20 thoughts on “NASA Adrift”

  1. Without seed funding from NASA, they say, SpaceX wouldn’t exist.

    Is there anyway to put a stake in the heart of this lie? Winning a $2.6b award doesn’t help.

    1. It seems US military was more helpful than NASA. As SpaceX first launched from Kwajalein Atoll.
      I think NASA helped the most by providing ex-NASA employees.

    2. I don’t think it is a lie. Elon himself has said that NASA was key to SpaceX’s survival, and NASA has certainly spent perhaps five or ten times what Elon and private investors spent on SpaceX, depending on how one counts. Arguably, in proportion, the two EELV developers spent more of their internal funds on EELV vehicle development than SpaceX has for Falcon.

      The bigger question is why it is now taking about ten times more NASA money for SpaceX to accomplish the goals of COTS-D (the un-exercised option)? After all, COTS-D would have produced the exact same result as the current program, only by about 2010-12, not 2017. How soon we forget…

      1. I assume that’s a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer anyway. COTS-D was before:

        1) Space Acts Agreements evolved from simple sheets of paper to complex bureaucratic documents requiring months of negotiations and a compliance handbook with 157 pages of instructions.

        2) A series of downselects, which reduced the number of competitors at every stage.

        3) NASA imposed imposed its human-rating standards and related requirements (currently “one thousand separate requirements, according to SpaceX’s Garrett Reisman).

        4) NASA finally discarded Space Acts entirely in favor of Federal Acquisition Rules.

        5) The space activist community stood by and smiled, as each of these happened, for fear that if it said anything, NASA would cut off funding entirely.

    3. Is there anyway to put a stake in the heart of this lie? Winning a $2.6b award doesn’t help.

      Probably not. But I think it’s gone ridiculously far especially with the taint argument common to discussions of NASA “spinoffs” where a little NASA funding magically becomes responsible for the entirety of an R&D program merely because they chipped some money in.

    4. NASA is certainly SpaceX’s biggest customer. Without that customer, SpaceX in its current form wouldn’t exist. Per Wikipedia (so it’s gotta be true!), the funding breakdown in 2012 was:

      Musk: $100M
      Private Equity: $200M
      Other Investors: $100M
      NASA: $400-500M

      Now, a lot of the NASA money is actually progress payments that will get charged off in discounted launch costs. So, technically, the money that NASA provided is not “seed” money. But it’s hard to imagine SpaceX launching six F9 missions in the last nine months without NASA’s help. (At the very least, since NASA is the customer for a third of those launches, the tempo would be slower.) One could make a fairly decent argument that Falcon 9 would only now be coming online without the COTS money.

      None of this is to take away anything from Elon and the Boys ‘n’ Girls. Nor is it intended to perpetuate the ULA propaganda that’s implying that SpaceX launch costs are low because NASA’s propping it up, which is desperate nonsense. But you seem to be implying that government incentives and infrastructure have had no role in building one of the great corporate success stories of the new century, and that’s just not true.

      1. So, technically, the money that NASA provided is not “seed” money.

        So, technically my foot. NASA was a customer. Seed money came from Elon, then about the 3rd F1 attempt from some of his paypal friends. Customers are not seed money although kind of important for any business.

  2. I don’t think it is a lie.

    Then Gary, let me explain as clearly as I can why it is. It’s just a variation of the , “you didn’t build that” fallacy. Worse is it insidiously requires an alternate universe argument to refute “well, if he was never tainted he would have…” which nobody can make.

    People like Elon have a funny way of being successful regardless of the obstacles, and when they do fail, picking themselves up and succeeding anyway. I would argue he did just that with his F1 program.

    But there is one alternate universe we can be fairly certain of… if Elon hadn’t built SpaceX it would not exist. That Elon himself says he probably would have failed without government help means very little. Elon can’t predict alternate universes any better than the rest of us.

    It’s not just a lie. It’s a wicked vicious evil insidious lie told by whores [of any gender] that can’t build anything but only tear down others. I’m afraid decorum limits me from expressing how I really feel.

    1. Elon Musk founded SpaceX with the goal of getting NASA contracts. It was Elon, and his Washington representative, who met with Sean O’Keefe and sold him on the idea that NASA should replace the Space Shuttle with expendable rockets and capsules so it could go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond — what later became known as the “Bush Vision of Space Exploration.”

      There is little doubt that Elon expected the contracts to build the new rocket and “Crew Exploration Vehicle” would go to SpaceX, rather than Boeing. SpaceX had not even flown the Falcon 1, but Elon was very inexperienced in Washington and politically naive at the time. Many of the “NewSpace” activists who supported BVSE in 2004 did so in the belief that SpaceX would get the contracts for it. Commercial Crew and Cargo were merely a “consolation prize.”

      Elon has stated all along that his superheavy rocket (BFR or MCT) will be developed largely with government funding. More recently, he has stated that his Mars colony will be also depend on NASA funding, indefinitely.

      Alternative universes aside, there is no reason that the real Elon, in our universe, would have gone down this path without the expectation of NASA funding.

      1. Ed, I do not dispute your comment other than its conclusion.

        Of course he went for government contracts. If profitable, why would he not? But that is not seed money. He was building the F1 before he got a dime from anybody.

        [Elon] would [NOT] have gone down this path without the expectation of NASA funding.

        That’s not an unreasonable conclusion but would you allow for the possibility that it’s wrong? Because it does not take into account Elon’s motivation. Keep in mind this is a guy that went to Russia to buy an ICBM. Suppose NASA had said, sorry we only buy from established players. Do you really imagine Elon responding with… “ok then, time to give up.” Keeping in mind the 100s of millions of his own money he put into the thing before a single customer?

        1. You’re confusing cause and effect. The evidence clearly shows that Elon saw NASA as a potential customer before he started putting money into rockets.

          I realize that SpaceX is a religion for many people, but there seem to be two Elons — the one you believe in and the one who makes public statements and issues press releases.

          1. Edward, I said I didn’t dispute your earlier comment because that’s how I remember it as well. So obviously I’m aware of the cause and effect time line.

            Would you invest hundred of millions because NASA showed an interest, without any contract? Elon was simply doing due diligence.

            Let’s be clear. NASA gave no seed money to SpaceX. So it is a lie. Encouragement or expectations do not alter that fact.

  3. I would also be interested in knowing why it should cost billions of dollars to develop a capsule for an existing rocket.

    1. Boeing probably asked for even more. Why wouldn’t they? They’re guaranteed to get a contract as payback for the NLRB thing.

  4. Since we’re talking about SpaceX, they seem to have done about as fast a turn-around for the ISS resupply mission as I’ve ever seen. They still have eight flights on their “launch manifest” for the rest of this year, and only one listed on SpaceFlightNow’s list, in December. Does anyone know what they are planning to do for the rest of the year?

    1. The Dragon 2 launch pad abort test in November, the next ISS resupply mission (CRS-5) currently scheduled for December 5, and a commercial launch, date and customer to be named later.

    1. I don’t view him as a hero. He is however a success, and his interests coincide with mine to a degree. It is in my interest to see SpaceX succeed, as well as Virgin and XCOR and Masten and Altius and Scaled and ARCAspace and Copenhagen Suborbital and Orbital Outfitters and Planetary Resources… I want as many of these to succeed as possible, and I want the failures to be part of a creative destruction process, with many many more companies coming on board. I want lots of activity, lots of competition. That’s the only way I’ll be able to buy my ticket in my lifetime.

      1. Once Dragon V2 and CST-100 are flying, will Bigelow have an excuse for not launching his Alpha station? Then we’ll find out if there really is a market (at his price) for zero g camping.

  6. That is a fair assessment Trent. I am certainly not into hero worship, but he should be given his due. He has turned the industry upside down in their need to respond to his accomplishments and he isn’t even started yet.

Comments are closed.