Despite the SpaceX’s successful Dragon test flight last week, the incoming chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee remains skeptical about relying on commercial providers for supplying and accessing the International Space Station. In a Dallas Morning News article Monday, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), who will take over the committee next month, said he was wary of SpaceX and other providers seeking to transport cargo and, later, crews to and from the station. “I do have [concerns] because it’s so important and it’s so dangerous and it’s so subject to failure,” Hall told the paper. “I want to be assured that they’re not going to run out of money.” He added that he plans to ask SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and other industry executives to testify before the committee at an unspecified future date.
Last Friday, Hall made similar comments to Dallas public radio station KERA. “If you’re really a conservative you long for the day when anybody… can launch their own missiles and not have NASA, the government, do it. But that day’s not yet,” he said. “It’s a time when you still need government backing and sure tax money to see that you have successful launches and safe launches.”
“I want to be assured that they’re not going to run out of money.â€
There is no more reason to assume SpaceX will run out of money than that LM/JSC/MSFC will run out of money. In fact recent history suggests the opposite. All Mr Hall has to do is to make sure a program is properly funded. He is either half sane or being half honest.
Elon Musk appearing before a Congressional committee, after his stunt of showing up on Capitol Hill with his hand out and an attitude of entitlement, will be interesting to behold. One hopes that Musk will have learned a little bit about politics by then.
Another oink from a porker. Moving on …
Except, of course, that JSC and MSFC are government funded institutions and LockMart’s revenue stream is well established across a variety of spaces. You don’t have to be in ATK’s pocket to worry about unaccounted for risk in expanding the supplier base to new, untried firms. SpaceX, OSC, and other newcomers understand this well enough to be circumspect in what they promise, but I fear that the “Newspace” champions–free from the responsibility of actually bringing an architecture to the table–will do to commercial spacelift what green evangelists have done to alternatives to hydrocarbons.
Except, of course, that JSC and MSFC are government funded institutions and LockMart’s revenue stream is well established across a variety of spaces.
If NASA wants assured manned access to space, then it will have to pay for it. If it can pay USA to keep the Shuttle operational, it can pay SpaceX or some other provider (!) to keep a commercial crew system available. Much like the DoD uses a launch capability contract to keep the EELVs available. Hall’s argument is entirely without merit.
SpaceX and the ISS resupply mission are a useful program making the best of a bad situation with the unsustainable cost of the ISS. But it is also a technological backwater using 60’s technology to accomplish an 80’s mission. NASA needs heavy lift and a viable, multi-mission spacecraft. A arrogant, corrupt political class needs to look father than a few favored cronies for the future of manned spaceflight.
Presley Cannady,
So, does that mean we are gonna count Boeing & ULA as new, untried firms?
Thats an argument that ignores the CST-100 & the Atlas V. Its time to acknowledge that oldspace can play by commercial space rules.
Presley Cannady wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Spacex is not the only company. OSC, Boeing, ULA, etc are not newcomers nor new, untried firms. They outnumber the new firms in the commercial crew area.
“A arrogant, corrupt political class needs to look father than a few favored cronies for the future of manned spaceflight.”
You must be talking about CxP supports and its contractors like ATK.
Rep. Hall is dis-informed at best and disingenuous at worst.
The Red State NASA Tax-payer funded feeding trough is fast coming to an end and Hall is playing to the base home-folks.
Remember that wait and see attitude I suggested in the previous thread announcing Rep Hall’s selection? I’m not super impressed with the start he’s off to.
~Jon
“Elon Musk appearing before a Congressional committee, after his stunt of showing up on Capitol Hill with his hand out and an attitude of entitlement…”
Quote? Reference? Link?
In Musk’s 2004 testimony, he argued for greater use of prizes at NASA, rigorous analysis of whether new vehicle investments will lower the cost of space access, and fairness in contracting.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=10
Calling for more competitions and more level competitions is hardly putting one’s “hand out” for an “entitlement”.
Don’t make stuff up.
I strongly support commercial space, but I also want to listen to what Hall says and see whether he has a point to make. One thing he said does make sense. “I want to be assured that they’re not going to run out of money.” The essence of commercial space, as we’ve stated so many times, is fixed price contracts. That means there is a risk that the suppliers (SpaceX and Orbital) will wind up losing money on the contracted ISS resupply missions. Neither can sustain a negative cash flow for long. Then NASA will have the ugly choice to let them go broke and face an interruption in station resupply, or renegotiate the contracts and eat the cost difference. Politically, there will be hell to pay either way. So NASA has a huge vested interest in making sure SpaceX and Orbital really can provide the contracted service for the contracted price. That means Congress has a vested interest, which means it is reasonable for them to exercise some oversight.
All that being said, I am firmly convinced that NASA can save lots of money by going the commercial route for LEO crew and cargo, even if CRS services turn out to be more costly than currently expected. But the government must still exercise reasonable caution and do some contingency planning.
amightywind wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 10:13 am
“SpaceX and the ISS resupply mission are a useful program making the best of a bad situation with the unsustainable cost of the ISS.”
How is it “unsustainable”? Congress has fully funded it – I’d call that sustainable.
“But it is also a technological backwater using 60′s technology to accomplish an 80′s mission. ”
And yet every time you drive a car, ride a bike, or take a train you’re relying on 1800’s era technology, and every time you fly on an airline, you’re relying on 1900’s technology.
It doesn’t matter when something was invented, it only matters if it’s appropriate for the need. The Shuttle has shown us how expensive it is to operate a winged spacecraft, so capsules are a reflection of cost versus elegant landings.
“NASA needs heavy lift and a viable, multi-mission spacecraft.”
If you want an HLV, you have to be prepared to fund the payloads and the operations budget for the HLV over it’s lifetime. So far Congress has only funded just a small portion of an HLV’s development cost – you better talk to Congress about their lack of enthusiasm for your desires…
…oh, and if you think the new Republican House will be willing to spend MORE money on NASA, well, as the Man in Black used to say, “Get used to disappointment.”
Orion is expected to be ready to carry people no sooner than 2016. Boeing estimates CTS-100 ready for crew testing in 2015. SpaceX has said they think they can launch a crew by 2014, if Congress would gets off the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) train and start funding crew contracts. In the mean time, restarting Shuttle is a none starter, so the US must rely on Soyuz. How do hand wringing and spitfull resentment of SpaceX’s success help? Provide a reasonable contract stream for Dragon, CST-100 and some other possible contenders until it is time to down select based on actual progrss. Fund Orion as R&D and to provide a backup if you are worried about the lack of NASA’s magic dust. But, if you are really concerned about assuring the US our own human access to space, DO NOT wast time and money on an unnecessary new Heavy Lift Launcher.
Its time to acknowledge that oldspace can play by commercial space rules.
I think the word commercial is a major distraction. What matters is competitive multiple sourcing. Eventually one would hope that this will lead to fully commercial manned spaceflight, but even without such hope multiple sourcing would still be a very good idea.
The Red State NASA Tax-payer funded feeding trough is fast coming to an end and Hall is playing to the base home-folks.
At the same time red state political influence is growing. No. The 2008 electoral turn to the left was an aberration. The electorate now has a fresh reminder of democrat governance in the economy and the NASA funding fiasco. Expect red state influence to continue to grow, and traditional NASA spaceflight with it.
Concur wth almightywind. Having someone who represents JSC as head of the House Science and Technology committee will be a big boost to NASA. And having Musk show up at a hearing will be a good thing to see. He needs a grilling from The Hill at some point. Remember: Congress sets the rules and appropriates the funds. If he ticks off the congresscritters-the NASA money for Commercial gets sent to Orion and HLV. That’s the way things work on the Hill. Get congress angry and you lose.
“… the unsustainable cost of the ISS.”
If the $2B+/yr. pricetag for ISS is “unsustainable”, then what was the $8-10B+/year pricetag needed to keep Constellation from going off the rails?
Your arguments are inconsistent.
“But it is also a technological backwater using 60′s technology”
Dragon’s PICA thermal protection is not a 60s technology. It was invented in the 90s and enables reentry trajectories that 60s-era capsules could never have pulled off. (AvCoat on Orion is Apollo-era technology.)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27612
The pusher escape systems being pursued by Blue Origins and SpaceX or the composite capsule being pursued by Blue Origins are not 60s technology:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/blueorigin/index.html
And NASA didn’t pursue crew-carrying lifting bodies in the 60s like OSC, Sierra Nevada, and Virgin Galactic:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101213-orbital-virgin-ccdev2-bid.html
Don’t make stuff up.
“NASA needs heavy lift”
Now this is a 60s technology — the only time it was ever affordable to develop and operate.
“and a viable, multi-mission spacecraft.”
Agreed. But is Orion that spacecraft when it takes two of them just to pull off a bare-bones NEO mission?
FWIW…
…oh, and if you think the new Republican House will be willing to spend MORE money on NASA, well, as the Man in Black used to say, “Get used to disappointment.
No. The NASA budget will surely be cut. This isn’t a bad thing. More than half of NASA’s budget goes to non-HSF and non-space science mission items. These expenditures should be eliminated aggressively, and it is a good opportunity to do so.
“That means there is a risk that the suppliers (SpaceX and Orbital) will wind up losing money on the contracted ISS resupply missions. Neither can sustain a negative cash flow for long. Then NASA will have the ugly choice to let them go broke and face an interruption in station resupply, or renegotiate the contracts and eat the cost difference.”
Or simply take possession of the vehicles, other hardware, and intellectual property. IIRC, NASA has that option under the COTS agreements with SpaceX and OSC if they fail to meet milestones due to bankruptcy or something else. In the worst-case scenario, NASA could finish building and/or operate these vehicles themselves. That would still beat the alternative of longer gap where we’re all reliant on Soyuz and still be far less expensive than the billions required to finish and operate Orion.
FWIW…
Having someone who represents JSC as head of the House Science and Technology committee will be a big boost to NASA.
And a huge setback for effective human spaceflight.
Expect red state influence to continue to grow, and traditional NASA spaceflight with it.
What, like Apollo, Shuttle, CxP?
Apollo is history, Shuttle almost and CxP zombie parts in SLS.
What’s going to happen if the SLS schedule slips to 2017, ’18, ’19 or ’20?
And the subject of your hate, Elon Musk, succeeds with SpaceX and shows the whole world he can do what NASA does at 1/10th the cost in this era of YouTube and Facebook?
What’s going to be the new “conservative” standard then?
“Expect red state influence to continue to grow, and traditional NASA spaceflight with it.”
Wrong, those are mutually exclusive. Non NASA red states don’t like gov’t spending and that is what traditional NASA spaceflight is.
“The NASA budget will surely be cut. ”
And it is going to be the bloated HSF side. The non-HSF and non-space science mission items provide the ROI for the nation.
“Having someone who represents JSC as head of the House Science and Technology committee will be a big boost to NASA.”
JSC and NASA are not the same thing.
“And having Musk show up at a hearing will be a good thing to see. He needs a grilling from The Hill at some point.”
For what? Meeting all of SpaceX’s COTS milestones to date? Successful technical and programmatic execution? Saving the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and years of reliance on foreign systems versus the alternative?
“If he ticks off the congresscritters… Get congress angry and you lose.”
Since SpaceX isn’t failing any other way, we should put all of our hopes into petty political vendettas? Do you really want the nation’s civil human space flight future to be decided by whether a politician gets rubbed the wrong way?
What a way to run a space program.
Oy vey…
Matt Wiser wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“And having Musk show up at a hearing will be a good thing to see. He needs a grilling from The Hill at some point.”
If your goal is to keep the money flowing to home state NASA centers, the last thing you want to do is have someone show up and explain how things can be done for an order of magnitude less money. Highlighting SpaceX’s accomplishments makes traditional NASA look like a poster child for waste. It might be very uncomfortable for the committee.
Why should we give SpaceX or any other company corporate welfare when NASA is just as capable (under different leadership than Bolden and Garver) of doing the job? After having to bail out the car companies and the banks, do we really want to entrust our vital Space Program to private companies whose main concern is and will always be personal profit?
Rand Simberg wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Having someone who represents JSC as head of the House Science and Technology committee will be a big boost to NASA.
“And a huge setback for effective human spaceflight…”
Nonsense. With HSF championed by the likes of Master Musk, who is planning to retire on Mars, you have nothing to worry about… or do you.
Why should we give SpaceX or any other company corporate welfare when NASA is just as capable (under different leadership than Bolden and Garver) of doing the job?
No one is proposing to give SpaceX “corporate welfare.” And NASA has demonstrated that it’s not “capable of doing the job,” even when provided with more than ten times as much money as SpaceX.
Why should we give SpaceX or any other company corporate welfare when NASA is just as capable (under different leadership than Bolden and Garver) of doing the job?
1. It isn’t.
2. How is paying LM, USA and ATK any less corporate welfare than paying Musk, who has invested most of his personal fortune?
3. How is paying various contractor & civil servants at MSFC not white collar welfare?
Why are you so eager to choose one specific set of contractors, instead of having competitive multiple sourcing so the market can sort things out? Do you have a personal economic stake in this or perhaps an ideological preference for a strong government?
“Why should we give SpaceX or any other company corporate welfare when NASA is just as capable (under different leadership than Bolden and Garver) of doing the job? After having to bail out the car companies and the banks, do we really want to entrust our vital Space Program to private companies whose main concern is and will always be personal profit?”
Wow. Not sure where to start here.
NASA is just as capable as SpaceX technologically, but not managerially. It’s not about incompetence. It’s about how the house is built. Until those management precepts for NASA are changed (and really, it’s a matter of all federal procurements), the best managers and the best engineers at NASA will be hamstrung.
Do we really want to entrust our vital Space Program to a federal agency whose main concern, as dictated by Congress, is to provide jobs in Texas, Florida, Alabama, and lately Utah? That’s what we’re doing now. One of the lessons of Constellation, and a recurring reminder in the submissions to this forum, is that NASA human space flight is about jobs in certain places. Period.
SpaceX isn’t getting corporate welfare. The car companies and the banks were bailed out because of strategic stupidity on their part. No one, not even their doubters, have accused SpaceX of stupidity. SpaceX is providing a service to NASA, and NASA is paying for that service. They are doing something that, in their wisdom, NASA has decided it can’t do as economically as SpaceX has promised. We’ll see if SpaceX can live up to those promises, but they’re off to a great start. Do we want to entrust something vital to a private company whose main concern is and will always be personal profit? Well, gee, yes. That’s the capitalist way, and it works pretty well.
ChefCindy wrote:
“Why should we give SpaceX or any other company corporate welfare when NASA is just as capable (under different leadership than Bolden and Garver) of doing the job?”
What job is that? NASA giving corporate welfare, with cost plus contracts, to traditiion NASA contractors, like Lockheed and Boeing? Is that the job NASA is capable of?
“After having to bail out the car companies and the banks, do we really want to entrust our vital Space Program to private companies whose main concern is and will always be personal profit?”
So you don’t believe in the capitalism model for American business? Do you think that government can do a better job running the car companies and banks? Do you like the big government, monopolist, socialist model of NASA to be transfered to other parts of the economy and remove the profit motive for business? You don’t believe American business should be in the business of making profits?
@Major Tom wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
It’s disingenuous to infer SpaceX hasn’t been vying for government subsidies. Indeed, don’t make things up:
Government Funding For Privatization
According to Lew Jamieson of IAM Lodge 2061who works at the Space Center, Musk through his political connections from Florida to the White House has already got tens of millions of dollars in public tax funding for this privatization operation. In fact, Space Florida a public agency to encourage jobs in Florida has given millions of dollars to Space X and Musk according to Deb Spicer, Vice President of Communications.
http://www.spaceflorida.gov
Rep Hall is setting the stage to justify his denial of funds to the commercial sector in favor of the more expensive non-competitive industry giants he’s already beholden to.
If SpaceX were in Texas there would be $$$Billion$$$ of Tax dollars flowing freely their way courtesy of Mr. Hall.
He’s obviously not a fiscal conservative when he chooses more expensive over more innovative and cheaper.
DCSCA wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Musk through his political connections from Florida to the White House
Which White House? Bush in which he was awarded COTS contracts or Obama who really hasn’t done much for him yet. I don’t see how Florida politically would be very helpful.
Actually, SpaceX is in Texas. There are over a hundred folks in McGregor doing engine development. But it’s not in Hall’s district.
Which White House? Bush in which he was awarded COTS contracts or Obama who really hasn’t done much for him yet.
It’s just more ignorance form the DCSCA idiot.
“In fact, Space Florida a public agency to encourage jobs in Florida has given millions of dollars to Space X and Musk according to Deb Spicer, Vice President of Communications.”
I don’t think anyone is inferring that SpaceX isn’t vying for government subsidies. Everyone is. Yes, Space Florida has also helped provide funds to Lockheed for renovation of the High Bay Facility. Lockheed needed that for CEV. They’ve also arranged for tax credits and incentives to other space-related businesses. The point is that this is what Space Florida does. They hand out money to encourage aerospace companies to play in their playground. I’d be astonished if all those aerospace companies, through their own lobbyists, aren’t vying for those subsidies.
But let’s face it, Space Florida sees the handwriting on the wall, re commercial space.
ChefCindy
We are going to be entrusting them no matter what, since NASA can’t build the rocket (they’ve NEVER had that capability).
The real question is do we want to trust them without proper oversight (IE cost-plus sole-sourced contracts like we had for Constellation) or do we want to have proper oversight?
sftommy
The sad thing is, SpaceX has a not insubstantial presence in Texas. In essence, they are a Texas company.
“Actually, SpaceX is in Texas. There are over a hundred folks in McGregor doing engine development. But it’s not in Hall’s district.”
Exactly. And we should all understand that in Texas politics, bringing money into Texas is nearly as important to a legislator as bringing it into his or her district. McGregor is in Chet Edwards district, I believe. While Edwards was defeated last month, and is a conservative Democrat, Hall worked closely with Edwards on many issues, including when Hall himself was a Democrat.
Of course, if the people arguing that SpaceX is getting unfair subsidies were intellectually consistent, they would also have to take Airbus’ position with the WTO. Somehow, I’ll be very surprised if that’s the case.
Those filled with obsessive hatred of SpaceX now have another target to spew their venom at:
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=756
Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) today announced that it has submitted a proposal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in response to the Commercial Crew Development-2 contract solicitation. The company also provided several top-level details of its proposal for providing safe and affordable transportation services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and for commercial activities in Earth orbit.
Basically it’s a re-do of the Orbital Space Plane concept from earlier in the decade.
So many fresh new ideas, so many people to smear …
I stand corrected on space-X / Texas,
and appreciate you guys’ insights into the subtleties of Texas politics
SpaceX’s best friend in the House has been Rohrbacher in CA-46
“According to Lew Jamieson of IAM Lodge 2061who works at the Space Center, Musk through his political connections from Florida to the White House has already got tens of millions of dollars in public tax funding for this privatization operation.”
Evidence? Reference? Or is this hearsay?
“Space Florida… has given millions of dollars to Space X and Musk according to Deb Spicer, Vice President of Communications.”
Quote? Link? Or more hearsay?
The link you provided is just the Space Florida homepage. The mere existence of Space Florida provides no evidence for the claims you’re making.
“It’s disingenuous to infer SpaceX hasn’t been vying for government subsidies.
It’s irresponsible and defamatory to claim that Florida labor and state officials have made specific statements about certain companies in the absence of any direct quotes from or links to those statements or any references or evidence to back them up.
“Indeed, don’t make things up”
Pot, kettle, black.
Mark: I share your views on Musk. He needs to be cut down to size and shown that he’s not God just because he’s demonstrated Dragon on a single orbital test flight. They need to do it again. And again, and again. Then put the crew variant in orbit. With a crew. Show that SpaceX can live up to its promises. And keep in mind that the NASA authorization bill signed into law states that a government vehicle (Orion) for LEO missions be retained in case commercial providers fail to deliver. So the entire commercial sector has a motivator….show NASA and Congress that your vehicles are safe and reliable, and that yes, we can deliver. Said it before and I’ll repeat: the commercial sector (Boeing, L-M, Orbital, and…ugh…SpaceX) should be given every chance to succeed. To assume that commercial should be the only space, as some here have suggested, though, is not politically feasable. Sure, turn LEO over to the private sector, with a government vehicle as a backup. And let NASA go BEO. Build Orion, build the HLV, and as Ed Crawley said in that presentation at the Cape, “start going places.”
When NASA pays companies like Lockheed, etc, they own the final product–or I should say that we own it, because NASA is us. Who will own the rockets that SpaceX makes? That’s right, spaceX.
It is the difference between paying a roofer to roof your house or paying him to roof his own.
SpaceX is welcome to compete for contracts like other suppliers, or to build their own commercial space program. Just don’t ask me to subsidize it. I own a business, I turn a profit and have never need government subsidies (corporate welfare).
I am a capitalist, but there are some things that I believe should not be privatized. Our military and our Space program. I don’t believe it because I am concerned for the defense of our nation. I just don’t believe those things should have a profit motive.
That does not mean that I am ignorant and think that those private companies that supply weapons and rockets to NASA and the military are not making a profit. But they do not own their final products. We do. We own them because we paid for them.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“Both of Elon Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX, survive on government subsidies to the tune of $465M for Tesla and $278M for SpaceX, for a grand total of $743M or nearly 3/4 of a billion in tax-payer money.” -source 4/26/10, http://www.americaspace.org/?p=2816
Matt Wiser
Who exactly here has suggested that commercial space should be the only space?
I want you to name names
ChefCindy
Utter bubkis – Rockwell owns the Intellectual property from the Space Shuttle (well, now Boeing owns it, since Boeing bought Rockwell). LM owns the intellectual property from Orion. Boeing & LM can sell those to any private company, provide they aren’t violating federal rules.
How else do you think that the Atlas V gets sold on the commercial market?
More bad news, haters. Boeing has entered the commercial space race too:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1557
Their web site has artist conceptions of the CST-100 atop an Atlas V, a Delta IV and … wait for it … a SpaceX Falcon 9.
Socialist space is dead. Long live free enterprise!
DCSCA,
Jim Hillhouse is wrong on that issue. SpaceX has private investors and customers. It is not “surviving” on COTS, which is not a subsidy because NASA is investing in the development of a capability it required, or CRS funding, which is not a subsidy either because NASA is paying for services rendered.
SpaceX is not the enemy. We need strong public-private partnerships to make space exploration work in the 21st Century and they are positioned to play a key role. Those of you that are trying to tear them down are picking the wrong battle.
@Martijn:
And visa versa, which puts us right back where we started and new commercial effectively locked out and dead. You can indefinitely float any enterprise so long as you’re willing to throw taxpayer money at it, and last USA is better positioned to pay the price for that sort of largess than any Newspace upstart. Commercial buy is their only hope.
@Ferris:
I certainly wouldn’t, which is why I explicitly didn’t.
I didn’t ignore anything, and I certainly didn’t suggest that Lockmart and Boeing can’t hold their own in a competitive launch market. What I question is whether or not such a market will deliver enough launch orders to float these firms–new, untried and with a singular focus on providing launch services–will emerge within their lifetimes. If not, then as Martijn pointed out we’re going to have to do precisely what we’ve done for USA and ULA for whoever brings us the next manned vehicle. Hence the analogy to green hype.
Stephen Smith,
I’ve seen those images floating around elsewhere on the inter-tubes.
Wish I they would post the video that has CST-100 launching & docking with ISS. That needs to be more accessable
@byeman:
I explicitly said as much.
How do you figure OSC is not a newcomer?
I don’t know that, but I’m certainly not all that interested in whether new launch firms outnumber old ones.
“When NASA pays companies like Lockheed, etc, they own the final product–or I should say that we own it, because NASA is us.”
No, they don’t. When NASA pays for a launch on an Atlas V, Delta IV, or Pegasus, NASA is paying for a transportation service. NASA doesn’t own the vehicle or most of the infrastructure used to produce or launch it. United Launch Alliance (ULA) or Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) does.
Same goes for the military when they buy launch services from ULA.
“Who will own the rockets that SpaceX makes? That’s right, spaceX”
That’s no different from how it’s been done for years and years with other companies and launch vehicles, in both the military and NASA.
(And actually, in the event that SpaceX defaults on its COTS agreement, NASA does have the right to take possession of SpaceX’s vehicles, hardware, and intellectual property.)
“… there are some things that I believe should not be privatized. Our military and our Space program.”
No one is proposing that the “Space [sic] program” be “privatized”, only that routine human-related ETO transport be handled under competed, cost-efficient, business-like service arrangements, just like every other ETO transportation capability and practically every other form of transportation.
“I don’t believe it because I am concerned for the defense of our nation.”
NASA is a _civil_ space agency. It has nothing to do with national defense. Air Force, NRO, DARPA, and other military agencies provide national security space functions.
“SpaceX is welcome to compete for contracts like other suppliers”
That’s what they’re doing. SpaceX is only one of about eight companies that have won COTS, CRS, or CCDev agreement/contracts. Among the others are Blue Origin, Boeing, Kistler-Rocketplane, OSC, and Sierra Nevada.
“Just don’t ask me to subsidize it.”
You’re not subsidizing SpaceX. You’re paying them to develop a capability and provide a service for NASA.
FWIW…
ChefCindy wrote @ December 15th, 2010 at 1:30 am
“SpaceX is welcome to compete for contracts like other suppliers, or to build their own commercial space program. Just don’t ask me to subsidize it.”
I don’t recall being asked when our government “subsidized” McD-D/Boeing and Lockheed to build EELVs which, BTW, those companies are now selling commercially to the comsat industry, and making a profit.
But again, you misuse the word “subsidize”. NASA is buying a service. SpaceX has contractually promised (Cargo Resupply Contract) to provide transportation to the agency. I can’t believe that was a sole source procurement. That contract was competed for. A subsidy is something that is used by a government to prevent the failure of an industry that has great national value, or to boost employment in that industry. SpaceX is certainly not a part of that industry (commercial space) that is headed toward failure.
Curious that you are concerned about privatization of our civil space program in the interest of national defense. Our federal agency that has responsibility for our national defense doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it. Flames coming out of nozzles doesn’t make for national defense, nor does throwing things in LEO. You’re thinking Sputnik, no?
““Both of Elon Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX, survive on government subsidies to the tune of $465M for Tesla and $278M for SpaceX”
Tesla has a private loan guaranteed by the Department of Energy. Tesla has to pay that money back. That’s not a subsidy.
SpaceX has an agreement with NASA to develop and demonstrate certain launch vehicle and human capsule capabilities. SpaceX has to deliver or they don’t get paid. That’s not a subsidy.
How is it that there is a “Commercial” market when the primary buyer (if not the dominant buyer) of launch services are presently Governments. Further, if the Government provides funding to enable the development of launch vehicles (as opposed to only buying launch services) should they not have “Commercial” ownership (at least in part) of these same “commercial” companies (which accepted Government funding)? If the Government has ownership (even in part), are these companies really commercial? If not, is Government funding then nothing more than a subsidy wherein if removed some (or many) of these “commercial” launch companies would collaspe (due to lack of market demand)?
If there is indeed a “Commercial” market at present, why can’t these “commercial” launch service companies raise financing in the public or private equity markets? Why do they need Government assistance?
Are these “commercial” companies adequately funded? Is there a commercial market that can provide adquate cash flow to sustain a commercial business?
“on Musk. He needs to be cut down to size and shown that he’s not God just because he’s demonstrated Dragon on a single orbital test flight.”
When has Musk (or anyone else) ever said that he’s “God”?
The only person deifying Musk is you.
“And keep in mind that the NASA authorization bill signed into law states that a government vehicle (Orion) for LEO missions be retained in case commercial providers fail to deliver.”
It’s not a bill. It’s the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. And the Act doesn’t state that Orion should be retained for LEO.
“Build Orion”
The budget for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle in the Act is 40% less than what Orion needs. It almost certainly won’t happen.
I share your views on Musk. He needs to be cut down to size and shown that he’s not God just because he’s demonstrated Dragon on a single orbital test flight.
What is wrong with you? Why would it be so awful to do a lot more in space for a lot less money?
All this bile and venom makes you people sound mentally ill.
@Space Man:
Why do you even care, unless you have a strong urge to preserve a government organisation? If so, why do you want to do that?
But the government must still exercise reasonable caution and do some contingency planning.
Absolutely. Having multiple suppliers is a large part of that. Performance bonds could also be used if necessary. Not that they ever used those for the Shuttle supply chain.
Presley Cannady
Point 1 – So far, the data would suggest this fear is unfounded, primarily because the Falcon 9 rocket already has significant purchases, included multiple Non-NASA customers.
Point 2 – With NASA commoditizing astronaut launch, the primary consumer can now be gone after multiple companies, and in turn, the multiple companies can seek to develop the market in new ways. Case in point – we have the emerging market segments of government astronaut, private astronaut, and segmentation of the private astronaut market, in the form of space tourism.
Point 3 – Additionally, the commodititzation of the astronaut launch, you are making the market more horizontally compatible. That is means a larger market to compete for.
Point 4 – We are already seeing the development not just of the markets, but actual consumers of the space transportation business. Bigelow is one, but there are others.
BTW, I would argue that OSC stopped being a new company a while ago. Yes, its newer than Boeing or Lockmart, but its older than ULA. More to the point, its had established launch records & the like.
How do you figure OSC is not a newcomer?
Because the company is a quarter of a century old…?
“How do you figure OSC is not a newcomer?”
Your point is a strawman and has no merit (like most of your points) OSC is nearly 30 years old. It is almost ten years older than McDonnell Aircraft waswhen it won the Mercury capsule contract. McDonnell didn’t have 50 years of progress to draw up.
““Commercial†market ” is not determined by where the money comes from but how the service is procured. When NASA buys a Delta or Atlas, it is the same type of contract and service as Loral or Boeing would get. Just like buying office supplies or cars.
@Rand:
Did you just stop at the first sentence? He’s skeptical SpaceX and the like can deliver at the price advertised, if at all. That’s just one of the hobgoblins you have to overcome with us laymen, and you don’t get to just do it once and expect everyone to fall in line from then to thereafter. Not when we don’t have the knowledge to properly discriminate between one slate of experts and another.
@Rand:
SpaceDev’s pushing 15, and Virgin’s even older than OSC. None of these companies were around when McDonnell Douglas got into the game, and none of these companies have entered the payload space ULA and USA currently occupy. It was my understanding this was the bright line by which people delineated oldspace and new.
@byeman:
Yeah, I’m not too keen on the crap you spew. But explain to everyone how a question that directly addresses your own words constitutes a strawman.
As opposed to some other sort of market?
Which has what do with what?
@Ferris:
The data is inconclusive and will be for years to come. All you have now is the prospective manifest of a single provider; not even the books to determine whether or not the business SpaceX is doing even translates into long-term viability. What happens if and when bugs start slipping launch dates? Will SpaceX require an arrangement like ULA got for EELVs to keep their launch business afloat?
Astronaut launch is already commoditized. It’s simply not competitive. It remains to be seen how competitive the industry can actually get. Your remaining points detail hopes, not observation of an actual market in play.
Yes, but we only if we pretend that ULA isn’t Lockmart and Boeing, that they aren’t benefiting from a century of combined experience drawn from the missile and rocketry acquisitions Boeing and Lockmart have made over three decades, and that OSC has any vehicle with lineage in the launch sector of interest. Cargo, let alone crew, isn’t going up on Pegasus.
“If there is indeed a “Commercial†market at present, why can’t these “commercial†launch service companies raise financing in the public or private equity markets? Why do they need Government assistance?”
Why do the oil companies get:
҉ۢConstruction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
•Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
•Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
•Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
•Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
•Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
•Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
•The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
•Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
•Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
•Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid”
and you are not raising much of a stink. Oil companies get from 15-35 billion a year, even in the face or record setting profits.
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
Maybe if you looked at what the United States government has traditionally done for business for over a century this MIGHT make a little more sense.
Here is what we do know for sure. NASA human spaceflight either can not or will not open space up to the market to create the enviroment we know will lower costs unless we get them out of the launch business.
Giving NASA a big rocket is not going to advance the Nation’s asperations in human spaceflight, it will only, once again, retard it.
So asking the Commercial providers to prove they can do the job that they’re being asked to do is “mentally ill?” There’s nothing wrong with asking the potential provider to show that the company can do the work they’re being asked to do. It’s not blind hatred-more like healthy skepticism. Do I want them to succeed-all of the potential crew/cargo delivery services? Said it before and I’ll repeat: YES. Just prove it and show not only your operation is professionally run and reliable, but it’s safe. Nothing wrong with that.
IMHO, there wouldn’t be as much skepticism at best (and downright hostility) to commercial crew if a more established firm like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin was the first out of the gate, instead of a startup. Personally, and it’s just my opinion-a more established firm instead of a startup would’ve sold Congress on the idea sooner instead of the knock-down fight that resulted.
Ferris: As for commercial space being the only space, look at Vadislaw’s posts on earlier threads. Just my .$02, but he seems to strongly support only commercial enterprises in space for all transportation and exploration-with government only as a passenger, or buying the data from a commercially run probe or outpost. That is not politically feasable, given the current climate on the Hill. Will commercial enterprises be doing such things in the future? Almost certainly-but that’s a long, long way off.
Orion will fly: the politics will see to that. Lockheed-Martin has some powerful friends on The Hill. Any thought of NASA buying Dragon for BEO flights is fantasy for now. If SpaceX wants to offer a variant of Dragon for BEO to other customers, that’s a different issue altogether.
Matt Wiser,
Most commercial spaceflight supporters argued for months that the oldspace company proposals of Atlas V & Delta IV, and CST-100 need to be included. The problem is, opponents, particularly those in Congress, have refused to consider them as part of the discussion.
For example, there was the roundtable that Senator Brownback held, with representatives from SpaceX, SNC, OSC, and, most importantly, ULA. (can’t remember if others were there or not – Bigelow or Space Adventures might have been there)
The fact that we have had to fight to get Boeing & ULA acknowledged as part of commercial space says something about opponents (looking squarely at Mike Griffin)
Presley Cannady
You already have 1 viable launch system, that isn’t going away. Let take that, and see if we can’t encourage more development.
Not really, since NASA wouldn’t even consider flying on commercial rockets until very recently.
Not really, certainly not for point 3, since we are seeing different customers & payload types, at least for Soyuz. Why can’t Dragon or CST-100 or Dreamchaser or OSC’s spaceplane or Blue Origin’s biconic capsule also do that?
oldspace vs newspace paradigm isn’t based on age, or type of rocket. It’s based on business practice
Will SpaceX require an arrangement like ULA got for EELVs to keep their launch business afloat?
Perhaps, and if they do they will have to compete with ULA for the launch capability contract that DoD will still need and maybe another CRS that NASA may need. What is your alternative? A government rocket? That’s just a vastly more expensive way of “assuring” access to space. You can buy a lot of launch capability contracts for the yearly fixed costs of the Shuttle stack.
if a more established firm like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin was the first out of the gate
If Steidle had had his way, that’s what would have happened. The reason it didn’t is that NASA and the politicians decided against it. This cannot be used as an argument in favour of a government rocket.
Matt Wiser,
I’ll let Vladislaw speak for himself. However, I would submit, that if NASA is buying services, its still doing space exploration.
I am not convinced Orion will fly. We will spend more money on it, and I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of it flying, but its no guarantee at this point.
I am also not convince that, when we do BEO, the whole of the spacecraft will consist of Orion. Nor that it will be launched to space with humans on board. Those, I think, are the far more interesting questions.
He’s skeptical SpaceX and the like can deliver at the price advertised, if at all.
And that justifies his apparent hatred of a space entrepreneur and demands that he be “cut down to size”?
So asking the Commercial providers to prove they can do the job that they’re being asked to do is “mentally ill?â€
No, expressing irrational hatred and demanding that they be “cut down to size” is.
How do you think that “cutting down to size,” or using phrases like “Lord Musk” for someone who is making great progress in reducing the costs of access to space is going to advance spaceflight?
I wonder what SpaceX’s next move will be. Wouldn’t it be great if they demonstrated an unmanned 2 launch EOR circumlunar (or L1/L2) test flight before Orion’s first test flight?
It’s the Internet. Probably not his first round on this topic, and likely not his most unpleasant.
@Vladislaw:
…to avoid having the government take a bigger slice of the pie? Probably because states are hesitant to muck around with the industry that fuels their economies.
Matt Wiser wrote:
“Ferris: As for commercial space being the only space, look at Vadislaw’s posts on earlier threads. Just my .$02, but he seems to strongly support only commercial enterprises in space for all transportation and exploration-with government only as a passenger, or buying the data from a commercially run probe or outpost.”
Actually if you have read my posts here over the years it has always been about dual use because it spreads the costs out over many users.
If the goal of the Nation is exploration, for the sake of obtaining knowledge, where is it written exploration can only be possible if a single government monopoly is put in charge of it?
Is NASA responsible for terrestrial mining exploration? Natural gas and oil? If NASA is the end all be all, only organization in the history of the planet capable of space exploration why are we not utilizing this brain bank to conduct ALL exploration of any kind? If NASA is the most efficient organization to carry out such a mandate for space, well gosh, we should be utilizing that talent everywhere.
Does NASA build all it’s other transportation services? Cars, trains, planes, et cetera? If the answer is no they do not design, build, develop any other form of their transportation needs, it is a hard arguement to try and defend NASA having monopoly on a 50 year old transportation system at a cost five times more expensive then commercial enterprises.
Always I am first and formost “biggest bang for the buck” for the entire Nation. What gives the greatest return on investment for the greatest number of people.
NASA needs data for something, how can the nation return that needed data to NASA for the least cost. Have NASA assign an army of engineers to design every nut, bolt and screw, have the probe built on a cost plus basis, redesign it every few months by constantly adding and subtracting capabilities?
Or just put out a competitive commercial bid for a service?
Matt you have to ask yourself, what then is truely the goal? For NASA to obtain the data, or NASA doing everything it can inhouse, regardless of cost, just so THEY can say they obtained the data with the new widget X probe that took 8 years and 4 billion dollars to build?
We are not funding NASA’s goals, we are supposed to be funding the Nation’s goals with NASA charged with making the best use of those funds to secure the mandated national goals. NASA is also mandated to make use of commercial services “to the MAXIMUM extent possible”.
If the National goal is to have americans explore the moon, and return that knowledge to the Nation, then it really shouldn’t matter what American logo is on the EDS, lunar lander, lunar base, et cetera, NASA, SpaceX, or Bigelow Aerospace. The goal is obtaining that knowledge at least cost, not making sure NASA has a monopoly on obtaining that knowledge at the greatest cost.
@Ferris:
C’mon, really? Lockmart and Boeing are the products of a half-century’s worth of acquisitions and shifting markets. Can we even catalogue the business models and practices they go through from team to team, quarter to quarter?
Insofar as we need a formal paradigm, doesn’t it simply make more sense to talk about difference between companies deep in bed with the feds and companies trying to break in?
doesn’t it simply make more sense to talk about difference between companies deep in bed with the feds and companies trying to break in?
If so, OSC is the former, not the latter.
“Can we even catalogue the business models and practices they go through from team to team, quarter to quarter?”
Yes, because the companies are still not integrated and still maintain heritage practices.
Legacy Lockheed Sunnyvale is vastly different than legacy Martin Denver when it comes to spacecraft. Boeing Seattle was different than MDAC Huntington Beach.
“doesn’t it simply make more sense to talk about difference between companies deep in bed with the feds ”
No, because that is not the difference.
Byeman wrote @ December 15th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
“Legacy Lockheed Sunnyvale is vastly different than legacy Martin Denver when it comes to spacecraft. Boeing Seattle was different than MDAC Huntington Beach.”
Even within the legacy companies, there can be considerable differences. In the Seattle area, Boeing’s Kent Space Center has a considerably different culture than Everett, where they crank out 777s..
Big companies also often have specialty shops, like Skunk Works, that are intended to be more nimble than the overall company.
I have no doubt that the majors can be competitive with SpaceX but the incentives have to change – fixed price contracting, multiple sources and streamlined requirements processes.
A few posters seem to have this view that Orion will fly. So far about $4 or so billion have been spent with another billion or so to go at last count. I’d be very surprised if it does. Dragon is the more capable vehicle at this point and has flown a real mission. More to come. By the time Orion looks like being ready to fly, Dragon will have done multiple cargo flights and chances are that a crew version will be sitting on the pad.
To all his detractors, Musk and SpaceX continue to progress and prove them wrong. They do it by demonstrating real hardware and real progress, not talk, powerpoint slideshows and other fancy footwork.
They are changing the way spaceflight is viewed and they’ll continue to do so irrespective of what politicians or the established players may want or say.
Hall’s a lot of hot air. If he calls Elon before his panel, chances are he’ll end up with mud on his face, not the other way around.
Good luck to you Matt, you still don’t get it. Sigh.
Rand, Musk is not a god, which is what some of the NewSpace advocates think he is. A reminder that he is mortal like the rest of us would demonstrate that. So far, he’s done very well, and I give credit where credit’s rightly due. I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat: I want the commercial sector-whether it’s a startup company or an established firm like Boeing-to succeed. It speeds up NASA’s work to go BEO. But I’m also skeptical of promises made by the commercial sector, and I want them to deliver before embracing them 100%. And I also echo what Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) said at the last Senate Hearing (the one with Bolden and Holdren in Panel I and Armstrong, Cernan, and Augustine in Panel II): “I’m against the commercial sector being the only source for this mission (LEO).” (read: Orion/EELV as a hedge) There is a concern (rightly or wrongly) that by having LEO an exclusive commercial operation, it puts our launch eggs in one basket-a serious mistake with shuttle in the 1982-86 time frame. And there wasn’t much in congressional testimony to address those concerns. Though having multiple commercial operators does mitigate that concern, it doesn’t entirely eliminate it. Once congresscritters have made up their minds, it can be very hard to convince them to go the other way (on this or any other issue)
Vadislaw: that sounds very well, but given the current politics on The Hill, it would have a very tough time getting congressional approval. If you think the howls of anger about “privatizing NASA” after the fiasco that was the FY 11 budget rollout were loud-if a proposal similar to yours was put to Congress, those howls would much, much louder. (take earplugs when you testify in favor on The Hill) And Vadislaw, you don’t take one other thing into account: National Pride. To many on the Hill, it matters a lot as to what’s on the side of the spacecraft. A company logo instead of NASA is anathema to those folks.
I find it laughable that SpaceX shills are on this forum talking about “socialism” when they have their hand out to the Government. I would have no problem with them having a commercial space company. Do it. Just don’t use government funds to build it. You can’t have it both ways.
Doing legitimate business with the government is not “socialism,” nor is it a subsidy, Cindy. You’re falling into the same losing argument Airbus is making about Boeing’s defense contracts being an unfair subsidy for their commercial airplane division.
Besides, the Space Act requires that NASA use commercial services and foster the growth of the commercial space industry to the greatest extent practical. You’re creating a false dichotomy.
Rand, Musk is not a god, which is what some of the NewSpace advocates think he is.
I am aware of no one who holds such a belief. But please, keep making a fool of yourself spinning straw men in your obvious antipathy and fear of Mr. Musk.
There is a concern (rightly or wrongly) that by having LEO an exclusive commercial operation, it puts our launch eggs in one basket-a serious mistake with shuttle in the 1982-86 time frame.
This is senseless. It was Constellation that put them all in one basket, which Senator Hutchison and (apparently) you were all in favor of. The commercial “basket” is multiple baskets — SpaceX, ULA, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, etc.
I find it laughable the way you try and frame the debate. NASA needs access. They have three options:
Buy rides from Russia at 56 million a seat.
Fund a domestic, dual use,commercial service start up, that is currently not available, and buy the rides after it is in place for a projected 20 million per seat.
Design, develop and then pay commercial aerospace companies to build it at proposed costs of 75 – 125 million per seat. (ares1 projected costs were closer to 250 million a seat)
Which way do you proposed is the cheapest way forward for America to get it’s astronauts to their workplace in LEO?
“And Vadislaw, you don’t take one other thing into account: National Pride. “
So you are saying if America was the only country on the planet with commercial destinations and commercial rides to space, dominating an entire sector of the global economy we would not have any pride in that?
What we should be ashamed of our entrepreneurial spirit and innovation, the cornerstone of what makes America great? Proving once again it is American private enterprise and not government that makes our economy the strongest one ever in the history of planet earth?
Ya I guess you are correct, America could take no pride in that. Let’s dump billions more down the rat hole.. but at least they will have a NASA sticker on them before the big flush.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“This is senseless. It was Constellation that put them all in one basket, which Senator Hutchison and (apparently) you were all in favor of. The commercial “basket†is multiple baskets — SpaceX, ULA, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, etc.”
Here is a basic history of NASA having all it’s eggs in one basket.
The History of Shuttle Launch Delays
“A 2007 analysis of shuttle launch delays by the Associated Press found that the NASA spacecraft launched about 40 percent of the time. The AP analysis found that of the 118 shuttle flights that had flown at the time, 47 lifted off on time. More than half of the delays were caused by technical malfunctions, while foul weather made up about a third of the delays,”
it goes on with:
“The price of launch delay
Repeated stalls aren’t just frustrating, but expensive.
For every one-day scrub when a shuttle mission is called off after its external tank has been loaded with fuel, NASA spends about $1.3 million, said NASA spokeswoman Candrea Thomas. Paying for the wasted liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants costs about $500,000, and $700,000 goes toward paying personnel, she said.
Over time, repeated delays can have a ripple effect across NASA’s later shuttle missions, since the launch schedule must sometimes shift to accommodate a difficult flight.”
This is all your eggs in one basket “on steriods”. With commercial services if they do not launch they do not get paid. NASA gets paid for it’s failures commercial firms don’t. Unless of course you give them a cost plus contract with escalator clauses and failed flight clauses.
“I find it laughable that SpaceX shills are on this forum talking about “socialism†when they have their hand out to the Government.”
No one that posts here that I’m aware of is paid by SpaceX, from its government or commercial contracts. Most of us just don’t want our elected representatives to spend 40 _billion_ of our taxpayer dollars to develop a government-designed, -owned, and -operated system that SpaceX can provide to NASA for less than $300 _million_.
Don’t make stuff up.
And if you can’t make an argument without namecalling, then take your ugliness elsewhere.
“I would have no problem with them having a commercial space company. Do it. Just don’t use government funds… You can’t have it both ways.”
Boeing, LockMart, and OSC are all commercial space companies that sell rides on their launch vehicles to commercial payloads. They all also bid on and undertake federal contracts that are paid for by government (taxpayer) funds.
It’s always been both ways. What alternate universe are you posting from?
Oy vey…
NASA gets paid for it’s failures commercial firms don’t.
Rewarded for its failures even. Challenger got them ISS, Columbia got them Constellation and Constellation is getting them SLS + Orion.
@byeman:
A heritage is not a practice, which in itself is a nebulous thing to define and identify. But…
…you were just saying the line between oldspace and Newspace lies in OR. So exactly how are you drawing any such line given variation between companies you’d prefer to group together?
If it isn’t, then this debate over what oldspace and Newspace is a meaningless distraction.
Vadislaw, remember when Charlie Bolden was in front of a House committee that was very skeptical about the original FY 11 budget request? When he answered a congressman’s question that he didn’t care if the Chinese beat us back to the moon, that congressman replied, “It does to me.” These are the people who write the checks for NASA, and if you get on their wrong side, your proposals don’t get funded. National pride is still a strong sentiment on the Hill, so keep that in mind. If you think the howls of anger over the original FY 11 budget request were loud, try selling your proposal on The Hill. You’d need earplugs because the anger volume would be very, very, loud. There’s only one congressman who’s been on record in past years as supporting a program similar to yours, and that’s Ron Paul, the GOP’s gadfly.
Matt Wiser wrote:
“When he answered a congressman’s question that he didn’t care if the Chinese beat us back to the moon, that congressman replied, “It does to me.†These are the people who write the checks for NASA, and if you get on their wrong side, your proposals don’t get funded. “
Obviously it doesn’t matter what side you are on, becasue that congressman never got the funding NASA said they needed to return to the moon.
I actually did listen to that committee session you refer to. What the congressman said made a great sound bite for the folks back home in his space district, but making a catchy sound bite is a lot different and easier than getting funding for a return to the moon with the apollo on steriods model of architecture.
If you read through comments I posted on the china thread you will find links form the Reagan era. President Reagan wanted a lot more commercial for NASA and his highway in space was never able to break the back of the usual suspects in congress and NASA and the pork machine.
Commercial will never be the only game in space: government opens the door via exploration and technology development, and commercial handles the exploitation side of things. Then there’s the military-which will get involved at some point in the future. The issue is to find the right balance between the government (NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc.) and the commercial sector. Maybe in 25-50 years there’ll be the extensive commercial development that you envision, but in the short-to-medium term, the commercial sector has to start small with COTS/CCDev, and then it expands as the market for those services does. Said it before and I’ll repeat: I do want the commercial sector to succeed, but overreliance (or total reliance) on the commercial sector is not politically possible. In the meantime, buld Orion, build the HLV, and start going places (Lunar orbit, PLYMOUTH ROCK, L-points, etc.).