NASA, Other

The next FCC chairman and commercial space

In May, President Obama nominated Tom Wheeler to become the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). While he has yet to be formally confirmed by the Senate, he did breeze through a confirmation hearing by a “generally welcoming” Senate Commerce Committee in June, and his nomination has broad support.

It also turns out he has—or, at least, had—opinions about the administration’s space policy. In a May 2010 blog post, Wheeler, working in the private sector at the time, said the “Space Program” (as he capitalized it) was going through an “analog to digital conversion” analogous to what the telecommunications industry experienced in the past. His reference was not to specific technologies but instead models of doing business and innovation: a shift from a centralized to distributed approach.

“NASA was the Bell Labs of Space,” he wrote. “Like Bell Labs they delivered important innovations and added to our national pride. To continue a 20th Century command-and-control model in an era of distributed development is not in the best interest of NASA, however.”

In particular, he expressed support for the administration’s decision to pursue development of commercial crew transportation systems. “Embracing commercial manned launches will not only save the taxpayer dollars, but also will put Americans back in space sooner by using enhanced versions of existing launch vehicles,” he wrote. “Best of all, embracing commercial low earth orbit manned flight will allow NASA to focus on moving the edge of the envelope further out into space, including with manned missions.” These are many of the same arguments the White House and NASA leadership have made for commercial crew development. (Wheeler, in fact, served on the Obama transition team after the 2008 election, and his policy portfolio included both technology and space.)

As for those opposed to commercial crew, he sees similar arguments to debates from telecommunications deregulation. “Back in the original analog-to-digital days I can remember AT&T’s representatives warning of catastrophic job losses and damage to the national security if innovative competitors were allowed into their business. The same echoes surround the proposed NASA changes,” he wrote. “The earlier warnings not only failed to materialize, but just the opposite occurred as new, innovative and less expensive services came forward and economic growth and a new generation of jobs exploded.”

Assuming Wheeler is confirmed, his space policy comments will largely be of academic interest. There are, though, a few space-related topics the FCC deals with, such as orbital slot and frequency assignments for commercial satellites and other space operations. (The FCC did issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in May on frequency allocation and related issues for commercial launches, for example.) If those activities do grow in the next few years, particularly in emerging areas like small satellites or commercial crew, it will be interesting to see if these thoughts play any role in decisions the FCC makes on related policies.

29 comments to The next FCC chairman and commercial space

  • Aberwys

    Hallelujah!

    Someone points out that NASA’s command and control approach won’t work anymore.

    In the 10 years I have been in this business, I know it hasn’t worked.

    Hooray! Change, anyone?

  • If ever NASA were to need a new Administrator….

  • Fred Willett

    “Best of all, embracing commercial low earth orbit manned flight will allow NASA to focus on moving the edge of the envelope further out into space, including with manned missions.”
    This meme has been around since the start of the COTS commercial cargo program some years ago. Bolden has said it. Musk has said it. In fact all the commercial operators have said it at some time or another. Some multiple times.
    It’s a lie.
    It’s a fig leaf to cover NASA’s essential nakedness.
    There is no money for any NASA missions beyond LEO.
    Consider the facts.
    A proposal was floated to put an advanced base at L1 or somewhere beyond LEO. It didn’t have to be big. Just a spot out there to practice with.
    That went well, didn’t it?
    Then there was the proposal to fly to an asteroid.
    Well!
    Another disaster.
    Congress is certainly not going to allow any money for that. Why the very idea. NASA might actually want to use their big rocket.
    (And the Emperor runs off giggling insanely and naked as a jay bird.)

    • Coastal Ron

      Fred Willett said:

      It’s a fig leaf to cover NASA’s essential nakedness.
      There is no money for any NASA missions beyond LEO.

      That is true. NASA’s technology cupboard is bare, and it will take a long time to refill it so NASA is ready to do anything substantial beyond LEO.

      So does Commercial Cargo & Crew make that better or worse? Does it make it more likely that NASA will be able to travel beyond LEO or not?

      Many of us believe that it will increase NASA’s ability to travel beyond LEO when NASA has enough technology and funding to do so. Without Commercial Cargo & Crew, NASA’s path forward is far more expensive, which means it’s much further out on the horizon.

      Regardless though, unless Congress decides to provide NASA with a massive increase in it’s budget (very unlikely), it’s going to be slow going – our politicians just aren’t interested in doing much in space.

      • Fred Willett

        I ran some figures assuming low, medium and high cost vehicle refurbishment on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. It quickly becomes clear that a reusable upper stage is useless beyond LEO. Too much hardware adding mass plus the fact you need to bring it back to make it worth while anyway.
        So I expect – assuming SpaceX achieves reusability – that a reusable upper stage will only go to LEO then the payload will be transferred to an in-space only upper stage.
        This implies Fuel depots, of course.
        The other thing that falls out of the figures I’ve worked (and I should make clear that my models are economic and not hardware related) is that reusability, while it will reduce the total mass numbers for Falcon Heavy from 53t to 20-30t to LEO the odd thing is that reusability gets all 20-30t out to GEO, or L1, or L5 or, even Mars. Just add fuel depots as needed.
        This is, I think Musk’s fabled MCT. The biggest Methane powered upper stage for FH he can manage in 3 flavors.
        1/ Reusable version (earth to LEO only)
        2/ refuelable in stage version sans reusable hardware.
        3/ Fuel depot version.
        With this infrastructure you can push cargo or habitat modules wherever you want.
        So. Can NASA do anything beyond LEO? Yes. Just buy a ticket from SpaceX.

        • amightywind

          Still flogging the discredited idea of moving ISS somewhere else? Fuel depots are surely the dumbest part of the post-Constellation debate.

          • Coastal Ron

            amightywind said:

            Fuel depots are surely the dumbest part of the post-Constellation debate.

            Says the guy who visits his local gas station at least once a week to fill up the tank on his gas-guzzling pickup. Try keeping your current standard of living without fuel depots, and without the companies and service providers you rely upon having access to fuel depots.

            You’ll soon see where your philosophy fails in the face of reality…

        • Coastal Ron

          Fred Willett said:

          So I expect – assuming SpaceX achieves reusability – that a reusable upper stage will only go to LEO then the payload will be transferred to an in-space only upper stage.

          I’d agree with that. If you look here on Earth, the most efficient transportation segments are the ones that specialize in one mode of transport.

          With this infrastructure you can push cargo or habitat modules wherever you want.

          Yep. Although cargo that is not time sensitive (or radiation sensitive) could use less fuel intensive routes beyond LEO, but humans and other cargo will need to rely on more direct (and higher fuel consumption) and quicker routes.

          Can NASA do anything beyond LEO? Yes. Just buy a ticket from SpaceX.

          I would like to see others providing transportation services too, but the transportation as a service model is where NASA needs to go.

          But until “certain people” in our government can act in the interests of our country instead of their pocketbook, that won’t happen. Eventually it will though, since our private industry will be operating beyond LEO far before NASA does, and those that care about money in Congress (there are some) will force the issue.

        • Reusable launch vehicle will have to copied by everyone else or they won’t be cost competitive. Once SpaceX achieves that it isn’t hard to imagine a focus on developing LEO to BEO technologies that are cheaper than SLS and have more timely delivery options. This “fear of docking” vehicles in orbit to build a more capable craft will be overcome based upon cost motivations.

          Cost control and innovation? Not coming from Congress this year, but from the private sector.

          • Fred Willett

            Agree. Spacex May be in the lead but (assuming they can do reusability) others will quickly follow and may even surpass them.
            After all it was Curtis who quickly surpassed the Wrights.

            • Coastal Ron

              Fred Willett said:

              Spacex May be in the lead but (assuming they can do reusability) others will quickly follow and may even surpass them.

              And that would be good.

              The lower the price goes, the more likely it will be that we can expand humanities presence out into space.

              Congress still may not want to give NASA more money, and Congress may still be forcing NASA to build and use the SLS, but that’s OK. Once the price falls far enough, the private sector in America will be able to make their own push out beyond LEO – and we already see the beginnings of it today with efforts like Inspiration Mars, Deep Space Industries, and Planetary Resources.

  • Hiram

    “This meme has been around since the start of the COTS commercial cargo program some years ago.”

    Fair point, but it shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of COTS. The idea of COTS is to render access to LEO less expensive. It is clearly going to do that. Now, whether those economies will actually allow moving the edge of the envelope further out into space is yet to be determined. Preserving the metaphor, what it will allow NASA to do is pass the envelope, hoping to raise enough extra cash to do that. NASA’s problem is that it fundamentally doesn’t know what it wants to do and, for lack of compelling rationale, comes up with a daft stunt like ARM.

    • Neil Shipley

      Agreed, and CCiCap and CCtCap are following on from the success demonstrated by COTS.

      Mind you, we do need to be a bit careful in trumpeting the merits of COTS since its record is not spotless. So far the record is:
      1. 1 failure – RpK was unable to complete funding and NASA ditched them;
      2. 1 success – SpaceX has completed the program and gone into a follow-on CRS contract, and
      3. 1 yet to be determined – Orbital still in the COTS model and not yet complete.

      Some could argue that SpaceX is an anomoly. It’s quite a different organisation from you run of the mill space organisation, owned and run by a dynamic entrepreneur who has garnered a significant fan base as well as government support. Something others have not been able to achieve.
      And SpaceX is not profit motivated in the normal sense. It’s has as its major public motivation enabling human habitation of Mars and other planets.

      Quote:

      Company Overview
      ——————————————————————————–
      SpaceX designs, manufactures, and launches the world’s most advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk to revolutionize space transportation, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets. Today, SpaceX is advancing the boundaries of space technology through its Falcon launch vehicles and Dragon spacecraft.

  • Fred Willett

    we do need to be a bit careful in trumpeting the merits of COTS since its record is not spotless.
    It is my contention that COTS was supposed to fail.
    The previous COTS like effort was the Air Forces EELV program. Boeing and LM got $500M each and total costs ran out at $4.5B. (reputedly) and that was for just 2 rockets, Atlas V and Delta IV. And they were just upgrades of two existing rockets anyway.
    COTS put up $500M (half the money) for 2 rockets AND 2 spacecraft.
    And if you think COTS was a serious program look at the contenders.
    RpK had built nothing and their plans were, well, interesting to put it politely, and nobody took SpaceX’s design seriously. Another start-up with no track record.
    9 engines?
    Are you serious?
    And the vehicle designer is a computer nerd?
    That’s never gunna work.
    Then RpK failed. Sniggers from old-space vets. Space is hard!
    Then suddenly Shuttle was going.
    Constellation was gone and NASA had nothing. Literally nothing.
    Zip. Nada.
    OMG!!!
    Suddenly COTS was the only game in town. And if commercial crew could not be made to work then NASA was effectively grounded till the first crewed flight of Orion in 2021.
    I think it’s significant that when Commercial Crew was started NASA proposed real money this time.
    $6B.
    Now I wonder why?

    • Hiram

      With regard to SpaceX design …

      “9 engines? Are you serious?”

      From the perspective of hardware sharing across their launcher market, it actually makes a lot of sense. Also, it’s pretty clear that at least one engine is expendable. Saturn V had five engines, by the way. So that’s a simplistic criticism.

      “And the vehicle designer is a computer nerd?”

      Not sure who you’re referring to, but from what I can see, SpaceX has deep and credible expertise in space structures and propulsion.

      Also, let’s be careful about judging the motives of a company by their vision statement, which is really just marketing copy. The Boeing vision statement is “People working together as a global enterprise for aerospace leadership.” Does that translate into “profits”? I think you’d get laughed out of the room if you told SpaceX leadership that their prime motive wasn’t profit. In the minds of many, enabling people to live on other planets is a huge, HUGE profit strategy.

      • Coastal Ron

        Hiram said:

        From the perspective of hardware sharing across their launcher market, it actually makes a lot of sense.

        You’re missing the point. The trend had gone to singe-point-of-failure designs, so anything that bucked that trend was seen as backward, or even acknowledging immaturity. Luckily perception was not reality, but no doubt it was focused at trying to keep customers from contracting with SpaceX. Now their design is seen as logical – maybe even superior to what the likes of ULA are relying on.

        Not sure who you’re referring to…

        Seriously? Do you even know the background of Elon Musk?

        …but from what I can see, SpaceX has deep and credible expertise in space structures and propulsion.

        Musk made smart hiring decisions, but I guess you didn’t hear that they were on the brink of closing up shop if the 4th Falcon 1 launch wasn’t successful? Their success early on was not assured, as they were validating a new business model.

        It was also because of their business model that they were able to attract the best and brightest from around the country, and acquire that expertise. But without the Falcon 1 success, they wouldn’t have been able to do that, since they were still a risky proposition (i.e. no real revenue, not much of a customer backlog, not yet proven, big plans, etc.). The outcome was not assured.

        It may look easy and logical today, but from the business side it was anything but.

        I think you’d get laughed out of the room if you told SpaceX leadership that their prime motive wasn’t profit.

        Only one person knows for sure, but so far SpaceX hasn’t focused on profitability being the end goal, but using profitability to build lower cost transportation to space. Musk says he wants to make humanity multi-planetary, and so far his actions support that. I think a lot of his employees support that too, and would not stick around if SpaceX turned into just another faceless, profit-oriented entity.

        • Hiram

          “You’re missing the point. The trend had gone to singe-point-of-failure designs, so anything that bucked that trend was seen as backward, or even acknowledging immaturity.”

          No, I’m just pointing out one advantage. I never said there weren’t any others. Effective mission failure mitigation by clusters of engines has not yet been proven, however. Economization by strategic hardware commonality is well understood.

          “Seriously? Do you even know the background of Elon Musk?”

          Elon Musk is hardly a “vehicle designer”. He is a vehicle dreamer, and a very capable one. He has a team of propulsion experts to do design. If Musk thinks he’s designing vehicles, then that’s his problem, not mine. His business model and insurance profile wouldn’t tolerate him being identified as a prime designer.

          “Only one person knows for sure, but so far SpaceX hasn’t focused on profitability being the end goal”

          What are the indicators you’re using to make that conclusion? If Musk wasn’t doing it for profit, why would he even call it a business? Musk could just donate the whole shebang to posterity. Musk has also said that he ultimately wants to take the business public, and investors are champing at the bit. How many big investors are out to make humanity multiplanetary? Not a lot. The “focus” you’re referring to is just marketing pitch. Don’t get distracted by it.

          • Coastal Ron

            Hiram said:

            Elon Musk is hardly a “vehicle designer”. He is a vehicle dreamer, and a very capable one.

            As far as titles go, Musk is the SpaceX CEO & Chief Designer, as well as the Tesla CEO and Product Architect. For his formal education, he has a physics degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a business degree from Wharton.

            For SpaceX though, clearly they are not known for scientific breakthroughs, but more re-thinking what’s come before – better described as “disruptive innovation“. From the Wikipedia description:

            The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market.

            So from that standpoint Musk has been the “vehicle designer”, although it could be argued that what has been very good at doing is looking at what’s been done before, and choosing which of those technologies and techniques to combine into new solutions. He’s not a Kelly Johnson, but what we need at this point is lower cost, and Musk is the right person for that.

            If Musk wasn’t doing it for profit, why would he even call it a business?

            I never said he wouldn’t make a profit, just that making a profit wasn’t their goal. There is a difference.

            Making enough money to realize their long-term goals is the goal.

            Musk has also said that he ultimately wants to take the business public…

            You’re not keeping up with the latest. Musk recently tweeted:

            No near term plans to IPO @spacex. Only possible in very long term when Mars Colonial Transporter is flying regularly.

            — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 6, 2013

            You also said:

            …and investors are champing at the bit.

            Count me as one of them. On a small scale, of course, but I’d add it to my portfolio for long-term holdings.

            • Hiram

              Elon Musk can call himself whatever he wants to call himself. As a chief designer of a business strategy, I’ll give him that. I think that’s what you’re now suggesting, though no, that’s not a “vehicle designer”. Elon Musk as chief designer of rockets doesn’t make any sense at all. I’d still like to know who the “computer nerd” vehicle designer is.

              The word “ultimately” means “eventually”. Look it up.

              Yes, I wasn’t keeping up with the latest. Of course, that latest tweet by Elon took prospective investors completely by surprise. That’s not the ball he’d been running with. I still think the enthusiasm of potential investors isn’t based on a main goal of making humanity multiplanetary. Of course, Elon’s dream is that the MCT will be up and running in 20 years. So investors just have to plant their cash for two decades.

              • Coastal Ron

                Hiram said:

                As a chief designer of a business strategy, I’ll give him that. I think that’s what you’re now suggesting, though no, that’s not a “vehicle designer”.

                Maybe you need to provide a definition of a “vehicle designer”, because to me that includes taking into account business strategy.

                Ask Boeing if their vehicle design is based on business strategy, and they will emphatically say “Yes!”.

                Did Musk design the seats? Probably not. Did he design the electrical system? Probably not.

                Was he involved with the ultimate design, which was based on the requirements he set forth? Yes, because he is the SpaceX Chief Designer, and he also sets the company business goals. Then he delegated the details to his team.

                The word “ultimately” means “eventually”.

                But that is not what Musk as said. He has stated that he would only IPO if that is what was needed to accomplish his goals (and it isn’t right now). Lots of companies never go public, so it’s not a given SpaceX will. I don’t mind if they do, since I’d buy their stock, but it’s definitely not a case of “eventually”.

              • Hiram

                “Maybe you need to provide a definition of a “vehicle designer”, because to me that includes taking into account business strategy.”

                There we simply disagree. Shrug. If I hire a “vehicle designer”, it’s going to be someone who designs vehicles, not someone who worries about business strategy. The definition is right in the words.

                “But that is not what Musk as said. He has stated that he would only IPO if that is what was needed to accomplish his goals (and it isn’t right now).”

                I’m not aware he stated that. What he basically said (in his post-tweets) was that he simply didn’t want to talk about it, because doing an early IPO would unnecessarily constrain progress and make for conflicting priorities. Musk’s other companies are publicly traded, so I can only assume this is what he intends for SpaceX eventually.

              • Guest

                I think both of you are completely missing the point, but all of this discussion is of course off topic. Elon Musk is ‘chief engineer’ and ‘chief executive officer’ of his own corporation. A rocket is a pointy cylinder that punches through the atmosphere at a slowly increasing acceleration. There isn’t a whole lot to design except for the propulsion and the engine layout. He is ‘chief innovator’ more than anything, and his innovations have mostly to do with ‘silly’ (read ‘insane’) things that have traditionally been done at the subsystem level in most conventional launch vehicles – things like explosive detonations where pneumatic cylinders will do, etc. The three by three layout was mostly fortuitous, but he will most likely be remembered for that innovation alone, along with the infamous three by three to octagonal circular transformation that allowed his reusability innovations to be possible, along with the abundant acceleration control and engine out responses to proceed, without stressing out or losing the vehicle. Any good education in engineering mechanics would get you there, but you also have to WANT to make these things happen.

              • Fred Willett

                Musk tried to hire a vehicle designer, but none were available. So he “read some books” and took on the job himself.

              • Hiram

                “Elon Musk is ‘chief engineer’ and ‘chief executive officer’ of his own corporation.”

                Works for me, as does “Chief Innovator”. Maybe “Chief Designer”, as he’d like to be called. The very specific question was who was the “vehicle designer” who was a computer nerd. Still waiting …

                “Chief” of anything is the guy who gets to say “no”. When you own the company, that’s you.

              • Coastal Ron

                Hiram said:

                “Chief” of anything is the guy who gets to say “no”.

                “No” is important, but “Yes” is just as important. And I’m not sure you appreciate how much effort goes into defining the product in the first place.

                For instance, Musk has stated that before they started designing their rockets, that they looked at the failure rates and root causes of all the rockets they could. That led them down the path of having multiple engines. Looking at engine technology they decided to go with something simple, which opened up the ability for them to manufacture it in-house.

                There are many, many decisions that are made before you get into engineering-only decisions like wall thicknesses and 6061 vs 7075 tradeoffs. But it starts with business decisions, and as time goes on transitions into pure engineering ones.

                When you own the company, that’s you.

                Musk doesn’t do everything. He may talk with the people that do a lot, and talk about the high-level goals and how they are helped or impacted. He is the Chief Designer, not the only one.

                Just as Steve Jobs did not do everything at Apple. In fact, after Jobs death it came out that there were many times his team wanted to go in a direction he didn’t, and he decided to trust them. You never saw that when he presented though, because he always said “We”, not “I”.

        • Fred Willett

          Elon Musk has said that the most likely outcome of starting SpaceX was failure, but he thought it was worth trying anyway.

  • $36.7 M – Boeing CST price per seat to Bigelow-Alpha in LEO
    $20.0 M – Spacex Dragon to same

    http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/33436bigelow%E2%80%99s-fares-show-spacex-trumps-boeing-on-price#.UfK8CI21FqU

    How long will Congress pretend not to notice these fundamental pricing differences?

  • Excellent points altogether, you just received a new reader. What might you suggest about your post that you made some days ago? Any positive?

Leave a Reply to Fred Willett Cancel 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>