The "Fish, Barrel and

06/14/04 00:00:00    

By Michael Mealling

The New York Times seems to have also gotten some of the Aldridge Commission report early, although not as much as Space.com since their article seems full of second hand interpretations. So I thought I'd fisk some of it:

bq. Details of the report were first disclosed by Space.com, an Internet site specializing in space issues; a summary of the report was obtained by The New York Times.

Is it just me or does that read like the Times is still not sure about that weird Internet thing everyone keeps talking about?

bq. But while most space launchings should be left to the commercial market, the commission said, launching human crews should continue to be primarily the job of the government, at least in the near future. This recommendation appears to acknowledge criticism by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which laid part of the blame for the loss of the space shuttle and its crew last year to NASA's turning over too much of its safety oversight to private contractors.

This is the first of several assumptions on the Time's part that commercialization means nothing more than contracting the way its always been done since Appollo. If that were the case then the CAIB comment might be relevant. As it stands I doubt the Aldridge Commission would suggest such a silly thing. The fact that the Times assumes that showes just how stuck in the Apollo era everyone is.

bq. Howard E. McCurdy, a space expert at American University, said that at first blush, the commission might seem to be endorsing what had been happening to a great extent at NASA, with contractors already doing a good deal of the work at the agency. Within the space shuttle program, Dr. McCurdy said, the main contractor, United Space Alliance, and other companies, “don't sit in the front room at mission control, but they do just about everything else.”

I don't think any reporter who had actually been paying attention to the hearings could take such an assertion seriously. I could be wrong but I highly doubt that the kind of commercialization that Bob Walker advocated for is just “USA on steriods”.

bq. Still, if the space program was restructured as the commission suggests, NASA would be looking to entrepreneurs for more innovation and creativity as well, he said.

But Dr. McCurdy and other outside experts warned of taking privatization too far.

Donald Lamb, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and chairman of a committee on space science sponsored by the Association of American Universities, said he was encouraged by the committee's charge that the exploration mission be “discovery driven.”

But the outsourcing recommendation seems unrealistic, he said,.

“Space exploration,'' he added, "particularly manned space exploration, is just too expensive and risky to attract private enterprise, especially venture capitalists.''

Ok, just who were these other "outside experts” besides Dr. McCurdy and Donald Lamb? John Pike maybe? The entire point of what the commission (IMNSHO) will be suggesting is that when there is no customer but a willingness on the part of a business to offer a product, that the government is the first, or core, customer.

I guess I shouldn't expect much from the Shady Lady on a topic like this. And I'm probably going to have to get used to bad reporting as we start the run up to the release and to Burt's flight. One quote that did strike me was this one that is supposedly straight from the summary:

bq. “In NASA decisions, the preferred choice for operational activities must be competitively awarded contracts with private and nonprofit organizations,” it said. “NASA's role must be limited to only those areas where there is irrefutable demonstration that only government can perform the proposed activity.”

One would think that Burt being able to hit suborbital space at $50,000 per flight would constitute a demonstration that government isn't the only entity that can perform manned space flight.