Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

t/Space must now overcome four nasty letters: ITAR

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 07:52 AM

I have been thinking about that.

I have experienced working through the ITAR process on Space Station with Canada and Japan. It was painful to say the least...and this for an official US Government sponsored program.

It got to the point where a major concern was to make absolutely sure your butt was covered before any other consideration. I have attended meetings where I was unable to speak to my customer/foreign counterpart, other than to exhange pleasantries, because of ITAR concerns. And then there were times when I watched them make mistakes and be unable to correct them because I could get into a heap of ITAR trouble if I did.

t/Space and the others have my best wishes.

Posted by Michael at May 25, 2005 09:19 AM

Bill,

I'm confused. Why does t/space need to deal with
ITAR? AFAIK, they don't have any foreign
investors, they aren't trying to sell to foreign
companies, and they're not planning on launching
outside of US territory. Where exactly are they
going to have a run-in with ITAR?

ITAR is a pain in the backside, but if you don't
cross the line into their jurisdiction there
really isn't that much they can bug you about.
Sure they'll make you register and stuff even if
you aren't selling to foreigners, but while that
may be a pain for really really small startups,
that's something t/space should be fine with.

In other words, ITAR is a minefield, but one that
can be avoided most times instead of trying to
find ways to plow through.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at May 25, 2005 09:29 AM

Jon, if NASA signs on and lets t/Space do ISS crew rotations then ITAR issues will not stop deployment. But without NASA/ISS, where does t/Space fly to? What destination? Who pays the $400 million developemnt costs?

Branson is an obvious choice to fund privately but he is a Brit and is facing ITAR hassles for suborbital.

Also, what booster will lift the full scale Bigelow hab/space hotel? Falcon V can carry the mini-test version but its too small to lift the full size unit. Musk's BFR is definitely down the road several years, at least.

ITAR can prevent Bigelow from flying its full scale hotel on Proton, Angara or even a large Long March while Delta & Atlas are quite pricey compared to Proton. That said, one shuttle C launch could carry a hotel (shaped like a shuttle C payload fairing) with two Bigelow habs giving t/Space an 8 guest space hotel to go visit.

= = =

I guess its more ITAR-esque concerns.

Once t/Space starts flying, is there anything unique about their plan that the Chinese couldn't steal, copy and mass produce? Composites tech maybe but a pressure fed propane / LOX rocket hardly seems bleeding edge technology.

= = =

I saw a great quote at space.com - - Rutan and t/Space found the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity.

= = =

Final point. Mike Griffin says alt-space companies need to prove themselves. I say its worth $400 million in tax dollars to give Rutan a contract with the hope that he's flying crew to LEO by 2008.

Since that is "m" and not "b"

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 12:06 PM

Follow up for Jon Goff,

The Japanese are very interested in space tourism. If ITAR means t/Space is prohibited from selling their rocket and Very Large Airplane to Japanese interests after a space hotel went up, I am confident that the Japanese will build a knock-off version of their own. That means NOT buying from Rutan & Gump.

The t/Space global market share will be greatly diminished IF they cannot sell copies overseas and that will lower the return on investment for whoever funds the $400 million in development costs.

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 12:28 PM

> Jon, if NASA signs on and lets t/Space do ISS crew rotations then ITAR issues
> will not stop deployment. But without NASA/ISS, where does t/Space fly
> to? What destination? Who pays the $400 million developemnt costs?

Bill, please focus. Those questions have nothing to do with ITAR.

No one, including t/Space, has said that t/Space will fly if NASA doesn't sign on. So your questions miss the mark entirely.

> Branson is an obvious choice to fund privately but he is a Brit and
> is facing ITAR hassles for suborbital.

Branson is an obvious non-choice since he is already involved in another project with another company.

> Also, what booster will lift the full scale Bigelow hab/space hotel?

What does that have to do with t/Space?

> Once t/Space starts flying, is there anything unique about their plan
> that the Chinese couldn't steal, copy and mass produce?

Yes -- a customer (NASA) that is unlikely to start buying stolen, copied, and mass-produced Chinese spacecraft.

Of course, the supposedly omnipotent Chinese have not successfully taken over the airline industry, the business jet industry, the light aircraft industry, or even the auto industry.

> Final point. Mike Griffin says alt-space companies need to prove
> themselves. I say its worth $400 million in tax dollars to give Rutan
> a contract with the hope that he's flying crew to LEO by 2008.

"Give Rutan a contract"??? I thought you were talking about t/Space? Or are you under the impression that Rutan runs t/Space?

Posted by Edward Wright at May 25, 2005 12:39 PM

Edward, t/Space needs customers.

No destination? No customers.

If t/Space cannot sell systems to the Japanese (for example) its market share is necessarily reduced. Imagine Boeing being told it cannot sell the 777 to Singapore Airlines or JAL. Airbus would be thrilled.

NASA absolutely should buy t/Space for ISS and CEV needs, IMHO, unless the engineering claims are proven false. But $400 million is a small amount (in NASA terms) to gamble.

If NASA does not do it, who will pay to develop t/Space if there are no LEO hotels and it cannot be sold overseas?

Of course, it's my hope that t/Space flies whether NASA buys it or not.

= = =

Rutan's VLA is intended as an integral part of the t/Space concept. Modified 747s are an option but a new Scaled Composites VLA appears to be the first choice.

= = =

Finally, if t/Space is NASA only how many private folk will get to fly? Does anyone here really want t/Space to be NASA only?

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 01:21 PM

I am "focused" on this:

The old "NASA is space, space is NASA" paradigm is fading fast and a new age of independent space pioneering is upon us.

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 01:22 PM

Bill,

> If NASA signs on and lets t/Space do ISS crew
> rotations then ITAR issues will not stop
> deployment. But without NASA/ISS, where does
> t/Space fly to? What destination? Who pays the
> $400 million developemnt costs?

Well, without a NASA contract of sorts, t/space
isn't likely to fly IMO. But if they did get
funding, but not a NASA contract, Bigelow's
Nautilus station might be a potential customer
(both would potentially be operational at about
the same time).

> Branson is an obvious choice to fund privately
> but he is a Brit and is facing ITAR hassles for
> suborbital.

There's lots of wealthy people in the US, and
Branson is likely to be too busy getting his
suborbital venture off the ground to be messing
with orbital stuff. Other than ISS, about the
only orbital destination that is currently in
development is Nautilus. And Bigelow is an
American running a US company. So, no ITAR.

> Also, what booster will lift the full scale
> Bigelow hab/space hotel? Falcon V can carry the
> mini-test version but its too small to lift the
> full size unit. Musk's BFR is definitely down
> the road several years, at least.

It could be launched just fine on an Atlas, a
Delta, or a Proton. Might be just doable on a
Zenit SeaLaunch if the thing were launched with
some of its innards meant for installation later.
And as you point out, SpaceX may have their
BFR figured out by then. But that's Bigelow's
ITAR problem--not t/Space's.

> ITAR can prevent Bigelow from flying its full
> scale hotel on Proton, Angara or even a large
> Long March while Delta & Atlas are quite pricey
> compared to Proton.

Angara isn't a real booster any more than the BFR.
Long March while existing isn't likely powerful
enough to hack it. The real options are Delta
and Atlas. While they are expensive, they're
survivable for Bigelow, if there are no other
options available by then. But compared to the
cost difference with launching on an Atlas or a
Delta, it might make sense for Bigelow to bite
the ITAR bullet. ITAR is awful, ITAR is difficult,
but ITAR isn't impossible to deal with. Especially
when you have a bit of money to throw at the
problem.

> That said, one shuttle C launch could carry a
> hotel (shaped like a shuttle C payload fairing)
> with two Bigelow habs giving t/Space an 8 guest
> space hotel to go visit.

Yeah, you just need another magical non-existant
launcher to spring into existance. BFR has a
higher probability of becoming a reality than
Shuttle C does.

> Once t/Space starts flying, is there anything
> unique about their plan that the Chinese
> couldn't steal, copy and mass produce?

Well, they could, but they could just as easily
steal our design for Delta or Atlas or CEV or
whatever. But they won't do it. I'm not worried
too much by China's bureaucratic space program.
Maybe if someday they open it up more to the
entrepreneurial elements of their society, I
might start getting worried. But till then....
not really.

> Final point. Mike Griffin says alt-space
> companies need to prove themselves. I say its
> worth $400 million in tax dollars to give Rutan
> a contract with the hope that he's flying crew
> to LEO by 2008.

Well only part of t/Space's project is being done
by Rutan. In fact, the plane he's building for
that will probably be the WhiteKnight 2 being
built for Branson. But giving t/Space a contract
contingent on milestones like they suggested seems
a pretty darned smart idea. Smart enough that
NASA might even do it.

> Since that is "m" and not "b"

Yeah.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at May 25, 2005 03:02 PM

Jon, we mostly agree. My reference of Rutan was imprecise. Perhaps Jim Voss should become the public face for t/Space.

But unless we get an LEO hotel or a privately owned lunar cruiser, lower costs for NASA won't create the destination needed to change the "NASA equals space" paradigm.

And, after further consideration, a Japanese knock off is far more likely than a Chinese one. On that point, do you think that long term the US will supply more than half the global space tourism market? If not, the ability to compete for the non-US space tourism market will raise ITAR issues.

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 03:22 PM

> My reference of Rutan was imprecise. Perhaps Jim Voss should become
> the public face for t/Space.

Rutan is not now, nor has he ever been, the public face for t/Space.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 25, 2005 03:50 PM

My reference to Rutan was imprecise. He is a subcontractor to t/Space. I mistakenly chose Rutan perhaps because of news articles like this one:

http://washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050510-093535-1161r.htm

This article appears to link Rutan & t/Space even though Scaled Composites is just one contractor amongst many. Quote:

To garner National Aeronautics and Space Administration support for its program, however, aircraft designer Burt Rutan, creator of the first privately built passenger spaceship, will have to aim higher.

Rutan's firm, Scaled Composites of Mojave, Calif., is partnered with a diverse team of former X Prize contenders, business people, researchers, technical gurus and even a former astronaut to take a stab at designing part of a space transportation system to replace NASA's space shuttles.

and this:

Rutan's company would build the four-person capsule, which would be mounted on top of a booster rocket and air-launched after being dropped from a jet carrier. Upon release, the capsule's rocket motor would fire, propelling the craft to space.

Posted by Bill White at May 25, 2005 04:21 PM

The impression I got from the conference was that there is a LOT of stuff going on behind the curtains, just under the surface, hidden where most folks can't see it. I know I got some really interesting intelligence while I was chatting up support for the ISDC to be in D/FW in 2007. There was definitely a buzz in the air, and having all the SEDS, ISU, NASA Academy and even a few UND alum around certainly helped bring down the average age of the participants.

"The old "NASA is space, space is NASA" paradigm is fading fast..." is a very true and necessary statement. I tried to make that point in one of the Lunar sessions, but since the interrupter kept insisting on speaking louder than me it was very difficult to complete the point, which is basically if someone goes to a financier or banker for some cash and lays out a nice case for a business, say providing datasets on asteroid characteristics and orbits.

The first question management is going to ask is what the heck does this guy know that the 15,000 rocket scientists at NASA don't know? Doesn't NASA track asteroids? (Well...sorta). So why should I give you money to do the same thing?

So long as NASA is generally seen as the know-all and be-all of space, then anything that NASA isn't doing in space is generally not considered worth doing. Because if it were, wouldn't NASA be doing it?

As the entrepreneurial private folks get more successes under their belt they'll gain increasing legitimacy with the general public. When Dr. Diamandis predicted at the luncheon on Sunday that we'll have private to orbit in about five years, and stockpiling of fuel in orbit about three years after that, for a private bee-line to the Moon, you could look around the room and see that everyone there wanted to be the one to go.

Rutan has shown us what's possible. There're a lot of rocket irons in the fire and folks are getting pumped up to go. It was a very exciting conference.

Posted by ken murphy at May 25, 2005 05:06 PM

>> BFR has a higher probability of becoming a
>> reality than Shuttle C does.

Mike Griffin has a deep and frequently expressed fondness for Shuttle hardware, as a basis for both a CEV-lifter and a Shuttle-C.

But the best thing about Shuttle hardware for Dr. Griffin is its political utility, and he has been forthright about that. Keep the Shuttle hardware in production/processing and you keep a large chunk of civil servants and contractor-voters employed.

Just look how much trouble any little hint of "RIF" gets Griffin, for instance in nasawatch and with the affected congressmen, and it should be apparent how much he would love to hang on to all that Shuttle infrastructure indefinitely.

Even so, I think t/space, Spacex and Bigelow have a good chance of completely screwing up NASA's schedule! (At least I hope so.)

Patrick

Posted by Patrick at May 25, 2005 05:33 PM

Patrick - I agree that Griffin seems pretty much the embodiment of what Tom Heppenheimer once sais about NASA - "The primary design criterion for any NASA project is to keep the parking lots full."

Posted by Dick Eagleson at May 26, 2005 08:43 AM

I think he's in a tough spot. He's obviously a space nut, but he's head of NASA, not CEO of t/space, and so he is forced to fight these types of battles. It will be interesting to see how he resolves the conflict between the alt.space and cost-plus approaches.

Posted by Patrick at May 26, 2005 12:14 PM

> I think he's in a tough spot. He's obviously a space nut, but he's head of NASA,

You seem to be reversing cause and effect.

Mike Griffin was already calling for Shuttle-derived heavy lifters, expendable capsules, etc. last summer. He didn't become head of NASA until this spring.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 26, 2005 03:08 PM

>>You seem to be reversing cause and effect.

At the risk of seeming obtuse... I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what in my statements you're arguing with here. I didn't say anything about Griffin getting HLV religion only as a result of becoming NASA admin, if that's what you're saying.

Posted by Patrick at May 26, 2005 05:11 PM

Post a comment