Professor Reynolds has a column on space policy at Tech Central Station today. Fortunately, it's a subject with which he's more familiar than what constitutes a good college fight song ("Rocky Top, my grandmother's pajamas," he said, eyes rolling heavenward).

(Now, speaking as an erstwhile bluegrass guitar picker, as a good 'ol bluegrass tune, "Rocky Top" is great.

But c'mon...there may be a few college fight songs that "Rocky Top" is better than, but I doubt if they're from any colleges in America, and "Hail To The Victors" is most certainly not among them. Sheesh!

Besides, our stadium is still bigger than yours...)

Anyway, I basically agree with the editorial, but it needs a little elaboration.

...The civilian commercial space industry has been booming in terms of revenue. But the technology of getting into space hasn?t progressed much since the 1960s (some would say that the balky, expensive space shuttle is actually a step backward), industry concentration is even worse, and there?s no prospect of any improvement.

This was a deliberate consolidation forced by NASA (and Dan Goldin), based on the socialistic principle that competition is inefficient (which is a subject for another column, about NASA's disastrous "Centers of Excellence" policy). From a manned-space standpoint, there is now only one major aerospace contractor, because though Boeing and Lockheed Martin ("Lockmart") are separate companies, they are joined at the hip through the United Space Alliance, which operates the Shuttle under contract to NASA. This is a result of a shotgun wedding at Dan Goldin's insistence. Step one of a rediversification of the industry would be to allow USA its independence from both its parents as part of an overall Shuttle/ISS privatization deal.

[Update]

Speak of the devil. Aviation Now has an article today on just that subject which, if it were actually news (at least to me), would have superheated steam coming out of my ears.

JSC is worried about "safety." Of course, their concerns have nothing to do with the fact that their cozy little empire might get broken up...

Do they seriously believe that if a private contractor took over the system that they would risk irreplaceable billion-dollar assets (i.e., the Orbiter fleet) to cut a few corners? Only governments, who can always go back to the taxpayer for more money (as they did in 1986) do that.

From the article:

The report says asset "transfer mechanisms that could be used include a facility contract, government-owned contractor-operated arrangement, lease, sale, license--or 'gift.'" Congress is likely to frown on the "gift" option for turning over shuttle assets, while potential corporate bidders might cringe at the Johnson report's assessment of commercial principles. "Shuttle privatization implementation needs to redirect the profit motive, allowing it to be a factor, but not the decisive influencing criteria," the report said.

Hellloooooo!!

It is not profitable to destroy irreplaceable assets on which your business is dependent. But of course the writers of the report, who have never had to actually meet a payroll, wouldn't know that. The profit motive is both necessary and sufficient to ensure crew safety.

"Existing contracts are structured such that contract length and terms significantly influence the contractor to make short-term profit-motivated decisions. An overemphasis on profit can result in program weakness with a reduction of critical skills," the report said. "Short-term cost reduction at the expense of long-term health will not be acceptable."

Astronauts strapped into any privatized shuttle would certainly agree with that.

Uh, sorry guys, but whatever happened to the astronauts of "The Right Stuff"? You know, the ones who went to funerals every week for their comrades lost in test flights? Well, don't worry. Regardless of how concerned we are about your safety (frankly, if they don't like the risks, they should go get another job--there's a long line of people who would love to go in their place, are perfectly competent to do so, and will take the risk), you're probably safe because it would be stupid to lose another Orbiter. The factory and tooling for building them doesn't exist any more, and it would require several billion dollars to replace it. The money would be much better spent on a modern launch vehicle.

[End Update]

[3 PM Update]

UPI columnist Jim Bennett suggests that the FAA might properly take umbrage at the notion that they can't properly license launches to ensure safety. That is exactly the implication of the notion that "...Shuttle privatization implementation needs to redirect the profit motive, allowing it to be a factor, but not the decisive influencing criteria." They are saying that the FAA will not properly do its job in regulating a private Shuttle operator. FAA/AST (the entity that licenses commercial launch) should provide a formal response to this report.

[End Update]

Overall, Glenn has a good set of policy recommendations, but one major thing is lacking--a definition of a goal. What do we, as a nation, want to accomplish in space? We have not had a national debate on this subject since, well, Sputnik. Back then we decided that we wanted to beat the Russkies and not go to sleep under a communist moon. To achieve that goal, we set up a socialist space program, and have never looked back, at least as a country.

Until we can define our new goals, it's pointless to detemine how to achieve them, and reform will be difficult, because we won't know how to measure whether or not it's working, and it will be all too easy to continue funding the status quo, because it creates "jobs" (even as it destroys, or at least prevents the creation of, wealth) and promotes "international cooperation" (though the notion that this somehow advances us in space endeavors remains an unproven shibboleth). As the Chesire Cat said, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." That's where we are with space policy right now.

Here's my goal:

Let's make space into a real frontier (hint--frontiers are places that everyday people go to live, work and play--not PhDs). It will be measured by the numbers of people (in hundreds, thousands, millions, as opposed to the few at a time envisioned by our visionary space agency) leaving the planet with their own resources. (If they happen to return as well, that's fine, but it doesn't need to be measured). If they're doing it with their own money, by definition, that means there must be something worth doing up there. Let's do it with a minimal input of taxpayer dollars (i.e., less than NASA's current budget).

The achievement of such a goal would require a total redirection and reorganization of not just NASA, but of our entire federal space policy apparatus, including DoD, Department of Commerce, and the FAA/DOT. But since our current space policy remains mired in a Cold-War mentality (and the Cold War has been over for over a decade now) it would be appropriate, indeed overdue, to overhaul the policy now. Mr. O'Keefe will be bringing a clean broom to the agency. Let's hope that the Administration will have a little imagination.

Discuss.

I came in late ie I know very little about outer space policy. It was invigorating to read Rand's brief description of "frontier" as a place of investment and development by INDIVIDUALS.

But aren't there a lot of safety and environmental considerations that are best addressed through federal government? Do we really want to let Joe SixPack (or Rick DotComMillionaire) launching homebrew rockets from his yard in Schaumberg, Illinois?

For the forseeable future the risks and costs of escape velocity are too great to be borne by anything smaller than a nation, no? Do we have to worry about this when no one can afford it yet?

No one is proposing that the federal government not be involved. The FAA licenses launches, and that will continue--no one will legally be going to orbit from their back yard.

The issue is whether NASA as an agency should retain its monopoly on manned spaceflight.

And yes, space is perfectly affordable by non-governments. Communications satellites are launched by commercial organizations--NASA has no involvement, nor does any other government agency, other than range support and licensing.

Manned space will become similarly affordable when we start doing it for profit, instead of prestige.

>But aren't there a lot of safety and environmental considerations that are best addressed through federal government?

No.

>Do we really want to let Joe SixPack (or Rick DotComMillionaire) launching homebrew rockets from his yard in Schaumberg, Illinois?

Yes.

Note that my answers assume that the goal is to get people into space. Those who want to preserve space for Senators or for the taking of yet more pictures of weightless govt employees spinning in place will reverse them.

-andy

And in order for manned space flight to become profitable it must, I believe, involve colonization. The 'spinning space hotel' might be profitable, but little more than a novelty; therefore manned missions to earth orbit should concentrate on building filling stations and parking garages first. Where their customers go, the restaurants and hotels will follow, to the moon and beyond.

Also to this end must be devoted a greater effort to developing better propulsion systems to get people where they want to go faster and cheaper. Time is money, after all.

I would agree that private industry would be better at both of these tasks.

Rand - I'm going to quibble on a couple of points.

First, I don't think you can say that the US space program was "socialistic" in 1961-71, because it's purpose was not economic, but rather oriented toward national security/prestige. The moment the nation decided to run a national space line-an economic function which would have been best run by the private sector-then the space program became socialistic.

Also, while creating a "frontier" in which everyone can participate is a good goal, I don't see any action items that a NASA could do to implement that goal. What do you propose? Technology development? Core markets? Something else?

I disagree that we need to define a goal; implicit in "define a goal" is the assumption that someone, somewhere, is smart enough, and has enough data to accurately pick a goal. And the assumption that one exists.

One of the best aspects of privitization is that each organization involved can have its own vision, and the market will weed out the bad ideas.

I'm reading "Nothing Like It In The World" right now. This discussion makes me wonder if the transcontinental railroad would ever have been build had it been left up to a government agency like NASA.

The government supported the project by bonding, and the vast profits made by the builders was a scandal, but they got the job done when nobody would invest because the project looked impoosible.

Look at the state of the railroads today, after regulation by the government and subsidization of their competitors.

Yes, Bob Poole of Reason has done quite a bit of writing on the subject of how the government has screwed up transportation markets from the beginning of the Republic by subsidizing one favored mode of transport over another (first canals, then roads, then railroads, then highways, etc.)

Go to the Cato website and you'll find a speech by him on the subject at the space conference they held back in March.