Lobbying, Other

Conservatives for commercial space

A group of conservatives calling on the government to turn over more of its activities to the private sector would seem hardly surprising or newsworthy. However, in the often distorted world of space policy of the last year, such a declaration is perceived at the very least as necessary.

“It’s been a funny year in space policy,” said Rand Simberg, representing the Competitive Enterprise Institute, at a hastily-organized Capitol Hill event announcing the formation of the Competitive Space Task Force (I received the media advisory about it a full 22 minutes before it was scheduled to start.) The task force is a coalition of conservative groups and individuals seeking “a free and competitive market for spaceflight and space services enabling the country to recapture the imagination and innovation of America’s space program and foster a new entrepreneurial spirit in the emerging Space Economy,” according to its press release. “We’re here to try and change the conversation,” Simberg, chairman of the task force, said.

The task force wants to drum up support among conservatives for the administration’s proposals to develop commercial crew transportation systems and terminate the Constellation program, despite the fact that they come from a White House whose policies are generally anathema to most conservatives. In particular, they argue that commercialization efforts can help NASA get more done with limited funding and allow it to focus on cutting edge work beyond the scope of the private sector. “That’s what this effort is all about, is to add to our ability to do space, not subtract from our ability to do space,” said Bob Walker, former chairman of the House Science Committee. He added that over the last two decades NASA has become “unaffordable” because it can’t handle alone everything the country wants to do in space.

The task force doesn’t have any specific initiatives or legislation in mind to push for its objectives (which include, according to the release, opening up the ISS to “the fullest possible economic utilization by the U.S. private sector” and greater used of fixed-price contracts by NASA). Andrew Langer of the Institute for Liberty said that’s due in part to uncertainties about the federal budget, with the administration due to release its FY12 proposal next week. “We’re really anxious to see what the president’s budget priorities are going to be when it comes to NASA,” he said. “We’re going to be working with folks up here on the Hill to make sure that policies are going to be enacted to support commercial programs.”

While this group may suppot the administration’s commercial space policies, just don’t expect them to start sporting “Obama 2012″ buttons any time soon. “I just don’t think that the president cares that much one way or the other about commercial space,” Simberg said in response to a question. “But I’m glad for that. I think if he did we’d have worse problems.”

35 comments to Conservatives for commercial space

  • DCSCA

    “A group of conservatives calling on the government to turn over more of its activities to the private sector … In particular, they argue that commercialization efforts can help NASA get more done with limited funding and allow it to focus on cutting edge work beyond the scope of the private sector.”

    No. The DoD can help NASA get more done through the Age of Austerity. But the private capital markets await these conservatives to pitch and raise capital to fund their proposals. Of course, savvy investors are wary. Space exploitation is not space exploration. Such are the realities of the Age of Austerity. It’s easy to see why creative thinking, such as folding NASA safely under the protection of the DoD as a national security asset through the Age of Austerity, worries these kind of reactionary conservatives who are essentially lobbying for a small group of profiteers be granted access to national assets at pennies on the dollar all Americans have all paid for– chiefly because they cannot assemble enough capital in the private markets to ‘fund’ their the private sector space efforts– chiefly because investos know there’s just not enough ROI in this era.

    Wanting access to the ISS is particularly amusing as it’s been a massive works program for aerospace firms for decades and is on the downhill ride of it’s timeline to splash by the end of this decade and represents past planning. What’s more, the people of the U.S. have yet to be shown what the return has been for the massive investment in this turkey.

    “[Bob Walker] added that over the last two decades NASA has become “unaffordable” because it can’t handle alone everything the country wants to do in space.”

    Walker has been lout of office– and out of touch— with what the country ‘wants to do’ in space. The scent of Reagan is all over him and that ancient mind set is out of sync with today and saddled the country with the albatross of the ISS, little more than a works program for aerospace contractors, two decades ago– when he and his party ran America into a ditch with a credit card. Americans have been fairly clear about what they want as priorities now– necessities, not luxuries. And space is decidely far down the list– a LUXURY, not a NECESSITY in the Age of Austerity. And why? Because the ‘trickle down’ failures of Reaganomics fostered by Walker and his kind has come home to roost, destroying the middle-class. Walker, Simberg and the reactionary right must be aware of jobs vaporizing, tax bases shrinking, states facing default, homes being foreclosed upon, food prices soaring, $4/gallon gasoline and unaffordable healthcare now a rule, not an exception.

    “I just don’t think that the president cares that much one way or the other about commercial space,” Simberg said in response to a question. “But I’m glad for that…” <– We’re glad you’re glad. So are we. Because ‘commercial space’ is a concern for the private sector to source funding and get flying; not with the government. President Obama most likely knows this– and knows history. With respect to HSF, they’ve flown nobody– and won’t for some years to come. In this era, commerical space is a step backwards and has a limited future at best in the near and mid term years, confined to LEO operation. HSF trips back to the moon and on to Mars will be government-funded projects in this era. Whether they’re American or not is another matter- but goverments will do it– not private enterprise. Amusing, too, that ‘Simberg,’ has denied on this very forum being a ‘conservative.’

  • CAGW participated in the task force event and said their goal is: “getting the government out of space exploration.” This seems counter to the interests expressed by most commercial space advocates. Rather, they would prefer that the government focus exclusively on exploration and research, allowing the private sector to exploit commercial opportunities in places already explored.

  • amightywind

    “It’s been a funny year in space policy,” said Rand Simberg, representing the Competitive Enterprise Institute

    He will be as influential in this new role as he is on this forum, which is not very.

  • So that’s where Rand has been …

    In tangential news, newly elected Republican governor Rick Scott wants to cut the Space Florida budget by two-thirds.

    Space Florida is the state agency responsible for space economic development. Under state law, the governor — now Scott — is chair of the board of directors.

    During his campaign, Scott declared he would be “Florida’s chief economic development officer” and would assure that economic development agencies would get the funding they need.

    Judging by the comments posted to the above article, it looks like the local Republicans here in the Space Coast feel betrayed. Well, duh. The guy barely escaped prosecution after his company defrauded Medicare. What did they expect?

  • CharlesHouston

    Rand is a very bright guy, and has a good supply of common sense as well. That is very rare in any effort.

    Hopefully, people will realize what government efforts can do – absorb the risk that commercial efforts cannot, and then when methods are proven the government should step out of the way.

    Just as with geosynch comm sats – the test versions were built and flown by the government but now they are out of the way. Human space flight is there now – certainly with the launchers – and we can buy launch vehicles to get our people into space. The capsule part is still teetering on the edge of being proven – several test flights are necessary to demonstrate that.
    The government developed orbital cameras, aircraft radio, etc but they have long ago been passed by commercial development, those are additional examples of how the government absorbs risk in development.

    Now, DCSCA is on a roll and spouts many things that are easily seen to be nonsense. As a guy who has been straddling the DoD/NASA line for 300 years – of course we should not fold NASA into anything. The DoD would move any NASA money into their mission which is defense. They have absorbed risk and opened commercial markets but only as a biproduct of their main mission.

    Certainly the Obama Administration has priorities which do not include space – as they said from the campaign days, education is far higher on their priority list. This can be used to the advantage of the commercial launch providers – as the Administration allows NASA to fade away it gives commercial providers time to get designs into production.

    Let the debate continue!

  • byeman

    “It’s easy to see why creative thinking, such as folding NASA safely under the protection of the DoD ”

    Quite the opposite, it is idiotic thinking.

  • Coastal Ron

    Edward Ellegood wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 7:48 am

    This seems counter to the interests expressed by most commercial space advocates. Rather, they would prefer that the government focus exclusively on exploration and research, allowing the private sector to exploit commercial opportunities in places already explored.

    The CEI may be one of those “coalition of the willing” type groups, where they have at least one solid goal (commercial space) but they are not in harmony on other space policy like the role of NASA.

    I myself advocate for NASA being the leading edge of exploration, but that’s not to say that private/commercial shouldn’t (i.e. Astrobotic), but that NASA’s role in developing leading-edge technology means that they are the best suited for leading national-level programs. The commercial industry is great at following behind and expanding on what NASA has done (like commercial crew to LEO).

    However, as our presence in space expands, NASA’s role will be diminishing, since the increasing amount of commerce will overcome the likely flat budget of NASA. This will be good – kind of like the child supplanting the parent – so it’s something we should be looking forward to. However, that means we have to shake the mindset that space is a “program”, and not a place.

    I wish Rand and the CEI well, since their major goal aligns with mine.

  • Bill Hensley

    @DCSCA

    I think you’ve misunderstood what “commercial” means in this context. It’s about changing the way NASA engages its aerospace contractors. The idea is using Space Act agreements with a “fixed payment for milestone reached” model instead of traditional procurement. NASA would still largely (but not completely) fund the development of these vehicles. The idea is to do so in a less costly way. NASA benefits from the lower prices. Contractors benefit by having NASA fund the development of vehicles they can then offer to other customers. Should be a win-win. Do we need to come up with a different word instead of “commercial” so this will be less confusing? How about “fixed price”?

  • There is a valid argument to be made for commercial space. Whether or not it will actually work, though, is an open question.
    Remember, valid arguments were made ($100 per pould to LEO) for the Shuttle, and miracle cures/materials were supposed to result from ISS research.
    We need to hedge out bets. Count on OLD NASA to get us to the Moon, and give the upstarts (SpaceX, RocketPlane Kistler, Orbital, …) a chance to demonstrate which of them can deliver on all their promise.
    What is overlooked is that SpaceX, which has been fully funded, unlike Constellation, is several years behind schedule.

  • common sense

    @ Nelson Bridwell wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    “What is overlooked is that SpaceX, which has been fully funded, unlike Constellation, is several years behind schedule.”

    Boy, are you around just to spout nonsense? Reference and links to support this please.

  • @ Bill Hensley

    I believe we need a different word than “commercial” for what you describe.

    IMHO, I believe “commercial space” should describe scenarios where the tax revenues are NOT the ultimate source for funding the checks that are written to buy spaceflight.

    I also believe low cost access to space will not happen until the NASA monopsony ends and many, many people are buying spaceflight without looking to the taxpayers to cover the checks.

    That said, what you describe remains valuable but I would call it “NASA procurement reform”

  • Bennett

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    How can you have that many incorrect assertions in one comment?

    The shuttle never delivered on it promise of low cost to LEO exactly because it was OLD NASA.

    The ISS has just recently been completed and the research is ramping up. Give it time.

    Kistler is no more, please keep up.

    And the prize of all “What is overlooked is that SpaceX, which has been fully funded, unlike Constellation, is several years behind schedule.”

    Wow, does that statement have a hidden meaning somewhere? Because on the surface it doesn’t make any sense. Fully funded? By who? Behind schedule? You mean canceled, right?

    Carry on.

  • Bill Hensley

    @ Nelson Bridwell

    “What is overlooked is that SpaceX, which has been fully funded, unlike Constellation, is several years behind schedule.”

    How many is “several”? I think their COTS milestones might have slipped by a couple of years. What’s breathtaking is that you simply state they are “fully funded” without bothering to mention the scale of that funding, which is fully two orders of magnitude less than Constellation. I can forgive some schedule slips if we get a functioning rocket and capsule for under $1 billion.

  • common sense

    @ Bill White wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “IMHO, I believe “commercial space” should describe scenarios where the tax revenues are NOT the ultimate source for funding the checks that are written to buy spaceflight.”

    So? Where does it say that the current COTS/CRS/CCDev contracts are “the ultimate source for funding the checks that are written to buy spaceflight”?

    And btw, I agree with Bill Hensley except for this sentence: “NASA would still largely (but not completely) fund the development of these vehicles.” Unless he defines “largely”.

  • Bill Hensley

    @ Bill White

    “That said, what you describe remains valuable but I would call it ‘NASA procurement reform'”

    Yes, I agree that’s a more accurate phrase. However, there is a “commercial” aspect to the scenario. The companies that hope to land the new-style procurement contracts are at least partly motivated to take the extra financial risk by the possibility of selling their orbital transportation services to others. Space Adventures has clearly proven they can sell orbital flights to private citizens, and Bigelow appears to be getting some traction with his “sovereign client” approach to leasing his private space stations. So procurement reform alone isn’t quite the whole story.

  • @ Bill Hensley

    Yes, I agree with your post at 1:27 pm

    FWIW, I believe MirCorp was very much on the right track (albeit with execution issues) and while Bigelow’s sovereign client model still relies on tax dollars, it is definitely a step forward from NASA-only towards true commercial space.

    I also very much hope Space Adventures sells a great many private lunar orbit missions as that rather plainly would be “commercial space” IMHO.

    I also am willing to hope that NASA “procurement reform” will help the industry transition into “commercial space” and yes I agree that NASA being a better customer can accelerate this process.

    That said, I also fear that NASA could very well assimilate the most promising “commercial” providers and through red tape and bureaucracy cause commercial to ISS programs to become too expensive for non-NASA players to afford. That leaves us with a “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” final result.

    NASA buying “commercial” can be a valuable intermediate step but we must remember it is only an intermediate step.

  • Coastal Ron

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Remember, valid arguments were made ($100 per pould to LEO) for the Shuttle…

    Who said they were valid arguments? They were suppositions used to get funding, and as we all know, they turned out wrong. What was the lesson learned? That suppositions without hard data to back them up are worthless. And it’s happening again, this time with SLS, where Congressional proponents say “we need this launcher”, when in fact they have no clue if they need it. Garbage in, garbage out.

    …and miracle cures/materials were supposed to result from ISS research.

    I always find it interesting that grown up people cannot distinguish between hopes & desires and actual plans. The ISS has always been planned to be a place of research, but it’s impossible to forecast what that research yields. Could it be “miracle cures/materials? Someday maybe, but we don’t know when that is, or what it will be – if you haven’t learned it yet, you can’t predict miracles.

    What we have learned on the ISS is something we never would have learned from staying on the ground or taking short Constellation rides, and that is that we have not found a way to avoid the detrimental side-effects to zero G. Knowing that information helps us to decide how long future astronauts should stay in zero G, and what accommodations (like rotating space stations) we need to make for them on far away trips. And there’s lots more too, like proving out water purification systems or basic space technology like rotator joints and ammonia pumps – things we need for future BEO trips.

    Count on OLD NASA to get us to the Moon, and give the upstarts (SpaceX, RocketPlane Kistler, Orbital, …) a chance to demonstrate which of them can deliver on all their promise.

    Two things:

    1. Congress just cancelled the Constellation program because OLD NASA could not keep to the budget or schedule. If we give OLD NASA another bite at the apple, what makes you think they will do any better? What changes have they made to address their previous shortcomings?

    2. Like others have pointed out, you’re way out of touch with what constitutes “upstarts”. Rocketplane Kistler filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on June 15, 2010, and was kicked off the COTS/CRS program because they couldn’t meet funding milestones. Orbital Sciences Corporation, which replaced RpK, is not an upstart by any definition, since it was founded in 1982 and has revenue of over $1B/year. SpaceX is new, and still has to prove itself, but has accomplished more than NASA in the same period of time, and with far less money.

    So why should OLD NASA be given money when it can’t manage large projects, while the commercial space industry has shown it can, and for far less? Is your goal just to spend money?

  • DCSCA

    @CharlesHouston wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 9:48 am
    “Hopefully, people will realize what government efforts can do – absorb the risk that commercial efforts cannot, and then when methods are proven the government should step out of the way.”

    Thankfully, the American people HAVE realized this and oppose it today. Taxpayers have experienced this kind of risk-averse ideology quite recently on Wall St., and with the banks. Socializing the risk for the benefit of a few isn’t free market capitalism– the risk of failure is not something to dump off on taxpayers. Americans know this. The place for commerical space to seek capital investment for high risk ventures with questionable returns on investment is the private sector, not a government which has to borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

    The DoD would move any NASA money into their mission which is defense.”

    Uh, no, their role in the modern world is ‘national security’- which gives NASA a chance for survival through the Age of Austerity. The DoD will salute and do what its told. ‘Nation building,’ a DoD hobby of late, is not ‘defense’ in the strictest sense– but they do it to the delight of suppliers and contractors. And, of course, the Defense Department used to be called the War Department until the name changed after WW2– a change of mission which only help procurment capability.

    There’s really no debate to have on this. NASA, a Cold War relic, (a war which essentially ended 20 years ago this Christmas) in its current form is increasingly out of sync with the economic realities of out times and ripe for deep cuts or dissolution as the Age of Austerity grows and the goverment continues to borrow 41 cents or more of every dollar it spends.. To survive it must be modified and become a civilian division of the DoD where mid and long term planning for space projects can have an opportunity to sustained funding under the guise of ‘national security.’

    ‘Commerical space’ will never lead the way out into the cosmos in this period of human history. The costs are too high and ROI too low. That’s why governments do it. “Rand is a very bright guy, and has a good supply of common sense as well. That is very rare in any effort.” Perhaps, but he has shown repeatedly that history is not a strong point and he has been outted a ‘shill’ for commerical space long ago, which may benefit his personal agenda but not the national agenda with respect to the future of our space program.

    @Bennett wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    “The ISS has just recently been completed and the research is ramping up. Give it time.” So they were unable to conduct any research aboard until it was finished? Good grief. For goodness sake, as little as a year ago they were projecting splashing it by late in the decade. The ISS is the only turkey Americans have ever seen fly. It has been a waste of precious resources and little more than a 20 year works program for the aerospace industry.

  • Apparently they showed a part of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_d6YVA1Kg

    Which is just a great summary of where NASA and the space industry should be going, even if you dislike their politics.

  • Uh, no, their role in the modern world is ‘national security’- which gives NASA a chance for survival through the Age of Austerity. The DoD will salute and do what its told.

    No one is going to tell DoD to “take NASA under it’s wing.”

    No one is discussing such an idiotic notion in Washington, and no one is discussing it even here, at least with any seriousness, except one apparent idiot.

    Jeff, to clarify, none of the groups in the task force (so far), and including me, are really “conservative,” except in the fiscal sense. CEI is positively allergic to the term, and we actually had to scrub the declaration of that word to get most to sign on. But we are trying to influence conservatives, because they claim to share the same values on these sorts of issues, and the House Republican leadership claims to be conservative. We’re trying to get them to stand up for their proclaimed principles when it comes to space policy.

    Also, we aren’t supporting “commercial” so much as reform in procurement methods, as some commenters note. For instance, we’re happy to see Boeing get CCDev contracts, though it’s not traditionally a “commercial” company on the space side. It’s not about who gets the money so much as whether or not the taxpayer and space enthusiasts gets actual value for it, and the budget and procurement decisions are driven by that, instead of the zip codes of the jobs derived therefrom.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    “No one is going to tell DoD to “take NASA under it’s wing.””

    If civilian authority directs it to be, the DoD will salute and do as it’s told. It’s easy to see why shills and conservative advocates for commercial space enterprises would fear such a move- hence the harsh language which betrays your fears. And, of course, if lobbyists such as you were aware of the history of out space and missile program, you’d know it was couched with the military services and taken away from their operational oversight, against their wishes at the time, for political purposes when NASA was created.

    As to your ‘clarification’ regarding the ‘conservatism’ of parties involved in the nest of lobbyists, your comments are clerly misleading. You need look no further than ex-GOP Congressman Walker himself– which speaks volumes about his poor judgement as well as his thinking:

    “When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich decided in late September (2008) he would not run for president this year, Bob Walker went looking for another Republican he could support. He found Fred Thompson.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1950105/posts

  • DCSCA

    @Bill Hensley wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Well, there’s little point in pressing on to the next phase of space projects until the Space Act is amended and purged of the poisions injected into it durn the Reagan years. It’s absurd to push government R&D projects on that scale to be ‘profit centers.’ As to the contracting process- lowest bidder gets the gig. Worked well through the Apollo years. The problem today is these contracts have become works programs with multi-decade lifetimes that layers in costs which the space agency can’t control. So yes, some kind of contracting reform is needed but in it current form it’s remains a difficult serpent to slay.

  • CharlesHouston

    DCSCA said: To survive it must be modified and become a civilian division of the DoD where mid and long term planning for space projects can have an opportunity to sustained funding under the guise of ‘national security.’

    Under the guise of?? It is not often that people publically recommend a government policy of lying to the taxpayer. The government has not done a good job of keeping secrets lately.

  • Sorry if I gave anyone the false impression that I was uninformed about the demise of RK, which has not been been greatly exagerated. It was merely bait to allow NewSpace supporters to point out a case in point where their hopes and dreams did not entirely materialize.

    Never mind the inherent hazards of the space marketplace (astronomical cost of entry, near-total lack of customers, fatal consequences for the most minor mishaps…), most ordinary new businesses fail within the first year from far less demanding hardships.

    We know that NASA can successfully design, build, and fly spacecraft that can take us relatively safely beyond LEO. The case was proven 40 years ago. All that is holding it back, as was recently pointed out by Wayne Hale, is continuity of of support in order to work around inevitable problems that will arise in any major engineering enterprise.

    We know that NASA is VERY expensive, and that there has to be less expensive ways to make space happen, which hopefully might allow NASA to accomplish significantly more with it’s very finite budget.

    The inconvenient truth is that we simply don’t know if “commercial” space will make things happen or will become yet another over-ambitious X-33 project that almost worked. There isn’t anyone who knows for sure if this will be a “game-changer”, and dismal flop, or something that fits nicely into certain segments of the picture (COTS).

  • Rand:

    If I were wanting to make some of your ideas actually fly, my strategy would be to become a cost-effective supplier to NASA that can allow it to reach out futher and accomplish more of it’s primary mission, exploration of space. I would try to expand COTS to include future delivery of equipment and supplies to the lunar surface in support of the VSE, and also target cost-effective launch platforms and standardized landers for unmanned missions, so that it can afford to put more than one MSL on the surface.

    I would shy away from any appearance of diverting NASA’s exploration budget into a dedicated welfare program for tycoons, technologists, and environmentalists.

    Good luck!

  • Coastal Ron

    Rand Simberg wrote @ February 9th, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Also, we aren’t supporting “commercial” so much as reform in procurement methods, as some commenters note. For instance, we’re happy to see Boeing get CCDev contracts, though it’s not traditionally a “commercial” company on the space side.

    I’m glad you pointed that out. I for one think it would be wonderful to get Boeing into the spacecraft business, since they have a lot of experience building long-lasting products that are used frequently. Other companies too.

    The challenge has always been to reorient the business models NASA contractors have been used to. This is no small feat, since we’re talking about contractor facilities and personnel (with high salary expectations) that have been built up over a long period of time.

    The company stockholders are not going to be happy when these aerospace divisions start forecasting reduced revenues AND reduced profits, just to create a robust commercial space industry. This is also one of the reasons why politicians are not enthusiastically supporting this national need, because it affects their direct or indirect money streams.

    Again, good effort by you and the group.

  • We know that NASA can successfully design, build, and fly spacecraft that can take us relatively safely beyond LEO.

    And at a cost that no sane taxpayer will tolerate, which is why it ended forty years ago.

    If I were wanting to make some of your ideas actually fly

    Sure glad you’re not me. And even more that I’m not you.

    I would shy away from any appearance of diverting NASA’s exploration budget into a dedicated welfare program for tycoons, technologists, and environmentalists.

    Fortunately, it only appears that way to clueless fools. Instead it is a dedicated welfare program for well-heeled space companies with lobbyists in Washington, with contracts that pay them whether they perform or not.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Coastal Ron wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 1:13 am
    …The challenge has always been to reorient the business models NASA contractors have been used to….

    In reference to the above, I refer you to the following article where ULA is commenting on the rising price of the RL-10 engine used in the Atlas V. Seems Pratt and Witney have all this capacity which will be unused now the Shuttle is finished and the only place it can go is on the RL-10.

    http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110204-engine-costs-drive-atlas5-prices.html

    Gee, they’ve had how long to sort this out. Again, the true challenge has been trying to get the old business as usual contractors to change just as much as NASA. Seems more than a few people have had their heads in the sand. Seems they never sort to develop new markets, products, or simply downsize!!!

  • Bill Hensley

    Coastal Ron wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 1:13 am

    “The challenge has always been to reorient the business models NASA contractors have been used to. This is no small feat, since we’re talking about contractor facilities and personnel (with high salary expectations) that have been built up over a long period of time.”

    Yes, it will be very difficult for these companies to make that adjustment, and I’m not sure they will succeed. A friend who just retired from Lockheed-Martin recently expressed deep skepticism on this point. There is a deeply ingrained bureaucratic culture there which comes from so many years of federal contracting. These are organizations that don’t know how to be nimble and efficient. They may be brilliant technically but they are plodding behemoths organizationally. Everything is accompanied by enough committees and paperwork to choke a horse.

    That’s why disruptive change to an economy usually comes from the startups. They hire the brightest guys away from the old guard and then outmaneuver them. In this case, however, the lion’s share of the early investment is coming from a government agency (NASA). The big guys like Boeing who are trying to compete in the new arena may be successful anyway because their track record makes NASA more comfortable giving them a couple of billion dollars.

  • NASA Guy

    Stopped by the event yesterday on my way to work at NASA. Heard Walker in the hallway after the meeting complaining about lack of organization and knowledge by event organizers. He was really steamed at the person who ran the event.

  • Rand:

    Wise men and fools. Which is which? The one who knows himself to be wise, or the one who knows himself to be a fool?

    Cheers!

  • Heard Walker in the hallway after the meeting complaining about lack of organization and knowledge by event organizers. He was really steamed at the person who ran the event.

    Well, “the guy who ran the event” talked to Bob Walker at an event tonight, and he didn’t say anything about that, despite the fact that the same guy emailed him this morning asking him for critical feedback. Bob Walker isn’t the kind of guy who’s so polite that he won’t criticize someone who asks for criticism when getting things right is really really important, and he seems to want to continue to do this sort of thing without a change in personnel, so I’m guessing that the cowardly anonymous troll that calls itself “NASA Guy” is lying. Just a guess, though…

  • Wise men and fools. Which is which? The one who knows himself to be wise, or the one who knows himself to be a fool?

    If you think you’re a fool, I’d be the last to argue with you.

  • yg1968

    The link to the press release in the article doesn’t seem to work.

  • DCSCA

    Walker is a weak lobbyist who finds himself comfortable with the thinking of the likes of Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Yeah, there’s a pair of ‘space cadets’ for you. ‘Nuff said.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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