Campaign '08

Shaping Clinton’s space policy

Last week the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser/issues forum in Washington, which, as noted at the time, included a breakout session on “commercial and civil aerospace”. An article in this week’s print edition of Space News (not available online) has a few more details about what took place at the event. About 20 people attended the session, led by Lori Garver; Clinton herself did not attend but one of her domestic policy advisors, Jake Sullivan, was there. Garver and others expressed support for the general concept of the Vision for Space Exploration, but thought there should be more balance with other NASA programs, including earth science and aeronautics. Sullivan reportedly was particularly interested in emerging commercial space companies, asking how the government “could incentivize” companies like Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace.

59 comments to Shaping Clinton’s space policy

  • richardb

    To the extent government can “incentivize” Virgin and Bigelow, the effect will be inversely proportional to their success as businesses.

  • richardb: What nonesense. Is Arianespace, say, unsuccessful as a business because they receive government subsidies? How about the European comsat manufacturers, which, at the very least seem remarkably competitive with ours. Will SpaceX automatically be unsuccessful? How about the automobile and airline industries, both of which are the recipients of huge, albeit indirect, subsidies?

    Although I realize that things are a bit murky, I wonder if Mr. Sullivan is aware that Virgin Galactic is not really a US company. Is it really one of the ones we want to subsidize?

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “Is Arianespace, say, unsuccessful as a business because they receive government subsidies?”

    Yes, Arianespace (and Airbus and Amtrak, among other examples) are not independent, profitable, going concerns. They could not survive without the low cost of capital provided by government-subsidized loans.

    It’s one thing to for a government to pay an artificially high price for a service to keep two systems in business for reasons of national security(USAF and ULA/EELV); to encourage foreign concerns to buy American (export/import bank loans to developing countries for Boeing 700-series aircraft); and to cost-share in the development of new systems that address both government and private sector needs (NASA COTS and Space-X/Kistler, and USAF/LockMart/Boeing and EELV development).

    It’s an entirely different thing for a government to intervene in private sector equity markets, for a government to own pieces of businesses (especially those in which the government is not a customer), and for a government to decide which businesses it will intervene on the behalf of and own a piece of.

    The latter crosses the line from incentive to subsidy and has a very poor track record of creating independent, profitable, going concerns. It’s a recipe long-term taxpayer support of businesses that should have been killed off in healthy private sector competition years, even decades, ago.

    That said, if the Clinton campaign really wants to help the likes of Virgin Galactic, Space-X, and Bigelow, there’s a number of things they could do to accelerate the development of the private space sector without crossing the line into questionable federal subsidies:

    1) Buy Commercial. This means competitive procurements for suborbital microgravity and astronaut training flight services (something Virgin Galactic could compete for) and for space-based research services, even if that takes away from ISS (something Bigelow could compete for). It also means undertaking competitive procurements now for other human space flight needs, whether for ISS or lunar development and support, and not waiting until a government-designed and government-operated solution is locked into supplying them.

    2) Properly Fund COTS. When compared to other public-private cost-sharing efforts (e.g., EELV), COTS is clearly underfunded for what it’s being asked to do. We’re already seeing the effects of this in Kistler’s inability to raise second-round funding. For the program to have a realistic chance of success, Phase A funding needs to be increased by at least of factor of two and the dollars added to the existing contracts and/or additional performers brought on line. (I’d leave it to others to decide what’s the best strategy for additional dollars.)

    3) Properly Fund NASA Prizes. This program has demonstrated success in focusing new private sector space systems development yet hasn’t had any new funding in several years. It’s long past time to ramp it up to an annual funding level in the tens of millions of dollars.

    4) Ensure a Healthy Regulatory Regime. By all reports, the FAA has been doing a good job regulating the emergent suborbital market, but the successful regulatory regime may need to be extended beyond its planned phase-out early next decade. Insurance regimes may also need synchronization to support a more stable and rational investment environment.

    5) Enforce the Commercial Space Act for LEO and Kill Ares I. This could be part of “1) Buy Commercial”, but this issue needs to be called out on its own. With the costs of Ares I having driven the post-Shuttle human space flight gap to five years and growing and with Ares I safety numbers now plummeting into the range of ESAS EELV numbers, there’s no longer a legitimate case for NASA to build this duplicative, expensive, and underperforming launch vehicle. Whether Ares I should be replaced by EELVs for Orion launch, or whether NASA should progress directly to heavy lift and launch Orion that way (per DIRECT), or whether heavy lift should be bypassed altogether in favor of fuel depot development, I’ll leave to others.

    We could consider also measures like launch vehicle development programs and tax incentives. But DOD is already pursuing the former at some level (e.g., FALCON program), and arguably does a better job than NASA can. And the latter requires the cooperation of congressional ways and means and treasury committees that have no vested interest in supporting private sector space (or any space) development, making passage highly unlikely.

    In the end, it really doesn’t come down to any flashy new incentives or (heaven forbid) European-style loan subsidies. It’s just making good budget and procurement policy decisions at NASA and good regulatory policy at FAA a priority and riding herd on both. If a future Clinton Administration (or any other presidency) just does that, they will have plenty to crow about in their civil and commercial space press releases.

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • The latter crosses the line from incentive to subsidy and has a very poor track record of creating independent, profitable, going concerns. It’s a recipe long-term taxpayer support of businesses that should have been killed off in healthy private sector competition years, even decades, ago.

    Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I can name one glaring example to the contrary right off the bat: Fannie Mae.

    That organisation is wildly successful at achieving it’s goal of increasing home ownership (i’ll leave aside whether or not that is necessarily a good thing the way it’s being done). Similarly, Airbus is wildly successful at maintaining a European aerospace industry, so from their govt’s point of view, it is a success – whether or not it required subsidies to achieve that success is secondary. You’d be hard pressed to find a segment of the economy that hasn’t received a subsidy in some form or another, the question is simply of scale and directness of the subsidy.

  • Bill White

    Create new markets, not subsidies.

    If Bigelow doesn’t want to open a hotel, Congress should BUY a Bigelow habitat for cash and deploy it in LEO.

    Anyone who travels there on American made lift stays free. Anyone who travels there on Soyuz or Shenzou pays market rates for the room rental.

  • Bill White

    Oh, Items 1, 2, 3 & 5 in anonymous’s list remain all about better ways for Uncle Sugar to buy launches.

    We need people other than Uncle Sugar to start buying humans-to-LEO launches.

  • Anonymous, while I agree with you in theory that “our subsidies are better than their subsidies,” and in general they do work better, I also agree with Shubber that a subsidy of some sort is usually needed to get from the drawing board to a viable industry. My issue with many on the American economic Right on this board and elsewhere is not the finer point of the type of subsidy, it’s their blind refusal to see that most of American industry benefits from subsidies. As you correctly imply in your list, until their is a cash-paying market, if we are to have a future in space a lot of government “incentives” will be required.

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I can name one glaring example to the contrary right off the bat: Fannie Mae.

    That organisation is wildly successful at achieving it’s goal of increasing home ownership (i’ll leave aside whether or not that is necessarily a good thing the way it’s being done).”

    This is a false statement. Fannie Mae is a purely private corporation. Unlike, Arianespace, Airbus, or Amtrak, Fannie Mae receives no government loan subsidies or any other form of government backing. Fannie Mae was once a federal agency that guaranteed federally issued mortgages but converted to a private corporation in 1968. Fannie Mae still guarantees mortgages, specifically those made by the banking industry, but contrary to public perception, Fannie Mae receives no federal funding or backing for its business. Fannie Mae securities are not guaranteed by the government in any way. See the Wikipedia entry, among other sources:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae

    “Similarly, Airbus is wildly successful at maintaining a European aerospace industry, so from their govt’s point of view, it is a success – whether or not it required subsidies to achieve that success is secondary.”

    It remains to be seen whether Airbus retain it marginal market lead over Boeing. This is just my two cent analysis, but I think Airbus has made a potentially fatal error with the A380. Firm A380 orders stand at only 160 with only 3 pending after production start, while firm 787 Dreamliner orders stand at 584 firm with 45 pending before production start. Those jets don’t address the same markets, but the numbers speak volumes. Boeing is positioned to retake the lead and more in the coming years.

    And regardless, Airbus can’t turn a “profit” without direct loan subsidies from European governments. Boeing is a profitable, going concern that relies on no direct federal loans.

    Again, it’s not my place to critique European policy. Mr. Ali is right that Europe has different goals than the U.S. with regards to its aerospace industry. But we shouldn’t let that confuse which companies are actually independent, private, profitable concerns and which are not.

  • anonymous

    Maybe I’m missing something, but Mr. White argues that federal purchases of private sector space services are a bad thing here:

    “Oh, Items 1, 2, 3 & 5 in anonymous’s list remain all about better ways for Uncle Sugar to buy launches.

    We need people other than Uncle Sugar to start buying humans-to-LEO launches.”

    But in the post directly prior, Mr. White advocates doing exactly that:

    “If Bigelow doesn’t want to open a hotel, Congress should BUY a Bigelow habitat for cash and deploy it in LEO.

    Anyone who travels there on American made lift stays free.”

    So which is it? For Mr. White, are federal purchases of private sector space services a good thing or a bad thing?

    I’m not trying to start an argument. Just trying to clarify the logic.

  • anonymous

    “As you correctly imply in your list, until their is a cash-paying market, if we are to have a future in space a lot of government “incentives” will be required.”

    Actually, except for the third item (properly fund NASA’s prize program), none of the items on that list are incentives or subsidies. They’re just good government 101 practices. Specifically, purchase from the private sector whenever possible instead of building government-designed, -owned, and -operated capabilities and regulate lightly yet effectively. To call them incentives (or worse, subsidies) is to imply that they’re special (or worse, welfare-like) measures when in fact it’s what NASA, FAA, and their overseers should be doing every day in their normal course of business.

    Of course, that’s not the “normal course of business” that NASA inherited from and has repeated ever since Apollo. But still, it’s amazing sometimes how we repeatedly turn the obvious and straightforward into the obscure and difficult.

  • Bill White

    anonymous, your ideas are good ones but not sufficient to achieve the objective of a commercially viable launch industry.

    Launch costs need to come down very significantly if American launchers are to compete on price with Soyuz and Proton. Until then, there shall not be a viable American commerical launch market because the foreign alternative is 3x to 5x cheaper..

    For example, why would a non-taxpayer funded buyer choose to launch a payload on Delta IV-H? Ever?

    So how does it help for NASA to buy Delta IVH launches?

    Whether NASA buying Atlas V for CEV would help lower the cost of Atlas V for Bigelow and tourists is perhaps debatable but my beliefe is that if NASA pays CEV rates for crew to LEO, there is no way Bigelow will be able to buy humans to LEO from LM at anything near Soyuz rates.

    Propping up over-priced systems is BAD, creating incentive to beat Soyuz on price and reliability to LEO is GOOD.

  • Bill White

    Follow up — the “Congress buys a space hotel” idea also removes government committees from the role of picking winners and losers.

    Instead, providers are assured a market, and then its up to them to persuade private bankers to fund their R&D programs. This keeps Beltway lobbyists out of the decision loop concerning the “best” hardware.to support.

    And yes, this idea does subsidize Bigelow but it appears he is doing a fabulous job of building real hardware (semi-soft hardware) within a very modest budget measured by aerospace standards

    All this said, I strongly support the majority of your suggestions. They just do not go far enough.

  • anonymous

    “Propping up over-priced systems is BAD, creating incentive to beat Soyuz on price and reliability to LEO is GOOD.”

    Thanks much for the clarification. I get your line of argument now.

    So, if not Orion on EELVs, does COTS go far enough, in your opinion? Or are you arguing for something even more radical? (And what would that be?)

    “Follow up — the “Congress buys a space hotel” idea also removes government committees from the role of picking winners and losers.”

    Probably not. SpaceHab, for example, would probably cry foul if NASA or another federal agency did a sole-source contract to purchase a space station (for whatever purpose) from Bigelow. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point-of-view), the U.S. government does try its best to spend taxpayer dollars through fair and open competitions, and that usually comes down to a committee of experts reviewing proposals against a set of criteria.

    The best that the government can usually do is create the initial market opportunity by purchasing services from privately owned and operated systems (instead of the government designing, building, owning, and operating its own systems). After that, it’s up to your favorite company (Bigelow or whomever) to win the contracts for those services. Sometimes they will and sometimes they won’t. (For example, I probably would have picked t/Space or Benson over Kistler for COTS.)

    But outside of the underfunded COTS program, NASA has done a very poor job of pursuing such opportunities. And getting back to the start of the thread, there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit that could picked by a new White House and NASA Administrator in this area. Maybe some more imaginative thinking and radical ideas than what I’m capable of need to be considered as well, but I wouldn’t be too quick to pass up the easy wins either.

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Bill White

    Upgraded COTS is probably the best we can hope for, politically, at the present time and I agree COTS needs to be significantly upgraded, for all the reasons you give. I really did not intend to attack your suggestions, which are very good and which I support.

    Also, Congress “buying a space hotel” and letting people who ride American stay free is actually more of a thought experiment than a practical proposal since too many in the media and Congress would scream about subsidies for rich tourists. However, we do need to create new markets to stimulate private demand as well as create innovative ways for spending tax dollars.

    I remain firmly convinced that tax dollars cannot be the sole source of funding if we are to “become spacefaring” or have robust space exploration or whatever similar objective motivates us. Non-taxpayer sourced dollars need to start flowing into space exploration.

    Therefore, a better shuffling of the ~$16 billion Congress gives NASA is necessary and good, but it is only part of the picture.

    Russia selling rides to Tito, Ansari, etc . . . is a preview of what mayl be necessary to have the robust space industry we all seem to desire.

    A “lunar precursor COTS” is another idea. Encourage CNN to pre-position video cameras at the chosen NASA landing sites (on their own dime) and stream exclusive video of the first crewed LSAM as in comes in for a return to the Moon.

    Thus, CNN will BUY a launcher and a lander and rover(s) with cameras using 100% private money that will added to the total pool of money spent on aerospace contractors.

    Agree that NASA astronauts can eat candy bars pre-positioned at the landing site IF the Snickers company pays for landing a 500 kilogram supply cache adajcent to the chosen landing zone, on their own dime.

    One kilogram of product placement gains NASA 499 kilograms of supplemental supplies for the meager cost of a few photos of a NASA astronaut collecting the Snickers from the pre-positioned supply drop.

    Ideas like that . . .

  • dave Salt

    Okay, I’m probably just showing my ignorance/naivety here but I wonder just how much the level of government spending helps US companies succeed as “commercial” entities?

    I believe that annual US space spending is around $50B (NASA, DoD, etc.), which is almost an order of magnitude more than the European equivalent (I’m not sure what the spending on aircraft is but my gut feel suggests the disparity is similar). If this is true, I can sort of understand why we in Europe have to take measures like loan guarantees to shore-up our industries – though I’ll concede it may not benefit us in the long run.

    Anyway, I’d be very interested to hear the opinions of Anonymous and Shubber on this one… just go easy on this poor old Brit. :-)

    Dave

  • Ray

    Anonymous: “But outside of the underfunded COTS program, NASA has done a very poor job of pursuing such opportunities.”

    A lot of us, including Anonymous in other posts, have been saying that COTS should be funded more (either more incentive to existing COTS companies or funding for more competitors), and more COTS-like approaches should be taken. Although it appears to be old news, I just learned of the following, which NASA should get credit for if it’s done the right way: (in Space News June 11, and also from http://www.space.com/spacenews/070611_iss_businessmonday.html)

    “Using the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program as a model, “NASA hopes to pursue an analogous opportunity for commercial water production services on the ISS utilizing” a close-loop life support system. NASA issued a “sources sought” announcement for such a system in January.”

    I’m not sure if this is what they’re referring to: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?attachmentid=21458

    “… NASA is contemplating awarding a contract to supply a Sabatier-reaction based carbon dioxide reduction system that will be operated in a service based model as part of the International Space Station?s (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) currently in development and operation on the ISS. The purpose of this sources sought synopsis is to identify any potential commercial companies that could provide this service …. The contractor will be given NASA?s interface and acceptance requirements but NASA will not be involved other than insight to ensure safety. NASA will not participate in any design reviews or impose any specifications on the design except for those defined in supplied safety, interface and acceptance requirements. The contractor will develop, procure, and build flight hardware, support equipment needed for operations, and training material within a schedule …”

  • Okay, since this is a topic so dear to my heart (and career history), I will join the fray.

    First of all, the notion that somehow gov’t buying a service from a U.S. end-product/service provider is a subsidy and bad and “not commercial”, and therefore we should just continue to hire U.S. labor service contractors to work as extensions of the government bureaucracy… is INSANE.

    Second, subsidies in the form of creating a market, whether it is buying commercial rides for non-governmental users (e.g. launch vouchers for ISS researchers) or simply expressing the government’s demand in a market fashion, are clearly preferable to “push” subsidies, whether they’re funding specific technologies (X-33) or design concepts (COTS).

    Lastly, could we please find a way to align on ONE TALKING POINT that we should be able to penetrate the media with? That point is: every time you see a reporter repeat the inanity that America will have no human access to space until Orion + ARES fly, please tell them:

    1) Elon Musk *or* Kistler or somebody is going to fly a human being on a commercial rocket by 2011 or 2012. It IS going to happen.

    2) In 2002 nobody could predict that Virgin Galactic would exist 3 years later and within 5 years have 100s of paid customers and 1000s more deposits. Or that John Carmack would replicate the DC-X’s accomplishments and more.

    3) If Congress is sooooo worried about the gap, and they don’t think the commercial sector can do it “on their own” (i.e. just with COTS), then Congress should find other ways to stimulate the commercial players that can fly people to LEO sooner and and more cheaply.

    The media is only starting to wake up to “the gap”. We shouldn’t let NASA get away with creating the public notion that the answer to the gap is adding another $x00M to the NASA budget for Orion/ARES, which might speed things up by a few weeks, when the same amount would create another COTS-style service provider. Every year.

  • The media is only starting to wake up to “the gap”. We shouldn’t let NASA get away with creating the public notion that the answer to the gap is adding another $x00M to the NASA budget for Orion/ARES, which might speed things up by a few weeks, when the same amount would create another COTS-style service provider. Every year.

    Good idea, Jim. I wish that someone would tell Gene Kranz.

  • Ray

    From Jeff’s original post: “Sullivan reportedly was particularly interested in emerging commercial space companies, asking how the government
    “could incentivize” companies like Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace.”

    You can probably get some ideas how the government could present incentives to Bigelow or similar entrepreneurs from an article, titled “Housecleaning”, in the June 11 Aviation Week and Space Technology, page 33. Some excerpts: “Thales Alenia Space says it’s close to clinching a deal with the European Space Agency and NASA to modify a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module so it can be permanently moored to the International Space Station once the shuttle is retired. … NASA is working out final specifications and discussing a barter acquisition arrangement with ESA and Italian space agency (ASI) for the plan … Another project underway is to develop an inflatable habitat module that could provide additional pressurized space on the ISS and serve as a basis for later exploration tasks on the Moon and elsewhere. The undertaking is similar to efforts led in the U.S. by Bigelow Aerospace.” The article only mentions ESA for the inflatable modules, and doesn’t mention any potential for a barter arrangement with NASA, but one worries that might happen down the road, resulting in a big lost opportunity for commercial space.

    It would be nice if NASA could get over its distaste for buying space services and hardware commercially, and instead develop an aversion to both developing everything in-house (literally or with cost-plus contracts) and bartering with other space agencies and their contractors. I don’t mean they should never do such a thing – maybe the potential MPLM arrangement makes sense, given the unfortunate circumstance that the MPLM as logistics carrier already exists, is planned for logistics purposes anyway, and was not a commercial purchase – but they should experience a sensation of failure, an organizational feeling of the need to reform, when they resort to such arrangements.

  • MarkWhittington

    All of these comments about what Hillary Clinton should do are very entertaining, but I suspect do not match in any way what Hillary Clinton would do. “Balance” between exploration on the one hand and science and aeronautics on the other likely means gutting the former to pay for the latter. As for providing “incentives” for commercial space, let us not forget that rich guys like Musk, Bigelow, and company are on Hillary’s target list for her take from the rich and give to the government bureacrats tax plans.

  • al Fansome

    Mr. Whittington,

    Give that our country’s political system basically operates similar to a pendulum, and that all evidence suggests that 2009 is the year for a Democratic president to come into office, and Senator Clinton is leading in the polls.

    Are you suggesting that we as space advocates just ignore what is happening, and not even attempt to influence Clinton’s space policy?

    – Al

  • Nemo2

    Mr. Fansome,

    I think that is exactly what Whittington is suggesting. Call it the “Whittington Stick-your-head-in-the-sand Strategy”.

    – Nemo2

  • MarkWhittington

    Al, et al – That’s certainly one theory. If Mrs. Clinton ascends to the Presidency, I think any attempt to influence her space policy directly will not be met with much success. She is not known for taking advice, even good advice, In the event of a Clinton Restoration, I would suggest concentrating on the Congress.

    Of course there is all sorts of evidence to suggest that a Clinton Restoration is not inevitable too. President Bush may be unpopular, but he is also despite his low ratings the most popular political leader in Washington. The ratings of Mrs. Clinton,. Senator Reid, Mrs. Pelosi, and the Democrat controlled Congress is in the mid twenties to the teens. A great opportunity for a Washington outsider (say, Fred Thompson) to sweep in. Indeed, I would be far more interested in the thinking of people like Thompson, Romney, or Rudi on space policy

  • anonymous

    “All of these comments about what Hillary Clinton should do are very entertaining, but I suspect do not match in any way what Hillary Clinton would do.”

    On the contrary, the fact that Lori Garver, a long-time supporter of commercial human space flight, is involved in the Clinton campaign would indicate otherwise.

    “As for providing “incentives” for commercial space, let us not forget that rich guys like Musk, Bigelow, and company”

    Actually, Bigelow’s general counsel, Mike Gold, was involved in the Kerry campaign and would be another advocate for Bigelow and commercial space interests on the Democratic side this go around, too.

    I’m not necessarily a Clinton or even Democratic supporter, but we shouldn’t make these kinds of baseless partisan attacks, especially when the individuals involved are clearly strong commercial space supporters.

    I just hope there are supporters of commercial space, like Courtney Stadd and our own Mr. Muncy, active in the Republican Presidential campaigns as well. Hopefully commercial space will come out ahead no matter who wins.

    “‘Balance’ between exploration on the one hand and science and aeronautics on the other likely means gutting the former to pay for the latter.”

    As long as “exploration” consists of reinventing the LEO medium lift wheel and doing no actual human exploration systems development, our tax dollars are better spent on science and aeronautics.

    “are on Hillary’s target list for her take from the rich and give to the government bureacrats tax plans.”

    Isn’t Mr. Whittington the gentleman who has advocated for support-the-NASA-bureaucracy Ares I solution over solutions that bypass or reduce the NASA bureacracy and institution?

  • anonymous

    “If this is true, I can sort of understand why we in Europe have to take measures like loan guarantees to shore-up our industries – though I’ll concede it may not benefit us in the long run.”

    I’ll readily admit that I don’t have a clue whether European governments need to take measures to “shore-up” their industries in the face of U.S. federal spending in R&D. I would just argue that there are better ways to do it than with government loan subsidies.

    Of course, there are even bigger, structural issues with the European economy that would need to be addressed first if the goal is to compete with the U.S. economy. But I’m not sure that’s the right goal. The goal should probably be to grow the European economy as fast as possible without incurring recessions or unacceptable social dislocations. And per Mr. Robertson’s comments, that probably means encouraging innovation in unique European products and markets, rather than trying to match American industries head-to-head.

    And again, I’m an ugly American, so it’s not my place to dictate European policy to Europeans. Just my 2 cents from the point-of-view of an observer.

    “just go easy on this poor old Brit.”

    Actually, I’m not sure that U.K. policy and industry should be lumped in with the rest of Europe. The American and British models seem to have more in common with each other than the British and, say, French models do. As I mentioned in another thread, Virgin Galactic, arguably a British-backed venture, has more in common with the all-American Blue Origin suborbital effort, than the nascent EADS suborbital effort.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous

    “Although it appears to be old news, I just learned of the following, which NASA should get credit for if it’s done the right way:

    … NASA is contemplating awarding a contract to supply a Sabatier-reaction based carbon dioxide reduction system that will be operated in a service based model as part of the International Space Station’s (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS)”

    Assuming the ISS program follows through, this is a step in the right direction. But it’s only a small step.

    There’s an article over on nasaspaceflight.com about the larger Congressional report that led to this initiative and a couple other small initiatives to possibly bring some other federal R&D research to ISS. In the accompanying thread, I criticized the article (but not the report) as being too breathless and glowing about what are really very small initiatives, but the article and thread still worth reading for the background. Again, the report deserves some modest applause for taking a few half-steps in the right directions.

    But if NASA and Congress were really serious about bringing other commercial and federal R&D users to ISS (the thrust of the congressional report), COTS would get a higher priority to solve the accesss problem and the U.S. share of ISS would be managed under an FFRDC, GOCO, or similar arrangement to streamline costs and simplify the user interface.

  • anonymous

    “We shouldn’t let NASA get away with creating the public notion that the answer to the gap is adding another $x00M to the NASA budget for Orion/ARES, which might speed things up by a few weeks, when the same amount would create another COTS-style service provider. Every year.”

    Amen.

    “It would be nice if NASA could get over its distaste for buying space services and hardware commercially, and instead develop an aversion to both developing everything in-house (literally or with cost-plus contracts) and bartering with other space agencies and their contractors.”

    Amen squared.

  • MarkWhittington

    “Anonymous” We don’t know what the extent of Ms. Garver’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton campaign is or in what capacity. I have certainly not heard that she has the Senator’s ear or that she listens to her about space policy.

    As for Ms. Garver supporting commercial space–well–I saw her on the Fox News Channel being interviewed about the recent crisis aboard ISS. She had her talking points down pretty well. But when it came time to discuss the future, she mentioned that it was wonderful that NASA was working on this Orion/Ares thing to replace the shuttle. Nothing about it being part of a return to the Moon. Nothing about commercial space, COTS, or anything related. I think we can therefore assume that Ms. Garver was not one of those politicos Keith Cowing talked to who were in favor of dumping Ares.

    Also, you’re mistaken that I support the Ares 1 over any other solution. The problem is that I really haven’t seen any solution that is superior, despite the constant mantra that EELV = commercial = good.

  • Bill White

    Hillary’s space policy would be very strongly influenced by her choice of Veep. Word is Obama is not interested in Veep and Edwards probably isn’t either.

    That pushes Bill Richardson to the top of that list.

    Hmmm . . .

    Governor of New Mexico and strong supporter of the X Prize Cup. Betcha Vice President Richardson would take phone calls from Pete Diamandis.

  • MarkWhittington

    Bill – No one who is running for President will ever say he is interested in the second slot until it is clear that they will not get the nomination. It would be silly to behave otherwise.

    Still, Richardson would be an interesting choice, especially if a President Hillary Clinton were to leave space policy to her Veep. But I don’t expect either to be the case. Richardson is too far toward the center to be on any Democratic ticket. And Hillary is too much of a control freak to leave any policy to anyone but herself.

  • anonymous

    “We don’t know what the extent of Ms. Garver’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton campaign is or in what capacity.”

    Sure we do. Reread the post that started this thread. At a minimum, Garver is setting up and leading meetings for senior domestic policy advisors in the Clinton campaign. \

    We also know that Garver, Gold, and others wrote white papers on civil space for the Kerry campaign. It’s not a stretch to imagine they’re doing more than just setting up meetings this time around, too.

    “Nothing about commercial space, COTS, or anything related.”

    Regardless of what questions were asked of Garver on Fox, her record on commercial space is very consistent. As head of Goldin’s policy and plans office, she backed the predecessor program to COTS. After leaving NASA HQ., she tried to become the first commercially sponsored space tourist. And since then, she’s done studies and lobbying for newspace firms.

    “Also, you’re mistaken that I support the Ares 1 over any other solution.”

    I did not say that you support Ares I over any other solution. I said that you support a solution that sustains and extends the NASA bureaucracy, despite your claim that you don’t like politicians that “take from the rich and give to the government bureacrats”.

    “The problem is that I really haven’t seen any solution that is superior, despite the constant mantra that EELV = commercial = good.”

    If you really do care about reducing bureacracy, then Ares I does equal “bad” and EELV does equal “good”.

  • Keith Cowing

    I just love it when people like Mark Whittington who claim to be “space policy analysts” – but can never manage to name who pays them to do this “analysis” – sit in their dining room thousands of miles away and jump to all manner of conclusions about events they were not present at, conversations they did not participate in, or the motives of people they have never met. Always entertaining. What’s your next prediction, Mark?

  • MarkWhittington

    Anonymous – Ms. Garver kind of appointed herself space spokesperson for the Kerry Campaign, which was much to the surprise of the Kerry Campaign since it was under the impression that John Logsdon was holding that role. As for space commercialization, what exactly did she accomplish along those lines when she was a NASA Associate Administrator?

    Keith – And where did I exactly do wrong?

  • Keith Cowing

    Lori Garver was the Kerry Campaign’s space spokesperson appeared in public in that capacity. I do not know who you have been talking to since this was all crystal clear here in Washington, D.C. John Logdson was one of the campaign’s advisors on space.

    As for your question out of left field “what exactly did she accomplish along those lines when she was a NASA Associate Administrator?” Surely the answer is in one of the policy papers you prepared for your mystery employer?

  • Al Fansome

    ANONYMOUS: I’ll readily admit that I don’t have a clue whether European governments need to take measures to “shore-up” their industries in the face of U.S. federal spending in R&D. I would just argue that there are better ways to do it than with government loan subsidies.

    Anon,

    This may be heresy, but their “loan subsidy” approach may be the most effective approach for Europe, considering all their other weaknesses and problems (high taxation, high regulation, high business costs in the form of a large social safety net, relatively low amounts of innovation & entrepreneurship compared to America).

    In some ways, I would describe Europe’s strategy as “be the fast follower”. This is the Microsoft strategy, and I would assert that it works very well for Microsoft, and somewhat OK for Europe.

    They are not the innovators. They let the innovators throw lots money at new innovative ideas, new designs, new approaches, etc. There will be many failures as part of the cost of success & innovation. At the moment something clearly sticks and works, for the innovators, and IF it is a big market, then Europe can/will react and create a program to throw huge subsidies to big companies to get into the market too. If getting into the market is really just a matter of design & engineering & manfucturing, and if you have lower amount of DDT&E costs to amortize over the successful product, then this is a method that can create jobs in Europe (which is their goal.)

    This strategy can work reasonably well for some industries (cars, ships, planes, satellites, launch vehicles) and not at all in others (software, semiconductors, computers, biotech).

    Of course, by taking this approach, you actually have less total gross innovation than is otherwise possible (as you are putting your money into me too investments), you are never leading, and getting the benefits of being the leader, and you are always fighting your way into a market against entrenched competition. You are also fighting against every other country (Japan, Korea, Taiwan … and increasingly, China) who has also adopted some version of this strategy.

    It is not what I would want for my country, but we need to look at this strategy with European eyes before being judging it (and them) too harshly.

    Given that Europe does not have the entrepreneurial culture of America, but they do have big industrial companies with design/engineering/manufacturing expertise, there is a rational basis for their strategy.

    Of course, it is quite “annoying” if you are the innovator, and you develop a new breakthrough, and then johnny-come-lately arrives and throws huge amounts of cash to duplicate what you produced with much sweat, blood and tears … and he does not care about things like an adequate ROI.

    – Al

  • MarkWhittington

    Keith – That was of course a rhetorical question. Nothing was really done for commercial space at that time. I’m not sure what you mean by “mystery employer.” My work along those lines has been done in the media, both print and internet. No mystery there.

  • reader

    something i’d recommend puting on NASAs charter as a fixed nonnegotiable budget item, possibly with competed projects between centers:
    validating the often-spoken about but never tested high-risk high-payoff space technology concepts.
    Nonexhaustive list would be: in space cryogenic fuel transfer, microwave power beaming, any type of ISRU, lunar, orbital, asteroidal or whatever, momentum exchange tethers, artifical gravity testing, biological tests on animals on long-term missions out of van Allen belts ( i.e. mice onboard martian orbiter. Are EELVs mouse-rated ? :) ) Something akin to the list discussed on Selenian Boondocks awhile ago.

    All of these could be done on relatively modest budgets, but would potentially open up new avenues of future development. IOW, get the large unknowns relating to human development of inner solar system answered or at least unknowns quantified. Currently we dont have the slightest clue about practical issues involved in ISRU, long-term effects on bodies in long martian transits, building solar powersats and so on. Kinda hard to build any business cases with questions like that open.

  • Keith Cowing

    Mark, you claim to be a space policy analyst. Who is your employer?

  • anonymous

    “Ms. Garver kind of appointed herself space spokesperson for the Kerry Campaign, which was much to the surprise of the Kerry Campaign since it was under the impression that John Logsdon was holding that role.”

    Logsdon is a professor at George Washington University. He advised and co-wrote white papers for the Kerry campaign and was maybe even quoted in the press, but was never an official spokesman. The man has a day job.

    Moreover, Garver is one of Logsdon’s former students. They’ve known each other for something on the order of a couple decades. One would not surprise the other.

    “As for space commercialization, what exactly did she accomplish along those lines when she was a NASA Associate Administrator?”

    I already stated this. The predecessor program to COTS was started during Garver’s tenure and with her support.

  • anonymous

    “In some ways, I would describe Europe’s strategy as ‘be the fast follower’.”

    That’s a good analysis of the reasons why Europe follows certain R&D and industrial policies.

    “This is the Microsoft strategy, and I would assert that it works very well for Microsoft, and somewhat OK for Europe.”

    I’m quibbling, but Microsoft was arguably the lead with their operating system (although Microsoft bought the operating system off someone else). But you’re obviously right that Microsoft has since used that position and accompanying wealth to secure strong follower positions in multiple related markets, often by adding capabilities originally created by other leaders to the Microsoft operating system.

  • anonymous

    “something i’d recommend puting on NASAs charter… validating the often-spoken about but never tested high-risk high-payoff space technology concepts

    Nonexhaustive list would be: in space cryogenic fuel transfer, microwave power beaming, any type of ISRU, lunar, orbital, asteroidal or whatever, momentum exchange tethers, artifical gravity testing, biological tests on animals on long-term missions out of van Allen belts”

    I tend to agree (with the exception of artificial gravity). Without proving out some of these technologies and getting commercial industry involved from the get-go, it’s not clear to me that the human lunar return effort — or any other human exploration effort for the foreseeable future — is going to be sustainable beyond a few missions and/or have capabilities that will be anywhere worth the high cost invested.

    And that assumes NASA gets around to developing actual hardware for a human lunar return. Not only did the duplicative Ares I medium-lift LEO (actually suborbital) launch vehicle suck up all the human exploration technology dollars, but her costs have bounced the start of any heavy lift or lunar lander development over the political horizon.

    But that’s a different thread…

  • Keith Cowing

    As I recall Lori Garver was also one of the first NASA people – while at NASA – to talk about the concept of prizes with a straight face.

  • MarkWhittington

    “I already stated this. The predecessor program to COTS was started during Garver’s tenure and with her support.”

    What predecessor program? What did it entail? How much was it funded? What did it accomplish?

  • MarkWhittington

    Keith – We all know what the value of just talk is. Despite her position of being an Associate Administrator, Ms. Garver was obviously unable to translate talk into action. That took a new administration and a new way of thinking.

  • Keith Cowing

    “Keith – We all know what the value of just talk is. Despite her position of being an Associate Administrator, Ms. Garver was obviously unable to translate talk into action. That took a new administration and a new way of thinking.”

    Yes Mark, “talk” is indeed your forte. You spend so much of your time doing nothing but talk – and talk about others talking too.

    “I already stated this. The predecessor program to COTS was started during Garver’s tenure and with her support.” What predecessor program? What did it entail? How much was it funded? What did it accomplish?

    Gosh, you are the professional space policy analyst, Mark. Certainly you must know all about this. Why are you asking us questions?

  • anonymous

    “What predecessor program?”

    The ISS Alternative Access Program. It was rolled out under Aerospace Technology in the FY 2001 budget. See the second page of this budget document, among other sources:

    ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/budget/2001/aero-space.pdf

    “What did it entail?”

    Studies followed by a fixed-price “Next Generation Launch Services” acquisition for ISS cargo delivery.

    “How much was it funded?”

    Low hundreds of millions of dollars.

    “What did it accomplish?”

    Studies are mentioned here, among other places:

    http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/iss_alternative_000825.html

    Unfortunately, Karen Poniatowski and Space Operations dragged their feet interminably on the service procurement, effectively killing off the program (long after Garver and the program’s other supporters under the Goldin regime had left).

    Griffin subsequently forced Poniatowski out of the agency (one of his few good firings). COTS was created out of the Alt Access concept (commercial transportation services to/from ISS) and a program that Steidle’s folks had been working on to create a commercial alternative/backup to the CEV for LEO transport.

  • anonymous

    “Despite her position of being an Associate Administrator, Ms. Garver was obviously unable to translate talk into action.”

    To keep the record straight, Garver was AA for Policy and Plans. Her job was to get the Alternative Access program started and funded, which she did. It was not her job to execute the program, which is where the program failed.

    I’m not a Garver supporter or detractor. But these sorts of baseless personal partisan attacks should not be allowed stand, especially when the facts are so clearly to the contrary.

    “That took a new administration and a new way of thinking.”

    Although I support the program, we have yet to see if COTS will produce anything of value either. Supporters of Bush, Griffin, or COTS will have to wait until at least 2009 before they can declare even a partial (test flight) victory.

    And even then, there’s little in the way of “new thinking” in COTS. The basic concept — commercial transportation services to ISS — existed in Alternative Access before Bush or Griffin were in power. (And Steidle’s folks were pursuing a similar concept to support exploration missions before Griffin came on the scene, too.)

  • MarkWhittington

    Anon – I’m not being personal at all. I don’t know Ms. Garver. Next thing you know, you’ll accuse me of being sexist (g).

    The fact of the matter is that the program did fail. COTS has a much better chance of succeeding because it is well funded, supported by the White House and the Congress and is, so far, well managed. And it is not the end of the vastly improved climate at NASA for commercial space that has existed in recent years. Just today, NASA announced the signing of an information sharing arrangement with three more commercial space companies. That sort of thing would have been unthinkable seven odd years ago. That’s the level of commitment that was clearly lacking. I don’t care about the good intentions of a single bureaucrat. What I care about is commitment and then (hopefully) results.

  • MarkWhittington

    Anon – By the way, I think that only a few million was ever spent on study contracts for alt access. Again, proving my point about commitment.

  • Keith Cowing

    “NASA announced the signing of an information sharing arrangement with three more commercial space companies.”

    Yea and NASA is not putting a penny into any of these agreements, why is that, Mark?

  • anonymous

    “I’m not being personal at all.”

    Yes you are. You made up an assumption about Garver’s track record as AA for Policy and Plans and attacked Garver here:

    “Despite her position of being an Associate Administrator, Ms. Garver was obviously unable to translate talk into action.”

    You’re a consistent Bush and Republican supporter and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But don’t make up assumptions about events that you know little about and use those assumptions to impugn individuals that you know even less about, especially just because they worked for or are now helping a Clinton or a Democrat. That’s the worst kind of baseless, useless, personal, partisan sniping. I would retract such a statement and apologize for it.

    “The fact of the matter is that the program did fail.”

    You’ve changed your argument with every post. First you claimed that the Clinton campaign is not serious about commercial space. Then, after it was pointed out to you that the individuals involved in the Clinton campaign and on the Democratic side have consistently been supporters of commercial space, you claimed that one of them, Garver, hasn’t really been a supporter of commercial space. Then, after the various commercial space activities that Garver has been involved with were pointed out to you, you claimed that she took the spotlight from Logsdon on the Kerry campaign. Then, after it was pointed out to you that Garver couldn’t have taken the spotlight from Logsdon on the Kerry campaign, you implied that one of the commercial space activities that Garver helped get started as AA for Policy and Plans never existed. Then, after it was pointed out to you that this Alternative Access program did exist with links to back it up, you now claim that the Alternative Access program doesn’t count because it was cancelled and remade into COTS.

    Getting back to your original argument, you’ve done nothing at all in all this wandering logic to prove your assumptions about the intentions of the Clinton campaign or the people involved in it. It’s far past time to stop trolling, stay on point, and add something more substantive to the discussion than made-up claims that don’t stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

    “I don’t care about… a single bureaucrat.”

    Yes you do. You even stated so a few posts back here:

    “As for space commercialization, what exactly did she [Garver] accomplish along those lines when she was a NASA Associate Administrator?”

    Again, stop trolling, keep your logic straight, stay on point, and try to add something substantive to the discussion.

    “COTS has a much better chance of succeeding because it is well funded,”

    COTS is not well funded at all, not by a long shot. Kistler and Space-X are getting between $200 and 300 million each from NASA to build a launch vehicle and an upper stage that must dock with the ISS, return to Earth, and remain safely pressurized throughout. Contrast that with USAF cost-sharing on EELV development, approximately $500 million each to Boeing and Lockheed, just to develop a launch vehicle. COTS is funded at half the money to do a job that’s at least twice as hard. (I’d argue three or four times as hard.)

    If that’s your definition of “well funded”, then I’d hate to see your definition of “poorly funded”.

    “supported by the White House and the Congress”

    So was Alternative Access. In fact, IIRC, one might argue that Alternative Access had better political backing because, unlike the White House FY 2008 budget proposal for COTS, Alternative Access was never cut by either the White House or Congress.

    “well managed.”

    I don’t want to cast aspersions on Alan Lindenmoyer or his folks because they’re doing their best to demonstrate a massive culture change with very limited resources and in the context of a very entrenched ISS program. But above their grade level, the program is woefully mismanaged by dint of its severe underfunding alone. Heck, Kistler alone has already missed its second-round private financing milestone. See the “Constellation and the Future” folder, “RpK apparently out of cash — stopped work” thread, on Level 2 at nasaspaceflight.com.

    “And it is not the end of the vastly improved climate at NASA for commercial space that has existed in recent years. Just today, NASA announced the signing of an information sharing arrangement with three more commercial space companies.”

    NASA signs dozens and dozens of unfunded Space Act Agreements with industry every year. Three more do not make a “vastly improved climate” for commercial space activities.

    If NASA put some funding into those SAAs — or just funded the existing Kistler and Space-X SAAs at adequate levels — then such breathless claims would have some legitmacy.

    “That sort of thing would have been unthinkable seven odd years ago. That’s the level of commitment that was clearly lacking.”

    You must be kidding. Kistler was working on a ~$200 million flight demonstration started under SLI way back in 2001. See the bottom of the table in this article

    http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-20/sd2001-20-001.shtml

    Nothing new under the sun, there. Heck, even the competition — Space-X raising a stink with the GAO — was the same.

    “What I care about is commitment and then (hopefully) results.”

    Then you should argue as a loyal Republican and commercial space supporter that the Bush Administration and Administrator Griffin need to do more than just rehash the old Alternative Access program as COTS and underfund the resulting awards.

    Sheesh…

  • anonymous

    “By the way, I think that only a few million was ever spent on study contracts for alt access. Again, proving my point about commitment.”

    Again, you have to be kidding. See the reference to the $186 million Kistler flight demo awarded in 2001 under SLI towards the end of the prior post.

    I don’t mean to be partisan, but the claim that COTS is some Bush II or Griffin revolution in thinking or commitment to commercial space is false. Programs spending hundreds of millions of dollars on newspace flight demonstrations with the aim of supplying ISS using commercial transportation services were formulated and funded under the Clinton Administration, well before Bush II and long before Griffin came to power. All Griffin did was cancel the old programs (including Steidle’s), take some of their funding for Constellation, and relabel them.

    And heck, we could even go back farther to the microgravity return capsule that NASA paid to have flown on the Conestoga launch vehicle to see that these kinds of ideas and commitments to stimulating new players in the commercial launch industry using human space flight-related payloads are nothing new.

    Again, COTS is a good and much needed program. But to beat our chests about its suppossed originality or the inadequate funding commitments that have been made to it is disingenious, to say the least.

  • Keith Cowing

    Agree with ‘anonymous’. COTS is the end point of successive attempts – by Dems and Reps – under a number of Administrators and Congresses to move toward increased private sector participation in routine launching of cargo and other materials into space.

    Mark Whittington hates Democrats (his private blog is dripping with it) so he is always looking for a wedge to employ against them – even if that wedge makes no logical sense whatsoever.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Keith, as a Democrat, I’d go further, and argue that Mark’s atitude/belief is that because manned spaceflight is good, and Democrats are bad, then its just impossible for Dems to support manned spaceflight, because Dems are inherently bad, and any Democrat that supports Manned spaceflight is a freak of nature.

    In short, don’t confuse him with the facts – he’s already made his mind up.

  • Keith Cowing

    Just look at his blog at http://www.curmudgeons.blogspot.com/

    “Have the feminazis turned on Hillary?”

  • Anonymous: It remains to be seen whether Airbus retain it marginal market lead over Boeing.

    Airbus seems to be doing remarkably well in their fire sale at the Paris Air Show. So far, they’ve trounced Boeing. Your thoughts?

    — Donald

  • COTS friend

    WHITTINGON: The fact of the matter is that the (AAS) program did fail. COTS has a much better chance of succeeding because it is well funded, supported by the White House and the Congress and is, so far, well managed.

    Mr. Whittington,

    Your statements display an misunderstanding of the facts.

    Yes, the AAS program failed, but this failure occurred in 2002, which was not during the Clinton Administration, and Lori Garver was long gone from NASA.

    AAS really died in the Fall of 2002, which was under Sean O’Keefe (who arrived at NASA in December 2001). Code R had signed the AAS study contracts with the four AAS winners, only a few months earlier, and it would be many months before they would complete their work and submit their final reports. In fact, it is clear the decision to kill AAS had already been made inside NASA Code R by the time they signed the AAS contracts in July 2002.

    The original AAS program plan was to downselect from the four companies who won in July 2002, to one company in the Summer of 2003, and to sign a commercial contract to deliver cargo to ISS. Instead, during NASA’s annual 2002 budget process for the 2003 budget submittal, Code R decided to kill AAS and use the $300M budget authority for something else. Code R gave their plan to the WH OMB, in the Fall of 2002. For some unknown reason OMB (e.g., in the Bush WH) let NASA get away this. This is odd and confusing, since they then went to the trouble to recreate AAS in January of 2004 in the form of the “ISS crew/cargo services” budget line.

    CONCLUSION: AAS died under O’Keefe’s management.

    If you want to debate space policy, then please get your facts straight.

    – Friend of COTS (and before that, AAS)

  • Brad

    Regardless of how Lori Garver might personally feel about VSE, it’s pretty clear the Kerry campaign was against it. The only message on space policy that I heard from the Kerry campaign was that the Bush space policy was all wrong and the Clinton policy was better. Why should I expect a Clinton restoration in 2009 to be any different? Why should I expect a Clinton presidency to support manned space exploration?

  • […] comments. His comments about the need for a “balanced” program echo those reportedly discussed at a Hillary Clinton event in DC last month. The comments about the “need to invite other countries” to participate is a little […]

Leave a Reply to Jim Muncy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>