpaceX and Dream Chaser can’t possibly fail is an expression of faith, *not* a backup plan.

        There’s an old saying about putting all your eggs in one basket.

        1. If I’d actually said any such thing you might have a point. There are plenty of ways both Dragonrider and Dream Chaser can still fail. I was merely pointing out that being forcibly ripped away from the NASA teat seems unlikely to be on the list of Dragonrider failure modes at all and is only moderately far up the list of such for Dream Chaser as it is already on fairly short gov’t. rations. If NASA pulls the other half of its plug on Dream Chaser and ESA and the Germans fail to put any money behind their recent official expressions of interest, then Dream Chaser is almost certainly over. But the European interest seems genuine and they could probably keep Dream Chaser going, albeit more slowly, even if they supported it at an even lower yearly figure than NASA provides now. I would be amazed if Sierra Nevada is not already engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations for contingency funding of this sort.

          The worst-case scenario for Dragonrider, vis-a-vis NASA funding, is being downselected for the next round and then for the ISS to fail to attract non-U.S. partner support sufficient to continue it in operation past 2020. That would put both further gov’t. development money and roughly half the potential future ISS crew transport market out of reach. But said downselection can’t come until late this year at the earliest and SpaceX should have both the pad and in-flight abort tests of Dragonrider under their belts by then. SpaceX can either keep going on its CCtCap milestone list, unfunded, like Blue Origin has done since it was downselected in the last round, or proceed on an accelerated, non-NASA-based schedule to get both Dragonrider and Falcon Heavy operational ASAP. This would allow getting some BA 330’s up that would provide crew transport revenue sources in LEO other than the ISS. And Elon could still bid to carry crew to and from ISS once his ability to do so is a fait accompli.

          1. Again, if SpaceX and Sierra Nevada don’t need CCDev, why is NewSpace so obsessed with it? Why are they suddenly willing to accept NASA Human Rating requirements, Federal Acquisition Rules, and cost-plus contracting, which they opposed a few years ago, unless they’re desperate?

            Elon Musk has said that Falcon Heavy will depend on government funding for development. What do you know that he doesn’t?

            You also forget that ESA’s astronaut program is tied directly to ISS. There’s still a potential single-point failure there.

          2. if SpaceX and Sierra Nevada don’t need CCDev, why is NewSpace so obsessed with it?

            Why are you asking us? Go ask whoever you imagine is obsessed with it. You seem to be obsessed with them, far beyond their relevance.

          3. Elon Musk has said that Falcon Heavy will depend on government funding for development. What do you know that he doesn’t?

            AFAIK, I don’t know anything that Elon doesn’t with regard to his need/desire for government money. What I know that you apparently don’t is that sometimes Elon may say things that aren’t necessarily the case to get it. As for why people consider commercial crew important if it isn’t strictly required, possibly it’s because they think it accelerates things. Your mileage may vary.

      3. I’m more optimistic about the CST-100 being completed. Key to remember is development costs under commercial space are 1/10th those under government space. Then considering how far along Boeing is already with the capsule they could afford to complete the development on their own. Remember it won’t be multi-billions of dollars as Orion was and is. People have MUCH better sense when it’s their own money being spent and/or wasted.
        Considering that it would be carried by the highly reliable and frequently flown Atlas V that would be a strong vote in its favor for NASA to use it to launch their astronauts. In short Boeing could still launch the CST-100 profitably even if they self-funded its completion.

        Bob Clark

  3. I keep just looking at the SpaceX launch manifest in awe.

    The “NASA/ISS Resuply” missions listed are -cargo- missions that are separate from the entire crew discussion, correct?

    That just doesn’t look like a manifest reliant upon NASA/ISS Crew missions at -all-. Even the Cargo missions are only 25% of launches – with plenty of other customers waiting in line.

    1. The cargo resupply missions exist to support crew missions. If NASA ended its involvement in ISS, both would stop.

      Don’t kid yourself. This is a potential single-point failure.

      1. It would be a single point failure for NASA, but not for NewSpace in general or for SpaceX in particular. As I already noted above, SpaceX has other options. The most long-term profitable one is to serve as launch provider for additional significant LEO human-crewed infrastructure. ISS is not the only large LEO platform that will ever orbit the Earth. Orbital Sciences is already pursuing other markets for their Antares launcher. They might even find non-NASA takers for Cygnus vehicles, though that seems less likely. Even if ISS goes away in 2020, though, cargo and crew contracts will be profitable, overall, for SpaceX, Orbital and whomever winds up being segundo on crew.

        1. There is no “significant LEO human-crewed infrastructure,” and there won’t be as long as we’re dependent on cost-plus NASA-rated systems. Whether they are manufactured by Elon Musk or the Loughead brothers.

          Harry Stine told us that 30 years ago. But he was “old space,” so no pays any attention.

          1. I didn’t say there was. I said SpaceX could collaborate with Bigelow Aerospace to create some to their mutual benefit. Falcon Heavy could put up BA 330 modules two at a time. What NASA does and says is, unfortunately, still of some importance, but that importance is diminishing daily. I’m pointing out that we are on the cusp of a future in which what NASA says and does is no longer crucially dispositive as to what actually goes on in space. I’m with Dr. Matula in regarding this as a good thing.

          2. Sorry, Dick, you don’t get it.

            What we need are not bigger rockets but *cheaper* rockets. Disintegrating totem poles are a dead end.

            And still, you have no plan B. You just keep saying that plan A can’t fail because — Elon!

    2. On the other hand, suppose you and Dick are right.

      If SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are not dependent on CCDev and ISS, why do “NewSpace” lobbyists obsess over CCDev?

      For more than 10 years, they have refused to support tax incentives, technology prizes, space property rights, data purchase, regulatory and liability reform, and other measures that would help the entire commercial space industry — not just a tiny handful of companies selected by NASA.

      Every time the subject came up, the answer was the same. “Alt Access/COTS/CCDev is more important.” Anything else was considered a distraction and Politically Incorrect.

      1. 1) Because that’s what lobbyists do. Cronyism seems to be the norm when you’re in DC.
        2) If I could set policy with the intent of helping the development of space companies, it would be to simply guarantee a 5-year fixed-rate for delivery to ISS of -unlimited- consumables ‘packed for storage’. From food, water/ice, -anything- on a specific parts list, gases, fuel. Yes, this would get the scientists in a snit. Yes, you’d potentially have to figure out how to ‘park’ a whole lot of pods – either directly attached to ISS, or as a nascent cargo depot.
        3) (Back to the last question of ‘What happens when everything’s cancelled’): If not -just- the Crew section, but the -entire- ISS is cancelled, SpaceX -still- has a reasonable launch manifest. And how much cash would NASA have to spend at that point? And what would they be blowing it on? An abrupt termination of ISS might be problematic for SpaceX, but (if there’s a successful Falcon Heavy flight), it would seem to be kicking another leg out of under the entire wobbling stool known as NASA itself. The explorers would still be supporting missions … for non-NASA companies to launch. And then you have the SLS floundering around with only a very short list of ‘-needs- SLS’ missions (where even those are questionable with a depot). Which SpaceX is (IMNSHO) on the edge of simply -having- with Falcon Heavy.

      2. Because the only thing most rocket engineers understand how to do well is respond to government RFPs. They haven’t a clue what commercial really means in the real world. That is why New Space is just short for the New Space Contractors.

        The good thing if SpaceX is sacked is that they may finally start working on flying DragonLab and actually start learning things that are useful for space settlement, instead of wasting time merely supplying the great commune in the sky.

      3. I’m not sure what “lobbyists” you’re talking about. SpaceX and Orbital both have some lobbyists on their payrolls. I suspect both get their calls returned these days. If you mean representatives of “space advocacy” organizations, they have no significant influence because they have no consequential grassroots membership and no significant money to contribute to campaigns. What they support or don’t is of no importance because no one in Congress takes them seriously.

        1. As you said, you stopped paying attention to the space advocacy movement some time ago.

          If you draw a Venn diagram, you will find a significant overlap between the “NewSpace” leadership and professional lobbying firms. The beltway insiders call the shots when it comes to policy.

          1. Provide a modest list – say a half-dozen names – of so-called “NewSpace leaders” and the nature of their connections to lobbying firms please.

            I still say the Venn diagram of space advocacy groups and people who actually influence space policy shows no intersection.

          2. Here’s a short list of names.

            James Muncy, principal and owner of the lobbying firm PoliSpace. James Muncy, former senior space staffer on the House Science Committee. James Muncy, co-founder and ex-officio board member for life at SFF.

            Aaron Oesterle, Muncy’s assistant at PoliSpace. Aaron Oesterle, SFF board member and leader of SFF’s “Keep the Promise” lobbying campaign.

            Berin Szoka, SFF board member and former (possibly current) chairman. Berin Szoka, Washington lawyer, head of the DC “think tank” TechFreedom, and member of the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee.

            Charles Miller, former SFF board member (who still maintains close ties and has an effective veto power on political issues). Charles Miller, political appointee who served as senior advisor on commercial space to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Charles Miller, former head of the grassroots lobby ProSpace America, currently head of the DC lobbying firm NextGen Space.

            James Tumber, Miller’s assistant at NextGen Space. James Tumber, Vice President of SFF.

            Do you see any overlap?

    3. I agree. If SpaceX can successfully do the roughly one mission per month schedule they’ve got queued up for this year, their launch manifest will do nothing but grow still more impressive. Satellite operators will desert the premium-priced Ariane and hit-or-miss Proton for Falcon rides that are as reliable as the former and cheaper than the latter. This process will accelerate as SpaceX brings new pad capacity on-line at Kennedy Space Center (LC-39A) and at its all-but-certain new “greenfield” spaceport near Brownsville, TX.

  4. NASA is really working hard to make itself irrelevent. Does anybody think Elon is going to let NASA tell them how to build his stuff beyond the few negligible bits they’ve allowed so far? Elon’s pragmatism can only be stretched so far.

    We can only hope NASA thinks they’ve got a winning hand and pushes even more.

    1. Ken,

      Good observation. The sooner NASA is shut down, the sooner a real private space economy will emerge and build.

      Imagine where America be today if Jamestown had been a government settlement.

Comments are closed.