March Storm, the annual citizens space lobby effort by ProSpace, has released its plans for the 2011 event scheduled for March 13-15. This year’s effort will support one major initiative, “The Zero-Gravity, Zero-Tax Act of 2011″. Specific details of the proposed legislation are not included in the announcement beyond “creating a tax holiday on the profits of new commercial space business enterprises.” Similar legislation has been proposed in the past but failed to gain support in Congress. ProSpace will also express its support for NASA’s commercial crew and cargo program. The event will come about a month after the White House releases its FY2012 budget proposal, although it’s not clear yet if Congress will have passed final FY2011 appropriations legislation by that time.
I’ve never thought much of the zero gee zero tax notion and still dont today.
Space is really no different then any place else and to advocate a zero tax policy is as ridiculous in space policy as it is anywhere else. Taxes are only paid on profits and if a company makes a profit it should pay some of that toward the federal (and other) infrastructure which made it all possible…
The notion of tax policy is to redistribute wealth, thats undeniable…if it were not for the redistribution of wealth most of the poorer (and red) states would not for instance have paved roads and without those Home Depot, and even Walmart would have no place to do business.
Same with space. At some point if SpaceX or anyone else starts to make a profit providing services to the ISS (or in doing anything else) the infrastructure that made it all possible needs to be sustained.
Robert G. Oler
ZGZT is a far better way to enable commercial space than direct governmenty subsidies. Since Obama’s commercial space scheme is going to get its funding cut, it may be the only way.
Yeah. Congress will cut commercial space worth a few hundreds of millions in favor of say the SLS and Orion worth billions of wasted tax payer dollars for the several many years to come. That will happen for sure.
But hey if it happens then those clowns will be ousted and then they will wonder why…
Could it be that tea-party may be a great thing after all? I doubt it but considering the current alternatives, it’s worth asking.
“…if it were not for the redistribution of wealth…” most of the more populated (and red) states would not for instance have food to purchase. Aren’t we all benefited greatly? HHHUUUMMM???
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 8th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
“ZGZT is a far better way to enable commercial space than direct governmenty subsidies.”
while that is good right wing rhetoric it really isnt valid policy.
There really can be no “commercial space” as long as folks like you advocate spending tax dollars to support government infrastructure that does things BADLY that can be done by private enterprise…
The government under the President you constantly make excuses for spent far more money (almost 10 billion dollars) to develop a failed product then it will have spent to “buy” a service from private industry.
As long as the government is willing to spend tax dollars to build infrastructure only the most goofy of people would spend private capital to compete with it.
And no tax policy is going to change that
Obama’s commercial space is going to succeed and a few years from now you will be trying to give Bush the last the credit for it.
Robert G. Oler
Obama’s Commercial Space will NOT succeed!! Unless you mean that the U.S. will be confined to Low Earth Orbit for ANOTHER 20 YEARS. Obama sure succeeds in setting us up for that!! A flotilla of ‘space taxis’ gets you nowhere: these private corporation space capsules will be very inferior craft. Their ‘capabilities’ in space will be a stripped-down version of anything that ever made it to LEO; all these commercial vehicles will be able to do is reach the ISS or an ISS-2. Just this, and nothing more. If the ISS had been retired this decade—as it totally should have—there would’ve been no motive to ever go the commercial route. The space entrepreneurs knew darn well that they could NOT deliver anything that could accomplish a Lunar flight, so naturally, they pushed for Obama’s elimination of the manned Lunar goal, just so that they could have their ‘chance to shine'; even if it meant America doing nothing but LEO for the next two decades. So a few more billionares can get to go up 200 miles as ‘space tourists’ to the ISS, in the future; we basically flushed a real opportunity for real space exploration down the septic tank; i.e.: the elimination of Project Constellation by President Obama.
It does appear that NASA has a choice as to whether to still go with the Ares 1 design, since the company has made a bid for launch services. Joined with the EU, they have offered up that hot 5 segment booster once again at lower cost. We will see what happens. Orion is apparently going to be completed, and behind that it has a multitude of launchers waiting to carry it. This is good.
Oler wrote – “I’ve never thought much of the zero gee zero tax notion and still dont today.
Space is really no different then any place else and to advocate a zero tax policy is as ridiculous in space policy as it is anywhere else. Taxes are only paid on profits and if a company makes a profit it should pay some of that toward the federal (and other) infrastructure which made it all possible…
The notion of tax policy is to redistribute wealth, thats undeniable…”
I would take issue (at least partially) with both of these points of view. Tax policy is also a tool to encourage (or discourage) particular activities within the private sector. By reducing (or eliminating) taxes on a particular activity that is nascent, what profits are generated can be plowed back into that activity to accelerate its growth. I can see commercially provided manned space flight (if indeed a viable market exists) fitting this model quite well. At this point, this market is a monopsony. Where I have a problem with Obamaspace is that it has taken legislation of a commercial activity started under the prior administration too far. Government doesn’t need to legislate viable commercial activities. They flourish on their own, often despite Government intrusion. Government doesn’t legislate the need for faster, more capable computers, the free market takes care of that on its own. Government doesn’t legislate higher bandwidth communications satellites, the free market demands it. I can accept the original intent of commercial resupply of the ISS as a means to jump start a new sector of commercial enterprise in space. This enterprise needs to prove that it can be successful both technically and financially before taking the next step of transporting humans to the ISS (at least in terms of a Government provided market). If they are successful, and I hope they are, this frees up significant resources within NASA to do more interesting things. Obamaspace has instead opted to roll the dice on human spaceflight and is betting that seven pips come up. From my perspective, this is either reckless or naive.
“A flotilla of ‘space taxis’ gets you nowhere: these private corporation space capsules will be very inferior craft. Their ‘capabilities’ in space will be a stripped-down version of anything that ever made it to LEO; all these commercial vehicles will be able to do is reach the ISS or an ISS-2. Just this, and nothing more… The space entrepreneurs knew darn well that they could NOT deliver anything that could accomplish a Lunar flight”
Utterly false. Dragon, for example, employs PICA-X thermal protection which enables it to handle reentry from lunar or even Martian trajectories. Orion has no such TPS capability.
Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.
“Obama’s Commercial Space will NOT succeed!! Unless you mean that the U.S. will be confined to Low Earth Orbit for ANOTHER 20 YEARS. Obama sure succeeds in setting us up for that!!
Keep screaming. I’m sure someone will pay attention.
Ugh…
“It does appear that NASA has a choice as to whether to still go with the Ares 1 design, since the company has made a bid for launch services. Joined with the EU, they have offered up that hot 5 segment booster once again at lower cost.”
Liberty is not “lower cost” than Atlas V or Falcon 9. At $180M per, it’s about double the cost of a single stick Atlas V and triple (nearly quadruple) the cost of a Falcon 9.
“Orion is apparently going to be completed, and behind that it has a multitude of launchers waiting to carry it. This is good.”
Liberty can’t launch Orion. Liberty is underpowered (or Orion is overweight) by about 3 tons.
And there is no “multitude of launchers waiting to carry” Orion. The Delta IV Heavy is the only existing vehicle can launch Orion.
FWIW…
@ Dennis Berube wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Joined with the EU, they have offered up that hot 5 segment booster once again at lower cost.”
It’s really hard today. Joined by the EU??? Any idea what Astrium is all about? Come on some due diligence here. Every thing else is usual gibberish.
Well it looks to me that those hot 5 segment solid boosters will fly one way or another! Dont count them out yet! How is it that Liberty cant launch Orion, when Ares-1 could? Is it because of the Ariane upper stage? I havent heard that it could not carry Orion.
@ Major Tom wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 9:08 am
I am afraid I have to take exception here.
“Utterly false. Dragon, for example, employs PICA-X thermal protection which enables it to handle reentry from lunar or even Martian trajectories.”
PICA in and of itself can sustain high velocity reentry. What is not know is whether the gap filler material can. NASA had several problems with differential ablation. The gap filler would ablate at very different rates than PICA [1, slide 22]. Worse: It would do so at heat rates not equal to the maximum heat rates for a lunar reentry. It is very important since a protruding gap filler would trip the boundary layer and augment heating on the heatshield further down the flow but also at the tip of the protrusion. Remember Robinson removing the gap fillers on Shuttle’s belly before reentry?
“Orion has no such TPS capability.”
I disagree here again. It has AVCOAT [2]. Now the re-making of AVCOAT has been very difficult since no one still had the exact recipe. BUT if it is anywhere close to the Apollo AVCOAT then it will work for lunar reentry. It is flight proven. Now again there is no certainty it is the same AVCOAT. So in that sense it is not a proven TPS.
Hope this helps.
References:
1. http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/26408/78-98-1-PB.pdf?sequence=1
2. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/apr/HQ_09-080_Orion_Heat_Shield.html
@ Dennis Berube wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
“Well it looks to me that those hot 5 segment solid boosters will fly one way or another! Dont count them out yet!”
Why? Because they have yet another proposal out? Aren’t you tired that they take your money for developing the 5 seg booster and then sell it to you? It’s exactly what they are trying to do.
“How is it that Liberty cant launch Orion, when Ares-1 could? Is it because of the Ariane upper stage? I havent heard that it could not carry Orion.”
It does not matter. Orion will not be built. There is no budget to do it.
GuessWho wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 9:07 am
“Tax policy is also a tool to encourage (or discourage) particular activities within the private sector.”
that is an accurate statement, although it is in my viewpoint the least useful thing of tax policy…and the thing I am most uncomfortable with using tax policy to accomplish.
The federal government should NOT be in a position to encourage or discourage social behavior within “the private sector” (as in business) or in the citizenry (as in individuals). It should, on behalf of the citizenry regulate private business and since government exist at the pleasure of the people…it should more or less leave them alone in terms of encouraging or discouraging behavior.
Hence although I give heavily to my place of worship I am not all that comfortable with this not being taxed (for me or others) and I love my wife and family but find the notion of tax “gifts” for marriage absurd unless they apply to all “partnerships”.
It is accurate in my view that government should encourage private activity in human spaceflight but it should do it by policy driven to help the people of The Republic not as a notion of taxes rewarding certain behavior,.
The reason the privatization of lift to ISS should occur is BECAUSE NASA HAS FAILED AS A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION TO DO IT EFFICIENTLY.
If there ever was a reason that government should preserve its own ability as a civilian group to fly people in space (through NASA) those reasons collapsed about 10 billion dollars and many years later when NASA proved that it was incapable of doing it for a reasonable price.
Robert G. Oler
Dennis Berube wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Orion is apparently going to be completed, and behind that it has a multitude of launchers waiting to carry it. This is good.”
Just like the Soviet Union, Orion is gone. In it’s place is the Congressionally mandated MPCV, but no one knows for sure what it is, what it will do, or how heavy it is. And if you don’t know how heavy something is, then you can’t know what “multitude of launchers waiting to carry it” are, and certainly you can’t know if the proposed Liberty would be able to carry it.
Besides being just another proposal out of many, what makes you think Liberty is such a better deal than existing launchers like Delta IV Heavy, or even the Ariane 5 (where Liberty gets it’s upper stage), both of which already exist and can carry bigger payloads than Liberty?
What makes Liberty worth spending $3B to develop?
Oler – “that is an accurate statement, although it is in my viewpoint the least useful thing of tax policy…and the thing I am most uncomfortable with using tax policy to accomplish.”
I would agree with that statement as well.
“The federal government should NOT be in a position to encourage or discourage social behavior within “the private sector†(as in business) or in the citizenry (as in individuals).”
I would agree with that statement as well.
“The reason the privatization of lift to ISS should occur is BECAUSE NASA HAS FAILED AS A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION TO DO IT EFFICIENTLY.”
I would agree with that statement as well to the point of delivering cargo. I am not ready to cede that responsibility to commercial providers until the former is demonstrated. That NASA is in general a dismal failure (relative to HSF) is not in dispute from my perspective. There are other alternatives (international providers) that, while unpalatable, can address the near-term needs far cheaper than NASA until a US commercial capability comes on line. How that capability comes on line is where we differ. I would advocate that NASA procure services only, with payment upon delivery of those services. Development of the hardware necessary to perform those services should be financed with private funds. The argument that SpaceX gets paid for meeting milestones (SRR, PDR, CDR, etc) is a hollow one, government contractors working under cost-plus contracts also work to milestone reimbursements. The only difference is how profit is billed. To the astonishment of many here, contractors on cost-plus contracts don’t present their contract overruns (when they occur)to their USG contract administrators out of the blue. The USG partner works in lock-step with their contractor partner and program cost, schedule, and scope execution is tracked on a monthly basis at a minimum, if not more often. This is an EVM requirement imposed by the USG. Fixed-price contracts don’t alleviate this requirement as the USG also has to demonstrate that it is not being overcharged and the contractor is not making “obscene” profits by overpadding the firm-fixed quote provided. To bring this back to the topic at hand, SpaceX isn’t much different from any other Govt. contractor and to hold them up as the poster-boy for “commercial” space is erroneous. Let them (or any other company) raise private funds to develop the capability to delivery of cargo/crew to LEO. If they can then sell that capability to NASA, by all means do so. What they want however is to socialize the risk while reaping a private reward which you advocate against. Standard USG contracts socialize the risk but do this by also retaining the right to define the reward to the contractor. The fact that NASA doesn’t perform this function well (by not providing clear, stable requirements or clear stable funding) is not the fault of the Contractor.
@ GuessWho wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“The fact that NASA doesn’t perform this function well (by not providing clear, stable requirements or clear stable funding) is not the fault of the Contractor.”
I don’t remember any one pointing the finger to the cost-plus contractor in that particular regard.
GuessWho wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“I would advocate that NASA procure services only, with payment upon delivery of those services.”
OK, which is what the commercial folks (including SpaceX) have been advocating…
“Development of the hardware necessary to perform those services should be financed with private funds.”
OK, here is where you don’t understand how things work.
If NASA needed a box moved from KSC to MSC, then yes, you could use that method, since the requirements for operating and transporting goods are well defined.
But the ISS is not a well defined destination, and NASA has specific requirements that a delivery service must comply with before they will allow them to dock with the ISS, much less carry valuable cargo. Because of this, no company in their right mind would spend their own money to create such a service, because NASA has final say over whether they are doing it right. No one would take on that much risk.
COTS-like situations are not unusual in the business world, as many businesses have proprietary systems or equipment that outside contractors need to work on. In those cases, the company has to pay extra for the unique service they want done, and this is what NASA is doing.
The COTS program is all about validating that the two contractors will be able to meet NASA-specific requirements. If SpaceX or Orbital were just being paid to deliver cargo to the ISS any way they want, then that would be different, but that’s not what NASA wants, so that’s what the COTS program is for, and that is why NASA has to pay companies to meet it’s unique and specific requirements.
“If they can then sell that capability to NASA…”
You have it backwards. NASA needs someone to perform the service – SpaceX doesn’t need the risk, so they are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create something that NASA may or may not want. No one would, not even large companies like Boeing or LM.
And regarding all your contracting advice, IMHO you’re kind of hit and miss regarding what you’re talking about – the acronyms are fine, but your conclusions that are off.
This is ground control to Major Tom;….Orion WAS DESIGNED FOR LUNAR DISTANCE REENTRIES. The ablative coating on its outer skin was fully intended to match or exceed that of the old Apollo spacecraft, [whose last Lunar flight took place next to forty years ago]. The space entrepreneurs don’t even have to bother with all that: their “mission” rests soley on reaching an ISS, in mere LEO. Without an ISS, commercial space hasn’t got a mission! Funny how the same people who say “So what!” ;about the Chinese possibly reaching the Moon with taikonauts, are the very same people who are lauding & praising & harping in jubilation about the recent launch & landing of an unmanned commercial space craft. I forget the name of the private corporation which did this ‘feat'; but I’ll tell you all that these baby steps are a LONG, long way off from getting U.S. spacemen into the picture! For Barack Obama to gamble America’s space future on the vision of rocket hobbyists making good,….well, that has to just about be the Mount Rushmore of all farces!
Well guys, go over to Spacetoday, and there is an article, that Liberty can lift ANY capsule, which of course includes Orion. I think Orion will fly, I think Liberty will fly. Now Im not saying Liberty will be the choice for Orion, but if NASA wants to retain some of its investment in the Liberty design. That is what they will go with. Cant you see the hand writing on the wall. I do also think commercial will fly too. I dont see where Orion isnt getting funded, as they are still working on her. I am equally for commercial as anyone, but I am alsofor deep space exploration, that I think will continue. We may have to wait until Obama is no longer pres, but it will continues. Power up those `5 segment boosters, cause here we go…….
Dennis Berube wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 6:18 am
“Well guys, go over to Spacetoday, and there is an article, that Liberty can lift ANY capsule, which of course includes Orion.”
Maybe, but why would anyone use it?
Dennis, you have to quit drinking the advertising koolaid and ask critical questions about what anybody says, commercial, contractor and government.
For instance:
WHY would NASA spend $3B+ to create Liberty when they have a more capable lifter already flying (Delta IV Heavy)?
WHY would Boeing launch their CST-100 on Liberty, when Atlas V is far less expensive (and they get profit back from ULA)?
WHY would SpaceX use Liberty instead of their own launcher (Falcon 9), which is also 1/3 the supposed per/launch cost of Liberty? And if SpaceX wants to launch MPCV, then they can do it using their $95M/flight Falcon 9 Heavy, which can lift 25,000 lb MORE than Liberty.
Perhaps most important, if MPCV can fly on Liberty, is Liberty going to be used for anything else? Delta IV Heavy is already used for the DoD/NRO payloads, and the Liberty SRM shakes so much that sensitive payloads may have to be redesigned. So if it’s only used for MPCV, it’s not going to launch very often, because MPCV doesn’t have a mission.
And what you’re not hearing from ATK is that their $180M/flight is based on a certain number of flights per year, which if it’s more than twice, then they are using the most optimistic cost estimates, not the likely ones.
So drink water, not koolaid, and ask yourself some basic questions before you get too excited.
@ Chris Castro wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 1:49 am
“Orion WAS DESIGNED FOR LUNAR DISTANCE REENTRIES.”
Orion is not designed to anything you say. You should learn a little about the different blocks/stages. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) Also the “distance” only is part of the design requirements. Stop making statement as if you knew what you are talking about. Major Tom, even though incorrect, is only talking about the TPS which is another part of the requirements for Moon missions.
“The ablative coating on its outer skin was fully intended to match or exceed that of the old Apollo spacecraft, [whose last Lunar flight took place next to forty years ago].”
As is PICA used by SpaceX. Again learn more about these things I posted a link above. It’s not “easy” but it’s not that complicated either, to understand I mean.
“The space entrepreneurs don’t even have to bother with all that: their “mission†rests soley on reaching an ISS, in mere LEO.”
Another ignorant comment.
“Without an ISS, commercial space hasn’t got a mission!”
Another ignorant comment.
“Funny how the same people who say “So what!†;about the Chinese possibly reaching the Moon with taikonauts, are the very same people who are lauding & praising & harping in jubilation about the recent launch & landing of an unmanned commercial space craft. I forget the name of the private corporation which did this ‘feat’; but I’ll tell you all that these baby steps are a LONG, long way off from getting U.S. spacemen into the picture!”
Yet another ignorant comment.
“For Barack Obama to gamble America’s space future on the vision of rocket hobbyists making good,….well, that has to just about be the Mount Rushmore of all farces!”
I am sure you’ll go tell Boeing, ULA, ATK, and all the CCDev entrants they are hobbyists, right?
You know you would be better served if you actually tried to understand what is happening rather than howling to the Moon. It makes you look like a wolf.. err fool.
Coastal Ron, I am not saying Liberty is a better deal, all as I am saying is that with all the yelling about commercial taking over, ATK has a right to get a bid in too. So no one should be yelling. Im for commercial too, and if Delta is the way to go to launch Orion, at lower cost, of course NASA should do it. Plus you dont really know that ATK doesnt have customers waiting to use their rocket. A lot of people here still think Orion will never fly, well if no one else delivers a craft capable of deep space exploration, I think it will fly. If Dragon can accomplish deep space for less, great lets go, Havent seen it yet. We have got to get out of LEO.
Dennis Berube wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
“Plus you dont really know that ATK doesnt have customers waiting to use their rocket. ”
If they did, it’s such a public relations booster that they would be blasting the news out to every media outlet. You don’t keep something like that a secret.
Besides, the Liberty rocket is being proposed to NASA – they want NASA money to build it. If they really believed in the economics of the Liberty launcher, they would do what SpaceX did and fund substantially internally.
“A lot of people here still think Orion will never fly…”
It won’t, because it died with Constellation.
What Congress has directed NASA to build instead is the MPCV, utilizing assets from Orion. However no one really knows what the MPCV will do, or what it’s size and weight will be, so it’s a little premature to assume that it will fit on any launcher.
“…well if no one else delivers a craft capable of deep space exploration”
Capsules as small as Orion and MPCV are not designed for deep space exploration, only short-term trips like to the Moon. For any long endurance missions, the MPCV will only be used as a lifeboat, not as the primary living quarters. This is because the ISS has shown us that astronauts lose muscle mass quickly in zero-G without exercise, and there is no room (or privacy) to exercise in a capsule.
As far as endurance in space as a lifeboat, Orion was planned to be capable of staying in space for up to 210 days (not occupied) whereas the Dragon capsule has an endurance of two years, and CST-100 210 days (same as Orion). No one knows what the final specs are for the MPCV, so there is no comparison that can be made.
“ If Dragon can accomplish deep space for less, great lets go”
I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about BEO missions, but Congress has not funded any, and is not likely to in the next few years. NASA’s budget is not going to grow, and I think the SLS schedule is going to be slipped out, if not cancelled completely, so grandiose missions will have to wait.
And once we are ready to go BEO again, there will be new technologies and new vehicles that will eclipse the “Apollo on steroids” design of the Orion and MPCV. Capsules will be relegated to LEO travel or lifeboat status on real spaceships. Which if you think about it would be great, since that means we’ve transitioned to real spaceships, instead of dinky capsules…
Coastal Ron wrote – “OK, here is where you don’t understand how things work.
If NASA needed a box moved from KSC to MSC, then yes, you could use that method, since the requirements for operating and transporting goods are well defined.”
O thank you for enlightening me with your great wisdom. I guess my 20+ years of working in aerospace with both NASA and DoD customers to establish and execute new advanced programs is all for naught.
“But the ISS is not a well defined destination, and NASA has specific requirements that a delivery service must comply with before they will allow them to dock with the ISS.”
ISS is an extremely welled defined destination. All docking interfaces are detailed in excruciating detail with well defined interfaces, approach corridor requirements, abort scenario requirements, etc. etc. Being able to design a flight system to meet these requirements is not difficult, expensive yes, difficult no. NASA has plowed this ground extensively. There are also other docking locations with different requirements that are equally well defined. Russia, the EU, and Japan have all demonstrated the ability to successfully dock with the ISS.
“COTS-like situations are not unusual in the business world, as many businesses have proprietary systems or equipment that outside contractors need to work on. In those cases, the company has to pay extra for the unique service they want done, and this is what NASA is doing.”
Private businesses do not pay outside companies to develop specific or unique services and then pay them a second time to perform that service. That is what NASA is doing between COTS and CRS. In private industry, if new capabilities are required to meet a desired service, the cost and risk to perform that is borne by the potential subcontractor based on an assessment of whether future business needs justify that upfront expenditure. The prime in this case is buying the service, not the hardware which is retained by the subcontractor for future applications. If the prime funds the development of that new hardware, they own it unless the explicitly transfer ownership rights or use it as a means of negotiating reduced service costs for future needs. My original point stands, SpaceX and Orbital are effectively nothing more than NASA contractors. That they bring some level of matching funds is no different than a Boeing, NG, or LM.
“The COTS program is all about validating that the two contractors will be able to meet NASA-specific requirements.”
Wrong again. COTS is contracting with/subsidizing both organizations with funding and technical support to enable them to develop the basic technical capability to perform cargo delivery services. COTS is not solely performing a V&V function.
“You have it backwards. NASA needs someone to perform the service – SpaceX doesn’t need the risk, so they are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create something that NASA may or may not want.”
Which is it? First you say NASA needs the service then in the next breath you claim it is something NASA may or may not want. Make up your mind and argue that position. I can’t respond to such a schizophrenic mindset. I can say however that the second part of your statement is the very reason that firm-fixed price contracts associated with development of new and/or unique capabilities rarely work out and is why typical contractors won’t touch them. NASA is too unreliable as a customer for companies to take a risk on and thus they will only perform the work under cost-plus contracts (or bid a fixed price knowing that a Class I change is inevitable and they can recoup any potential shortcomings at that point). Yet if memory serves, you have repeatedly and passionately argued that cost-plus is anathema and fixed-price is the only way to go. So which position are you taking this week?
GuessWho wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
“First you say NASA needs the service then in the next breath you claim it is something NASA may or may not want.”
NASA wants the service, but whose to say they would choose SpaceX after SpaceX has invested so much time and money in advance of a contract? After years of work, SpaceX (or OSC) could see the contract awarded to others if they used the “build it first, then we’ll decide” method.
This is not a hard business concept to understand. It would be like saying to a bunch of building contractors “build a building that is 100% unique to my needs with your own funds, and then we’ll decide if we want to buy it”. Building on risk works OK in a commodity market like housing or business space, but when there is only one customer, and they have say over whether it meets their needs AFTER IT’S COMPLETED, then no one but the most deep pocketed would risk their business on that.
Heck, Boeing won’t even risk their business on the CST-100 without NASA funding, and you think there would have been lots of companies lining up to build a cargo delivery system for the ISS without a guarantee of usage? Try selling that to the board.
The COTS program is doing two things – It’s transferring knowledge and it’s making sure that risk is mitigated.
Sure there are published standards for interfaces and approaches, but what we’re talking about here is a transfer of responsibility from a government agency to a private entity, which is new for ISS operations.
Is the COTS approach being cautious? Sure. But the ISS is a huge investment, and it survives via a tenuous support system. If something goes wrong, the likely course of action is to abandon it, and hope that it survives on it’s own long enough to return and fix it, or worst case, dump it in a controlled fashion.
“Yet if memory serves, you have repeatedly and passionately argued that cost-plus is anathema and fixed-price is the only way to go.”
Better get that memory checked.
I’ve worked in cost-plus environments, and fixed-price too, so I’m quite familiar with the good and bad of both.
What I have advocated for is those things that lower the cost to access space. The best way to do that is to introduce competition, and the best environment for competition is when there are standards that can be depended upon.
Cost-plus does have it’s uses, but here we are in the 6th decade of space flight, and we still have people arguing about keeping human spaceflight a government monopoly. That perpetuates non-standard activities, which is ripe for cost-plus type work. It’s a vicious cycle.
And let’s be quite honest here. If you’ve worked in the business, then you know the power of contractors to create the need for change orders, and to do what’s necessary to be the only company that can perform the required work for your customer. Nothing is better for the bottom line than being the sole source for something.
So what we need to break this cycle is standards and open competition, which will reduce the need for custom work that require cost-plus contracts. This won’t happen overnight, especially if the established players do not see a revenue upside to the change.
Stick that in your memory.