Dana has been talking about this for a year, but he’s finally introduced it:
To require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to investigate and promote the exploration and development of space leading to human settlements beyond Earth, and for other purposes.
Development and settlement demand low cost of access to space, while NASA is forced by Congress to pursue a giant rocket that has exactly the opposite effect. I wish they’d left the E word out, because that’s implicit, and it allows people to maintain the status quo: “Well, the first thing we have to do is exploration, before we can think about development and settlement. And we can’t do exploration without SLS!”
I have a query in to Tony DeTora as to how this differs from the 1989 bill, because I still see no teeth in it regarding what to do if the administrator ignores it and doesn’t submit reports.
[Update a while later]
Related: A new book of essays and stories on the spiritual aspects of space
To require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to
investigate and promote the exploration andassist public institutions and private enterprise in the scientific inquiry and the development of space leading to human settlements beyond Earth, and for other purposes.(z) The use of the word “mission” by any NASA employee acting in either a management or supervisory (not advisory or technical) role as a reference to any internal NASA project shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $5000 per instance, with accompanying reduction of one GS pay-grade for a period of one-year from the infraction.
David Spain wrote: “To require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to investigate and promote the exploration and assist public institutions and private enterprise in the scientific inquiry and the development of space leading to human settlements beyond Earth, and for other purposes.”
If you read the current amended Space Act of 1958 that lays out NASA’s mandates it reads:
“(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.1
(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:”
This bill wants to change the (d)
“(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
“(d) Exploration, Development, And Settlement Of Space.—The Congress declares that expanding permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit in a way that enables human settlement and a thriving space economy will enhance the general welfare of the United States and requires the Administration to encourage and support the development of permanent space settlements.”;”
By following section (c) which demands commercial use the new (d) would by definition demand the use of commercial space to the maximum amount.
As I asked Rand in a different thread. Would congress just pass this and ignore it, like they have ignored section (c) maximizing commercial use for 20 years or would the congress actually embrace it along WITH the commercial use of space.
Would congress just pass this and ignore it, like they have ignored section (c) maximizing commercial use for 20 years or would the congress actually embrace it along WITH the commercial use of space.
That depends. Does “commercial” mean private companies producing products and services for private markets? Or does it mean government contractors developing products and services for the US government (NASA)?
The former is the way “commercial” was defined 20+ years ago. i.e., in the “Old Space” era. Now, we are told that Old Space was interested only in cost-plus government contracting. That is pure slander, concocted by Rick Tumlinson and company. Anyone who picks up one of G. Harry Stine’s books can see that.
Today, we’re told that NASA paying Lockheed to develop a space capsule for NASA astronauts is “Old Space” contracting — bad — but NASA paying Boeing to develop a space capsule for NASA astronauts is “New Space” “commercial” — good. CCDev has become more and more like “traditional” NASA contracting over time until, now, the only remaining difference is that Boeing’s contact is fixed-price while Lockheed’s is cost-plus.
But cost-plus accounting aside, there’s still the “1000 separate requirements” which NASA is imposing on Boeing and SpaceX, which Rand has acknowledged will increase costs.
Unfortunately, “NewSpace” advocates do not see the need for what we old-foggies used to call commercial markets. They’re too enamored of their version of “commercial” space (i.e., getting NASA contracts). The next step, we’re told is “Lunar COTS” — companies should go from being government contractors servicing ISS to government contractors servicing ISS 2 on the Moon. Of course, we’re assured that this will ultimately lead to space access for private citizens, at some distant, undefined point in the future. (The state will “whither away,” as Marx put it.) The question is whether any of us will be alive by the time that happens. Boeing doesn’t talk much about selling commercial rides to private citizens anymore; SpaceX has stopped marketing DragonLab and actually refused to sell a Dragon capsule to Dennis Tito’s Inspiration Mars, for fear of upsetting its primary government customer.
Back in the 1980’s, when the Reagan Administration started talking about commercial space, one aerospace executive said, “I don’t understand all this talk about ‘commercial space.’ We already have commercial space. Every bit of NASA hardware is built by private companies. That’s commercial.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction in which “NewSpace” is going. In the future, I expect that everything NASA does will be branded as “commercial.” There will be some minor procurement reform, with more fixed-price contracting, but the emphasis will continue to be a space program by the government, of the government, and for the government with ISS followed by ISS 2 on the Moon, ISS 3 on Mars, ISS 4 on Europa until, at some point, the government finally runs out of other people’s money.
The real hope for low-cost access to space lies not with the New[NASA]Space program but with the Alternative space program being developed by companies like Blue Origin, XCOR, and Virgin Galactic. NewSpace versus AltSpace, you might say.
So you don’t think NASA, Boeing, or even Sierra Nevada have any intention of selling their products to anyone but NASA? Its a little harsh to judge them this way before their products even come to market.
Development and settlement demand low cost of access to space, while NASA is forced by Congress to pursue a giant rocket that has exactly the opposite effect.
Congress forced the Air Force to pursue the V-22 and the C-17.
But that doesn’t stop companies from developing low-cost air transportation. Airlines and air-travel advocacy groups don’t waste their time lobbying against those programs, even if they believe them to be a waste of money. They simply ignore them.
Also, let’s not forget that SLS is just what NewSpace lobbyists wanted. The SFF said that NASA should cancel Ares I and use the money to begin immediate development of the Ares V superheavy lift vehicle. A few years later, Rick Tumlinson told Senate-candidate Ted Cruz that it was politically impossible to cancel SLS, so he should simply ensure that NASA got enough money to fund both SLS and CCDev. Now, NewSpacers are angry at Congress for doing just what they asked for. This constant bait and switch is one reason why Congress is so reluctant to listen to NewSpace arguments.
If space activists want low-cost access to space, they would be better advised to follow the example of the airline industry, rather than fixating on NASA’s programs.
Another factor that may come into play here is the military. Back in the much-derided “OldSpace” days, the DC-X program happened because the SDI organization needed a low-cost way to launch hundreds of ballistic-mission defense satellites.
Ted Cruz has recently called for a new effort to develop a space-based missile defense system. If that happens, it would do more to stimulate demand for Cheap Access To Space than ISS possibly could. Cru’s statement has been ignored by “NewSpace” advocates like Rick Tumlinson because the “militarization of space” goes against their political grain. But it does represent another potential lucrative market for Alt Space.