Last Friday the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) issued a draft report titled “National Security and the Commercial Space Sector”, with an emphasis on the commercial launch sector. The release of a draft report during a 90-minute event at CSIS’s offices in Washington was a little unusual for the organization, which usually waits until a final product is ready. One reason for the draft release is to solicit input from the public (through the end of this month), but also, according to David Berteau, director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at CSIS, because of the ongoing policy reviews by the administration and a desire “to contribute where we can to those, rather than wait until they’re finished and then we come along and follow behind and critique them.”
Because the report is still in a draft stage, Berteau said that they were still at the “findings” stage, and they had yet to make specific recommendations or other conclusions. The draft report primarily notes the relatively weak standing of the commercial launch industry in the United States and the need for a more robust launch industry to meet national needs. It also includes four options for supporting the launch industry. One is to “leverage” foreign launch providers through strategic partnerships with the US government, potentially for the launch of government satellites on these vehicles, as well as export control reform. A second option would be to encourage competition among US launch providers in an effort to lower prices and improve service. A third option would go in the opposite direction, with the US government taking a bigger role in the launch market, including “picking a winner” among domestic launch providers and/or providing direct subsidies to them. The fourth option would stimulate demand for launches, perhaps by launching more but smaller, less complex satellites and expand its use of commercial satellites, thus increasing demand for them.
The report is still very much a draft. In addition to the missing conclusions, there are other areas that are still rough around the edges: for example, for some reason SpaceX is spelled in many places of the report as “Space-X” and at least once as “Space X”. Interestingly, the section about enhancing demand for launches makes virtually no mention of NASA’s current contracts to purchase cargo resupply services for the International Space Station and its proposal to purchase commercial crew services, both which stimulate demand for launches by potentially a significant degree. “We did not anticipate the president’s budget decision, and had not incorporated that into our approach at all,” Berteau said at Friday’s event when asked about that. “I think from a market-driver point of view, there’s an impact. I don’t think we can quantify that.”
Separate from the draft nature of the report, though, are concerns by some that the report may not be a fair and impartial examination of the subject. They worry it may be part of an effort to drum up support for allowing the export of commercial satellites with US components to China for launch there, a goal of a group of satellite operators called the Coalition for Competitive Launchers. The spokesman for that group, former Sen. John Warner, who is also a counselor for CSIS, was in attendance at the event. Those concerns were not eased by opening remarks by CSIS president and CEO John Hamre, who comments focused mostly on revisiting the export control regime, particularly as it applies to China. He added that “the most reliable space booster for commercial launches is in China”, a claim that was challenged during the Q&A session later (the Atlas 5, at least nominally available commercially, has a longer record of successful launches—particularly when its predecessors are included—than the rather diverse Long March family of vehicles.)
Those concerns also surfaced in the Q&A session when someone asked whether the coalition, satellite operators, or others with an interest in the report’s conclusions helped fund the study. “There are contributors and sponsors who have multiple vested outcomes in the issue here, some of which are in direct competition with one another,” Berteau responded. “We face that in almost every issue that we undertake, but I stand quite firmly on both the independence of our assessment and particularly on the independence of our recommendations when we get to the end.”
Warner also briefly addressed the issue. “To the extent I’ve had involvement in this, I can tell you this team behind me was fully independent and had I ever got in their way, they’d have stiff-armed me and I know it,” he said.
When are some of our so-called leaders going to get it through their granite-like skulls that the ChiComs are not our friends.
“the most reliable space booster for commercial launches is in Chinaâ€
Just just one of a chorus of the malevolent, elite liberal class who actively sabotage American engineering and technology for reasons most Americans cannot fathom. This is nothing new. What is troubling is that such people now run the US government and NASA. Mercifully, their time is running out.
for some reason SpaceX is spelled in many places of the report as “Space-X†and at least once as “Space Xâ€.
Oh god. Say it isn’t so.
I’ve hereby upgraded this misspelling SpaceX from pet peeve to social phenomena.
malevolent, elite liberal class who actively sabotage American engineering and technology for reasons most Americans cannot fathom.
You realize that I don’t take you seriously at all, and that I’m laughing at you, and not with you, right? On the other hand your entertainment value is great, as I don’t have to bother showing up at the tea bagger rallies to witness first hand the continued stupification of America. This is way better than TV too.
An interesting glimpse into the politics of Obamaspace:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/05/03/AW_05_03_2010_p30-222957.xml&headline=Obama%20Proposal%20Likely%20Unresolved%20This%20Year
FTA “Bolden described two “extreme†camps: One committed to the belief that only NASA can safely and effectively launch astronauts and a second that believes the space agency has conspired to keep the commercial sector out of the human space arena. Both camps have used the news media in a destructive campaign to prevail, he charges.”
Destructive only to his career. Like Obama, Bolden tries to play the moderate when he is the wild eyed figure head of the second group! Proponents of Ares (or Direct) believe that NASA should have a modest shuttle alternative, like Orion, before betting the farm on untried adventurers like SpaceX. SpaceX has their modest role with growth potential. The ISS resupply contract was awarded by GDub’s administration after all! So to backers of NASA manned spaceflight I say, ‘keep swinging’.
Low-cost launches and leveraging of foreign launch providers seem to be a repeat of what the moneyhandlers of the industry have tried before, and it seems that the democrat administrations are the preferred time periods for these attempts, for reference see http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98-485.pdf
As oposed to the former USSR, the PRC has the best weapon against the USA: capitalism. We only need to be given enough rope, we’ll finish the job ourselves.
One is to “leverage†foreign launch providers through strategic partnerships with the US government, potentially for the launch of government satellites on these vehicles, as well as export control reform.
I am actually surprised this is a real, considered option, but one the observed evidence seems to support since the late Bu$hco 1 Administration, on-through the Clinton Administrations, Bu$hco 2 forward to today.
Will we eventually purchase a dozen Soyuz rockets at a time like the French did recently? http://www.space-travel.com/reports/France_To_Pay_Russia_One_Billion_For_14_Soyuz_Carrier_Rockets_999.html
Despite what the retro-nationalists rant on these space-blogs, internationalism and mega-corporatism rules the day.
As oposed to the former USSR, the PRC has the best weapon against the USA: capitalism. We only need to be given enough rope, we’ll finish the job ourselves.
That seems a likely scenario given the current state of affairs.
FOUST: Interestingly, the section about enhancing demand for launches makes virtually no mention of NASA’s current contracts to purchase cargo resupply services for the International Space Station and its proposal to purchase commercial crew services, both which stimulate demand for launches by potentially a significant degree.
Jeff,
To expand a little on that, the President’s budget *potentially* does much more on commercial launch than commercial crew. (ISS Cargo delivery has been around for years.)
The President’s budget for NASA includes $3 Billion for propulsion research, some of which could go to stimulating commercial rocket engine development.
It also includes development of “propellant depots” as a major new element in NASA’s human exploration architecture. This is a potential HUGE demand driver for U.S. commercial space transportation.
Page 65 of the Augustine Committee Report, published last Fall states:
“As an additional benefit of in-space refueling, the potential
government-guaranteed market for fuel in low-Earth orbit
would create a stimulus to the commercial launch industry
beyond the current ISS commercial cargo-services market.”
FOUST reports that Berteau of CSIS said: “We did not anticipate the president’s budget decision, and had not incorporated that into our approach at all,â€
That does not add up … he needs come up with better excuses. It sounds like he does not have enough experience or knowledge of the issues in this sector.
First, NASA’s purchase of ISS Commercial Resupply Services was not new. It was a well published $3 Billion contract.
Second, “commercial crew” has been coming for years. It was announced in President Bush’s original VSE, as the “Commercial CREW Cargo” program in 2004. The “crew” part was “COTS D” in the COTS competition, of which there were two rounds of competition. “Crew” was clearly supported as an option by the Augustine Commission, and anybody who understood this segment, would have seen this coming well before the President’s budget came out.
Third, “propellant depots” have also been around for some time. They were in the Augustine commission report as well, in great detail.
FOUST said: Berteau said at Friday’s event when asked about that. “I think from a market-driver point of view, there’s an impact. I don’t think we can quantify that.â€
That is another cop out. He can’t quantify some of the issues they are looking at in some of the other options mentioned.
CSIS could at least document the potential increased demand if NASA does what the President wants to do, point out the uncertainties, and then state the obvious that NASA buying more of its needs from U.S. commercial suppliers in a commercial manner (as required by the Commercial Space Act of 1998, as well as national space transportation policy) that it could significantly stimulate the U.S. commercial space transportation industry.
FOUST said: “A third option would go in the opposite direction, with the US government taking a bigger role in the launch market, including “picking a winner†among domestic launch providers and/or providing direct subsidies to them.”
Why does the U.S. government need to “pick a winner”? Why isn’t it an option to use the tax code to “subsidize all U.S. space transportation firms”?
Who are these guys?
FWIW,
– Al
@amightywind:
For the I-don’t-know-how-manyth-time, how are Lokheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences not commercial providers? Can someone on the apparently anti-commercial side of this argument please explain that to me? Please??
I think CSIS is on to something, page 39.
http://csis.org/node/24909
“Allow commercial launch vendors to charge commercial satellite customers the marginal cost of launch. This practice is not excluded as a matter of policy or regulation today. However, the current structure of the contract between the government and ULA intertwines fixed and marginal costs in a way that that does not permit marginal launch costs to be identified clearly. Renegotiation of the ULA contract would be necessary to allow only these marginal costs to be charged for commercial satellite launches. A further issue here is the sound stewardship of government funds, since the government would voluntarily pay a higher price for launch than commercial launch customer. While the government wants to secure itself the best cost, allowing launch vendors to charge only the marginal costs to commercial launch consumers could increase the number of launches by U.S. vendors, and in turn enhance production efficiency and lower cost for U.S. government launches.†Page 39
Sounds very familiar to me. And no this isn’t a subsidy, the commercial users pay for the marginal cost increase of each additional launch so their use of a strategic national asset is cost neutral to the government. The difference is that commercial users will no longer be required to pay a portion of the government’s strategic fixed cost. A cost the government will pay with or without commercial users the lack of which is a very frequent occurrence these days.
Once we get to a more 50/50 relationship between government and commercial users we can revisit this arrangement but until then every new private dollar flowing into the Space Industry increase the tax base, improves trade balance and provides a stronger foundation for this national strategic asset.
Once we get to a more 50/50 relationship between government and commercial users we can revisit this arrangement
What’s magic about 50/50?
amightywind: “Just just one of a chorus of the malevolent, elite liberal class who actively sabotage American engineering and technology … What is troubling is that such people now run the US government and NASA.”
I’m not going to get into the liberal vs. conservative debate. As far as NASA is concerned, though, it’s pretty obvious that the new plan favors American engineering and technology. Constellation just about wiped out the NASA technology budget. The new budget has big new lines for Space Technology, Exploration Technology Demonstrations, and Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology and Research.
As far as the American part of the quote is concerned, Constellation would have wiped out American human spaceflight by NASA by destroying the ISS (by taking its funding), preventing NASA from funding purchase of commercial crew services, delivering Ares I/Orion capable of reaching the ISS in 2019 (well after the ISS would have been gone), and so on. Essential NASA HSF would have been dead. Much of the rest of NASA would have remained unfunded or underfunded as well.
The new budget keeps NASA American HSF going by keeping the ISS, adding to the ISS, ensuring the ISS is fully built, fully using the ISS, bolstering the commercial cargo effort, adding the commercial crew effort, restoring the VSE’s robotic HSF precursor line, actually working on propulsion and heavy lift, purchasing commercial suborbital RLV services, and doing some serious HSF exploration technology demonstrations in space.
Some areas that the 2011 budget funds American versions of (where Constellation funded Russian versions) include crew transportation and crew rescue (expected to be delivered long before Ares I/Orion could have, thus decreasing reliance on the Russian Soyuz), PU-238, and an RD-180 equivalent engine.
Amightywind: “Proponents of Ares (or Direct) believe that NASA should have a modest shuttle alternative, like Orion, before betting the farm on untried adventurers like SpaceX.”
What is modest about Shuttle alternatives that are launched by Ares I? Certainly not the development or operational costs. Maybe you’re talking about the capabilities delivered or the schedule.
By the way, a modest version of Orion is in the 2011 budget. An unaffordable version of Orion was in Constellation.
Who is betting the farm on SpaceX? That is a completely false and bogus argument. First of all, the only “betting the farm” on 1 thing that’s going on is Constellation, which bet literally everything on Ares and Orion.
The 2011 budget funds multiple commercial providers of crew services. There is on “betting the farm” or “eggs in 1 basket” since there are multiple competitors.
Plus, the Orion CRV can serve as a hedge. If commercial crew didn’t work out (much less likely than Ares not working out, barring Congressional pork attacks against space), that CRV could always be used as the basis of a crew vehicle (presumably at the expense of doing any exploration).
Even if all commercial crew vendors and Orion CRV failed, the U.S. would still be much stronger in space than with Constellation because it woudl still have a capable and well-used ISS, commercial cargo, a strong robotic precursor program, a strong technology demonstration program, a strong general space technology program, a strong Earth observation program, a strong propulsion program, and so on.
Not only that, but SpaceX isn’t going to win all of the commercial crew contracts. SpaceX might not even win any of them. SpaceX didn’t win one of the CCDEV contracts. NASA is looking for a mixture of “big aerospace” like CCDEV winners Boeing and ULA, and medium or small aerospace.
Hopefully the Ares supporters continue to focus on such obviously false arguments. I suspect that means that’s all they have, which should ensure it ends.
Al: “To expand a little on that, the President’s budget *potentially* does much more on commercial launch than commercial crew.”
In addition to the baseline commercial cargo, baseline commercial crew, propulsion research, and propellant depot opportunities, the new budget:
– adds several Earth observation satellites. These need launches.
– adds a general space technology demonstration program. These need launches.
– adds a smallsat technology demonstration program. These need launches.
– adds a huge exploration technology demonstration program (which includes the propellant depot demo). This will require launches.
– adds capabilities to the ISS. This implies more ISS cargo.
– adds full use of the ISS. This implies more ISS cargo.
– adds years to the ISS life. This implies more ISS cargo.
– includes inflatable/lightweight technology demonstration. This may encourage a commercial space station, which could enable more commercial launch business.
– includes new lines of small and large robotic HSF precursors missions. These will require launches.
– allows NASA to buy commercial services on suborbital RLVs. This may enable future low-cost reusable orbital space launches.
Rand, there is nothing magical about 50/50, but some of the critics of this approach to jump start commercial utilization of space believe that the government is somehow ‘subsidizing’ the commercial launch services. At some point though say 90% commercial 10% government the fact the government continues to support the fixed cost may not make sense to more and more people.
At the launch rates that this level of commercial demand would entail the fixed cost would go from being dominate portion of the price to minor portion of the price. As such it would be no big deal to just incorporate that fixed cost into one price for all users whether its government or commercial.
Then again maybe the government could continue to pick up the fixed cost thereby justifying their bumping rights which I don’t see them changing anyway based on the national security nature of some of these government flights. Similar to how the airlines price seats and determine who gets bumped when the flight is overbooked (ie the backpacker who paid $100 vs the CEO who paid $2000).
I sure as heck think this has a better chance of working than simply trying to find yet another variant not so new approach to government contracting for launch services (ie COTS).
Thank you for pointing out how much the new plan would grow the launch market. I think I hear “Happy Days Are Here Again” playing in the background.
[…] National security, commercial launch, and a touch of controversy – Space Politics […]