Here's a good companion piece to my National Review column about the Chinese space program.

Ed Hudgins says to unleash American private enterprise.

God, I hate this:

> [NASA] planned a space station that was to cost
> $8 billion, accommodate a crew of 12, and be
> completed in the early 1990s. Instead, it is
> still under construction, could cost as much as
> $100 billion, and houses only three astronauts
> safely.

Granted, ISS is late and over budget but it's not quite as bad as the above frequently seen apples-vs-oranges comparison implies. The original $8B figure was in 1984 dollars and only included DDT&E up to the first launch in 1992. This version would only have supported a crew of six. The 12-20 person "space base" growth configuration would be in place by 2000 and cost an additional $20B.

So why didn't NASA launch the first modules in 1992? Partly due to mismanagement, yes, but also because the actual budget in FY 1985-92 was closer to $5 billion at 1984 rates. It is quite difficult to meet the schedule when your budget is cut 40% and Congress insists on three or four redesigns.

Anyway -- if we are using the same yardstick as Reagan did in 1984, ISS is about twice as expensive. The $100B figure is the approximate total life cycle cost.

> [NASA] should phase out its flights to orbit
> and instead contract out for rides on private
> rockets. It should place space station
> management and expansion in private hands.

These reforms do make sense, particularly if taken in moderation. In fact, all partners already are in the process of transferring some control of their ISS elements to their contractors in order to save money. It seems private industry is/will be largely responsible for operating the Russian, European and Japanese unmanned cargo craft too. I am less optimistic about privately financed expansion modules, except as a Spacehab type venture with NASA & co. acting as the anchor tenant leasing 98% of the product or service. Few truly commercial activities are possible at today's launch prices. Which leads us to...

> [NASA] should
> look to private suppliers for versatile systems
> that can serve commercial purposes.

A privately financed crew transportation system for ISS might possibly make sense since it would be less sensitive to political/funding problems of the sort that have plagued the Station from day one. There is also a good reason to believe United Space Alliance would propose a less costly and less risky system than NASA's current $13-billion Orbital Space Plane. E.g. previous estimates by British Aerospace and others have concluded an Apollo type vehicle might cost $2 billion. But it is difficult to see how a truly revolutionary, low-cost RLV system could be justified. Most likely, Boeing/Lockmart would only be willing to pay for a low-cost, low-risk manned capsule for their EELVs. Such a system would not serve "commercial purposes".

MARCU$

But it is difficult to see how a truly revolutionary, low-cost RLV system could be justified.

For that market, it can't be. Of course, I don't think that any new vehicle can be justified for that market alone. Which points out how absurdly unambitious NASA is, and how pointless the program is.

>> But it is difficult to see how a truly
>> revolutionary, low-cost RLV system could be
>> justified.

> For that market, it can't be. Of course, I
> don't think that any new vehicle can be
> justified for that market alone. Which points
> out how absurdly unambitious NASA is, and how
> pointless the program is.

If you don't mind, I generally agree with you on that:-) *BUT*, I still think ISS could demonstrate some interesting things. My favorite concept would be Bob Bigelow financing a commercial "space motel" habitation module. Granted -- he will only make money if NASA/ESA/NASDA agree to lease the facility for their own astronauts. But let's assume Bob sells one Soyuz trip per year to the Dennis Tito/Mark Shuttleworth jet set, allowing private citizens a chance to sip on a dry martini at his Orbital Inn. It's hardly about opening the space frontier to the general public, but at least it would generate some interesting data on customer behavior (e.g. willingness to pay _$_ million for the trip, possible leisure activities in zero G etc.).
---
In 1984, "The Old Gipper" himself envisioned the Space Station as a market for entrepreneurs. It is certainly easy to ridicule him for being naive in this regard since ISS supposedly is mostly about pork-barrel spending in key congressional districts.

MARCU$

> In 1984, "The Old Gipper" himself envisioned
> the Space Station as a market for
> entrepreneurs. It is certainly easy to ridicule
> him for being naive in this regard since ISS
> supposedly is mostly about pork-barrel spending
> in key congressional districts.

...but: at least there will be a reasonable proven market for services once the Station becomes operational... We are there now. NASA & the internationals need additional habitable space, life support and cargo/crew transfer vehicles. There is no obvious reason why a Spacehab/Industrial Space Facility type commercially funded venture could not work as long as the government agrees to buy services.

MARCU$