This Tuesday and Wednesday the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) will be holding its annual Congressional Visits Day, where members meet with various congressional offices to discuss aerospace-related issues. Those topics are listed in its Key Issues document, and include “Facilitating Assured, Cost-Effective Human Access to Space” alongside others ranging from air traffic management to cybersecurity.
“Means for the U.S. to independently control placement of its citizens into space is at stake, including for continued utilization of the ISS, for expanded human activities in Earth orbit, and for revival of human space exploration,” the document notes in its section on human spaceflight. Its recommendations to policymakers, though, are rather general. “Make development of a sustainable means for transport of humans to/from Earth orbit a high priority,” they recommend, without indicating a preference for either the SLS and MPCV or commercially-operated systems. Another recommendation: “Base the development plan on a schedule consistent with a realizable budgetary authority.” Who would be opposed to that? (Actually developing such a schedule, though, is another story.)
Elsewhere in the document, the AIAA endorses NASA’s space technology development efforts, recommending that Congress provide “adequate resources for NASA to pursue the highest priority technologies in the space technology development roadmaps,” referring to the technology development plans recently reviewed by the National Research Council. AIAA also supports export control reform efforts, calling on Congress to “overhaul and amend the export control regime” that could remove many space-related items from the jurisdiction of ITAR.
“Base the development plan on a schedule consistent with a realizable budgetary authority.â€
The half life of any development schedule is 1 year. Every year the budget will get cut, the schedule will slip; That’s just the way it works between NASA/OMB/Congress. Doesn’t have to be that way, alas it is for now.
The AIAA I’ve been a member of for 40 years is too compromised by its acceptance of corporate monies to be able to give clear, meaningful, unbiased opinions on anything anymore. AIAA has lost its way.
The AIAA I’ve been a member of for 40 years is too compromised by its acceptance of corporate monies to be able to give clear, meaningful, unbiased opinions on anything anymore. AIAA has lost its way.
When was that not the case? I dropped out over two decades ago for that reason.
From the AIAA site for access to space:
“RECOMMENDATIONS: The following actions by the U.S. government are strongly encouraged:
•Make development of a sustainable means for transport of humans to/from Earth orbit a high priority.
•Consider safety, cost effectiveness, and early capability readiness as primary metrics for down-selecting vehicle development options.
•Consider both primary and secondary implementations to minimize the risk that future access to Earth orbit by U.S. citizens could be inhibited for an extended period due to a primary system fault or accident.
•Lead the development of the means for U.S. crews to access destinations beyond Earth orbit.
•Base the development plan on a schedule consistent with a realizable budgetary authority.
•Include incremental capability milestones that can serve an evolving set of human exploration objectives beyond Earth orbit.
•Leverage government system investments to date for initial capabilities.
•Factor in possible benefits of commercially conceived and demonstrated system elements for subsequent human deep-space access capability development decisions. “
It would seem you would want to distingish between commercial access from government access as they would be serving different parties and purposes. They seem to be mixing and matching rather than showing the different approaches needed.
Down selecting and preventing single point failure paralysis would seem to be at odds with one another. Or maybe it preserves the old space cartel. Down select to one “new space” company, wait for the first problem, mishap or worse, and wash your hands of CCDev once and for all. Go back to the big boys. Of course, if ATK, Lockheed or Boeing should sustain a problem, mishap or worse, well, keep on keepin’ on…
Ben Joshua wrote @ March 19th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
“Down select to one “new space†company, wait for the first problem, mishap or worse, and wash your hands of CCDev once and for all. Go back to the big boys. Of course, if ATK, Lockheed or Boeing should sustain a problem, mishap or worse, well, keep on keepin’ on…”
Well the best situation would be to have multiple competitors so if one does drop out, you’re still left with at least one that would succeed.
However I’m not so sure that “new space” would be as fragile as some might think, and I’m not sure that “old space” would be willing to pour large amounts of money into their cost-bloated entries.
SpaceX has been profitable for a number of years, and if they did IPO they would have a pretty big war chest to use towards whatever market they want to dominate next. Sierra Nevada has a healthy revenue stream, and Blue Origin has the deep pockets of Jeff Bezos.
The “new space” companies also have far lower overhead and sustaining costs than “old space”, so they can last longer on the same funding as “old space” can, which means the economics of the market get worse faster for “old space”. They are ore likely to bolt if the costs rise too fast, unless the customer (the governement) kicks in more. Sound familiar?
But I think the CCDev/CCiCap program is structured pretty well to avoid huge failures, so I don’t think this is a valid reason to be concerned. Competition is the major concern, so down-selecting to one provider is likely a much more serious issue.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“SpaceX has been profitable for a number of years, and if they did IPO they would have a pretty big war chest to use towards whatever market they want to dominate next.”
I was thinking of a demonstration project involving the F9/Dragon and a Falcon Heavy.
“SpaceX has been profitable for a number of years, ”
Not a true statement. Positive cash flow was the only thing that could be said.
This is probably way off topic, but it illustrates the economic disconect in parts of NASA.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-return-moons-surface-documented/
folks planning Design Reference Missions at NASA are seriously looking at the great things they think the can use the SLS for. The only problem is all this new hardware they think they are going to get is unfunded. As Chris Bergin notes in his final paragraph
“…as with all the DRMs – is at the mercy of political support and NASA funding levels.”
We live in times of shrinking budgets. Mars science missions have been decimated. Congress is looking to cut commercial crew funding – again. Yet these mission planners blithely spin their exploration fantasies reguardless of the economic realities. They clearly don’t need SLS. They all ready live on a different planet.
It wouldn’t matter except too many here (and elsewhere) take these dreams as reality.
SpaceX has been profitable for a number of years
How can they be profitable when they don’t launch rockets? Place your bets. Who declares bankruptcy first, SpaceX or Tesla?
Thank you, Coastal Ron, for a cogent and hopeful analysis. It would be good for exploration, tech dev and the economy if market forces favor new approaches, despite the shear political power of the space cartel.
Fred Willett wrote @ March 20th, 2012 at 6:08 am
“They clearly don’t need SLS. They all ready live on a different planet.”
Nice turn of phrase, and well worth thinking about – Someone in the know could write a hefty and sadly entertaining article or book on this.
amightywind wrote:
“How can they be profitable when they don’t launch rockets?”
How do you think it works? You call up a launch company and buy a rocket off the shelf, or do you order one and have to put up funding at the time of the order and each year the rocket moves towards completion?
SpaceX has income everytime they sell a launch.
Byeman wrote @ March 19th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“Not a true statement. Positive cash flow was the only thing that could be said.”
Well you can debate the difference between positive cash flow and being profitable with financial experts. Suffice it to say that SpaceX is being smart with how they run their business. Most startups fail because they don’t get a revenue stream going soon enough, but SpaceX has be able to do that, and sustain that.
For instance, the flight milestones for the $396M COTS contract were at the end of the task schedule (of course). And following in the footsteps of companies like Boeing, SpaceX gets deposits for future launch hardware, plus they have been getting pre-funding from NASA for CRS Dragon capsules so they will be able to make CRS deliveries shortly after they complete the COTS program (5 Dragons are already in production).
“SpaceX has been profitable for a number of yearsâ€
“SpaceX has income everytime they sell a launchâ€
Oh boy, here we go again.
SpaceX has a positive cash flow the last time I checked a year ago but that is very different than profit.
Every time SpaceX sells a launch they receive a deposit for that service which is income. It doesn’t become profit until that service is performed. Positive cash flow can disappear real quickly once production gears up to meet the obligations of the contracts they sign.
I don’t want to make light of a positive cash flow. That’s better than a lot of startups in general and space startups in particular. But remember, customers are likely to bolt if problems develop with the Falcon 9 launcher.
Next month’s COT’s demonstration may be make or break for SpaceX. Personally I hope it makes SpaceX but prudent investors will wait for a successful mission next month before an IPO would be realistic.
Downsizing CCDev now would be foolish. We need to bring two companies to production so as to have backup assurance to LEO.
Fred Willett wrote @ March 20th, 2012 at 6:08 am
the folks at NASAspaceflight.com sort of live in their fantasy world about SLS as is most of NASA. The folks at NASA are becoming like Newt described them as (to paraphrase) “people who sit around and think about space”. RGO
The AIAA goals seem to ignore the hard choices. We need practical benefits for the US economy. We cannot conceivable afford access to BEO using the SLS/Orion technology, yet we are spending over $4B/yr on it.
Personally I hope it makes SpaceX but prudent investors will wait for a successful mission next month before an IPO would be realistic.
That’s why no IPO is planned before next year.
[The] folks planning Design Reference Missions at NASA are seriously looking at the great things they think the can use the SLS for. The only problem is all this new hardware they think they are going to get is unfunded. As Chris Bergin notes in his final paragraph
“…as with all the DRMs – is at the mercy of political support and NASA funding levels.â€
The best thing going for SLS at the moment is that it’s scheduled to happen fairly far in the future, so the people who hope that it will actually accomplish something that might qualify as “exploration” can also hope that a great upturn in the economy will also happen and Congress will be willing to use tax revenues to fund whatever is going to ride on SLS.
Hope is a wonderful thing.
Fred Willett wrote @ March 20th, 2012 at 6:08 am
“We live in times of shrinking budgets. Mars science missions have been decimated. Congress is looking to cut commercial crew funding – again.”
The total agency budget for NASA has been regularly increasing, and over the last ten years even slightly in fixed year dollars. So while some parts of NASA might live in times of shrinking budgets, I guess they’re offset by the other parts that don’t. It’s not about shrinking budgets at all. It’s about changing priorities.
That’s sort of like the whining about all the aerospace jobs that are being lost because of NASA decisions. They’re not being lost. Though some parts of the country are losing jobs, some are gaining. The vast majority of NASA expenditures is on salaries.
As a matter of observation, it’s doubtful SpaceX investors are the normal run of the mill investors. They’re probably even more risk tolerant than your usual venture capitalist else they wouldn’t be investing in a space launch / spacecraft manufacturer. Apart from the risk factor, Musk has also stated that he’s told his investors that profit is not his main concern or primary driver. Probably survival. JMO.
Wrt the IPO, Musk has maintained AFAICR, his intention to retain control of the company and thereby presumably its strategic direction.
“The best thing going for SLS at the moment is that it’s scheduled to happen fairly far in the future, so the people who hope that it will actually accomplish something that might qualify as “exploration†can also hope that a great upturn in the economy will also happen and Congress will be willing to use tax revenues to fund whatever is going to ride on SLS.
Egad, I have observed the same thing. Even though we could be doing so much more towards deep space access during the years we are merely waiting for SLS to be built, even if it got twice the level of funding it is currently getting. Ironically, many of these same people are the ones claiming they’re worried about the Chinese getting ahead of us fairly quickly. Sigh. More like delusion is a wonderful thing.
America’s share of world manufacturing is barely a shadow of what it was 50 years ago. If NASA does not focus on supporting civil aircraft manufacturing and the high-tech export-oriented industries then human spaceflight will be irrelevant because we will not be able to afford it. Right now scientific and technical programs at NASA with direct application to industry are being decimated. SLS/Orion has no clear application and is guaranteed to be extremely expensive to operate. It will probably be canceled before ever carrying a payload. We need less expensive launch systems, not more expensive ones. .
Advocacy is not just about voicing support, it requires setting priorities. We cannot continue to fund SLS/Orion because it does not produce anything with a value that justifies its extraordinary cost.