For Constellation, there is nothing wrong with spending money in new technologies as long as they are somewhat useful in our everyday life. While one might think the purpose of Moon and Mars missions is to bring rocks from the space, a broad-minded person can see the benefits in transport communications and defense technologies.

The main problem is the excessive cost which can be cut down if NASA provides a true leadership in technical sense, rather than acting like a bunch or project managers, and leaving everything to the contractors. Can cost efficiency be achieved? Yes, only when NASA is managed like a business rather than ummmmm. US government ?

Could we stop pretending that NASA is a large part of the U.S. budget. It’s not. Yet for decades NASA has been accused of stealing food from the mouths of starving children. Supposedly we could have cured cancer, ended poverty and brought peace to the world, if only NASA wasn’t sucking up all the money.

It is a small part of the overall budget and is not viewed as that important vis-a-vis other priorities. So, this makes it particularly sensitive to overall budget realities. If anything, the space community often pretends that it is, and by right ought to be, above such petty considerations. It’s not. And few people outside of this field believe it is or should be.

Dear Jinchi,

What is the objective of the objective (the ISS)? Is it a jobs program? Or is it the first toehold on a new frontier? Or (insert here).

Within that context, have you thought through the policy implications of what you are proposing?

Did the airmail contracts, as implemented by the Kelly Act in the 1920s, put a “middle man between the objective and the Government”? If not, how is the current situation different than the old frontier of crew/cargo transportation?

Did the series of Railroad Acts of the 19th Century put a “middle man between the objective and the Government”? If not, how is the current situation different than this older frontier of crew/cargo transportation?

If private industry can run the railroads and the airlines much cheaper and safer than the Government — which they obviously can — then why don’t you think private industry can operate routine space transportation chores (like delivering clean underwear, water, air, etc.) to the ISS more cheaply and safely than the Government?

– Al

This is true, but NASA already subsidizes private companies to do space transportation. ISS supply under ESAS is supposed to be contracted to and implemented mainly by private companies. The Shuttle is managed by United Space Alliance. The difference between that is that ESAS ISS support is planned to take tens of billions of NASA dollars to implement, whereas COTS is supposed to take $500 million of NASA dollars, split over a couple companies, to implement cargo services. Even if you were to, say, triple that so it’s a more realistic amount, and double it again for crew transportation, it’s still a much better deal than ESAS, assuming it works (which is far from guaranteed, but neither is ESAS). Not only that, but NASA doesn’t have to pay COTS money unless the vendor meets agreed-upon milestones.

Where do the savings come from? With ESAS, the private companies (contractors) don’t pitch in any money, but with COTS, they do, in the expectation that they’ll have vehicles they can use for commercial purposes.

There’s also the possibility that private companies will be more efficient than the government when it comes to operations. NASA Administrator Griffin has stated that he believes this is the case. It seems likely, since they won’t be under the same political restrictions, they’ll have financial incentives to be efficient, and if multiple competitors are there the best will be the ones that survive.

Jinchi: “There is no other purpose for manned spaceflight now and none for the forseeable future.”

The COTS companies and investors will have to think otherwise, or the investments won’t be there and we won’t have to worry about it because the deal won’t be made. The same goes for cargo transportation to ISS. For manned spaceflight, there’s at least the prospect of NASA ISS transportation business, Bigelow space station business, and space tourism (to ISS, Bigelow habs, or perhaps just orbit or elsewhere). For the launcher part of the COTS proposals (new launchers or improved existing launchers), there’s also other potential launch business to win.

If there isn’t any other purpose for manned spaceflight now or in the foreseeable future, I’d want to know why NASA is bothering with it at all. It would be much better to stick with unmanned probes in that case.

Jinchi: “This simply puts a middle man between the objective – the ISS in this case – and the government. And that simply increases the costs required to do the same job.”

The current situation with the Shuttle and with the ESAS contracts is more one of a middle man (the contractors) between the objective and the government. The goal of the COTS approach is more one where the private company is actually providing the service, and there is no middle man. However, so far the market hasn’t been there in the purely private market to create such a service, so, given the failures of the government/cost-plus contract approach, it makes a lot of sense for NASA to try to get the market “over the hump”, as the Aldridge Commission recommended.

The Shuttle hasn’t been used for anything much but ISS construction and the Hubble telescope for at least a decade if not two. Everything else NASA does already uses “off-the-shelf” launchers like for example Delta or Atlas. Would you say that “puts a middle man between the objective … and the government”? Would you call that “corporate welfare”?

If there were an established private entity already doing the work of sending people to orbit, it might make sense to tap into their expertise and resources to do the job more cheaply. But there isn’t. What you’re describing is simply corporate welfare.

I agree with Al that Dr. Griffin should take the Aldridge Commission report a lot more seriously. He probably should carry a copy everywhere he goes, and hand out copies to the rank and file in their offices when he visits a center. Section III, “Building a Robust Space Industry”, should be a favorite topic in meetings and management emails.

reader: “so with all the excellent policy suggestions and ideas bounced around on space blogosphere, is anyone at all taking the message to one of the candidates campaign”

It looks like Ferris Valyn just did this with Obama’s campaign. Whatever your position is, it’s a good idea to personally take it to candidate campaigns, and these days there are a lot of ways to do that.

D. Messier: “What are your views, if any, on the larger fiscal realities that Bush has left us with (debt runup, continuing deficits, enormous war expenditures, unsustainable fiscal path, et.al.)?”

I’ll probably not make any comments on particular politicians on non-space issues here (especially one like the fiscal environment where in my opinion there’s plenty of blame to go around across parties, government branches, and decades). I will say that the overall federal fiscal situation makes it even more difficult for a multi-decade, big budget program like ESAS to succeed. Since we have such a fiscal environment, it would be wise to avoid such a program in the first place, or at least minimize the difficulties it will encounter by making it a bit (or a lot) less technically ambitious. If you’re looking for a shot against Bush, I think the fact that he’s allowing ESAS to go ahead without either fighting for the large amount of funding that it needs, or forcing Dr. Griffin to alter or replace it to match fiscal realities, doesn’t reflect too well on him. I did think Bush’s original VSE concept was a big improvement, even though I’m not personally more interested in Lunar exploration and development than Near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, GEO, LEO, or even suborbital space as long as it’s done in a more cost-effective and useful way (ie using and therefore promoting commercial space services that hopefully will ultimately be able to stand on their own).