Page 31 of 55 - Previous page

Financial Times: Study calls for larger private sector role in Nasa:

bq.

“It could be that by 2020, private enterprise could be reaching the Moon, which is about the same as Nasa's timetable,” says Eric Anderson, president of Space Adventures, a space tourism group.

Nasa says it still has an important role to play. “Space tourism will take place, and we need to include the opportunity for the private sector to play a role,” says spokesman Michael Braukus of Nasa. “But that doesn't mean the agency is irrelevant.”

Not all of it is irrelevant. Not yet. But we're getting there.

Isn't it a nice goal to work toward, though?

---

Comments

John just published a mid-week update to let everyone know that they had a full untethered flight. By god that thing looks like the DC-X! The video is incredible! This is a rather bad snapshot from the video.

---

Comments

(I'm in the middle of a conference call for the Day Job so I'm not going to be as reliable as I'd like.)

Here is a locally cached copy of the report

bq.

Congress increase the potential for commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space, by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space missions and/or technology developments and by assuring appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure.

Yes! Property rights! So far so good….

bq.

a discovery-based criterion to select destinations beyond the Moon and Mars that also considers affordability, technical maturity, scientific importance, and emerging capabilities including access to in-situ space resources.

Good,a requirement that missions focus on ISRU.

bq.

The vision is a “go as you can pay” plan where we achieve periodic technological advances and discoveries based on what we can afford annually.

Hmm… “go as you can pay” instead of “pay as you go”. I like the fact that this gets to a more frugal way of looking at it. You only do what you can afford, not what you would like.

bq.

The Commission also realizes that the launch of human crews requires extraordinary care and will likely remain the providence of the government for at least the near-term.

Ok, “near term” is better than what I heard in earlier reports that didn't qualify it.

It also seems that they are suggesting that all 10 centers be transferred to FFRDCS.

bq.

The Commission recommends that NASA immediately form special project teams for each enabling technology to:

conduct initial assessments of these technologies;   

develop a roadmap that leads to mature technologies;   

integrate these technologies into the exploration architecture; and   

develop a plan for transition of appropriate technologies to the private sector.

Good, at least there is a requirement that they be transitioned. But I'd prefer they not be done in NASA to begin with. I'd much rather NASA put out a bid for stuff and let the industry provide it if they can. This approach just about ensures that the big existing contractors will get the sweet stuff. But then again, if NASA is driving the process it will by definition not be competitive.

Subsequent pages show a fetish for heavy lift that I'm sure Rand will discuss in more detail.

More to come as I read further….

---

Comments

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.

---

Comments

p. A few days ago someone asked what my estimates were for the cost of a Space Ship One flight. I guesstimated this based on some rather flimsy numbers:

p.

Consumables | |Nitrous|$2,000.00| | |Oxygen|$500.00 | |Cold Gas|$500.00 | |Fuel Grain|$4,000.00 | |TPS|$500.00 | |CTN|$10,000.00 | |WK Fuel|$1000 |Subtotal| |$18,500.00

| |Labor

| |Pilot|$1,750.00 | |Ground crew|$4,375.00 |Subtotal| |$6,125.00

|Total| |$24,625.00 p. But then I found this (via Hobby Space) in a Washington Post article: bq. Rutan, who gained widespread renown in 1986 when his Voyager became the first aircraft to circumnavigate the globe without refueling, estimates that commercial suborbital flights could cost $30,000 to $50,000 “initially,” and as little as $7,000 to $12,000 in a “second generation.” Which suggests I'm not smoking to much crack considering the kind of margins Burt will want and cost savings from volume production. A 100% margin puts you in the $50,000 range for the price to the end customer. Feel free to rip my numbers apart. I computed the nitrous cost based on rough estimates of the tank volume and an industrial nitrous cost of $1.50. The CTN and grain costs were definite swags. Comments Space.com Has More Details 06/11/04 00:00:00      Apparently space.com has obtained a complete copy of the report. See Moon-to-Mars Commission Recommends Major Changes at NASA. Lots of interesting stuff I'll comment on latter. Although the one that bugs me is exclusively reserving manned launch to NASA. Comments Moon Society Joins The Space Exploration Alliance 06/11/04 00:00:00      PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release Contact: Ian Randal Strock, Director of Publicity MOON SOCIETY AND SPACE EXPLORATION ALLIANCE CALL FOR “THE MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND” In an unprecedented show of unity, the Moon Society and thirteen more of the nation's premier space advocacy groups, industry associations, and space policy organizations have teamed up to form the Space Exploration Alliance. The SEA's first project is to support the effort to refocus NASA's human space activities toward exploration, including a return to the Moon and moving on to Mars and beyond. President Bush's “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” initiative dovetails perfectly with the Moon Society's tenet that it doesn't take a government to launch people into space. We echo the sentiment that NASA's proper role in the development of space is long-term research, development, and exploration. This initiative, a long-term, feasible plan to permanently inhabit the Moon and send people to Mars, is precisely the type of effort for which NASA was formed. It is the type of project that causes people to strive; a fitting goal for a great society. Near-term industrialization and the commercialization of space are best left to the private sector, and in this, we applaud Scaled Composites' upcoming first commercial launch of a manned spacecraft. It is this commercialization to which the Moon Society strives; NASA has blazed the trail into space, and now we expect companies to turn that trail into a superhighway while NASA continues blazing the trail ever farther into the heavens. The organizations involved in the SEA include: Aerospace Industries Association, Aerospace States Association, American Astronautical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, California Space Authority, Florida Space Authority, the Mars Society, the Moon Society, National Coalition of Spaceport States, National Space Society, the Planetary Society, ProSpace, Space Access Society, and Space Frontier Foundation. Collectively, these groups can count almost one million Americans as members or as employees of member companies. Their first goal as a group is to work for broad support of the new national vision for space exploration outside low Earth orbit. They also intend to aggressively refute the false impression that “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” is too expensive for this country to take on. They will demonstrate how modest but steady growth in our national expenditures on space can move the nation toward these important goals, and highlight the benefits those expenditures will provide. As space exploration becomes increasingly integrated with every aspect of life here on Earth, this new focus on exploration will provide myriad advances in science and technology, as well as untold economic opportunity. It will also serve as an inspiration to our nation's youth. Given those benefits and the many more that lie in store, this new program of human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit is a vital link to the future of the United States and the world. The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and scientific foundation formed to further scientific study and development of the Moon, located on the web at www.MoonSociety.org. Some of the Society's goals are: Creating a space-faring civilization which will establish communities on the Moon. Promoting large-scale industrialization and private enterprise on the Moon. Promoting interest in the exploration, research, development, and habitation of the Moon. Stimulating and encouraging the development and use of space technologies on Earth and in space. Promoting collaboration between various societies and groups interested in developing and utilizing the Moon. Comments Aldridge Commission Report Leakage 06/10/04 00:00:00      (Via Transterrestrial Musings) Space.com's Brian Berger has a report that contains some of what will appear in the Aldridge Commission report that is due to be released on Wednesday, June 16th. The report specifically has the following recommendations: (Re) Creation of the “Space Exploration Steering Council” which reports to the President. Turning NASA Centers in to Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). This allows for much more flexible staffing and local partnering. It also removes the employees from the federal payroll and makes them part of the local partner organization. JPL is an FFRDC and all of its employees are on the University of California’s payroll. To quote directly: __“NASA allow the private industry "to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit.”__ I’m not sure what this means without a lot of detail. Especially as it concerns what parts of FAR apply. Again, quoting directly: __NASA and Congress work together to create three new organizations within the space agency: a technical advisory board, a independent cost estimating organization, and a research and technology organization that sponsors high risk technology development efforts.__ I think this is a result of the “NASA needs its own version of DARPA”. The Technical Advisory Board is really vague to me so I’m not sure what that is. The cost estimating organization is definitely needed. But for both it and the Advisory board to mean anything they will have to be outside the NASA organizational structure, either reporting directly to the Administrator or to the Steering Council. So far all of this is right in line with expectations. With the exception of the Technical Advisory Board for NASA, most of it was predicted by the Committee during their last meeting. Oh, and the name for the report will be “A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover”. Comments A Response to ProjectConstellation's Aldridge Commission Article 06/09/04 00:00:00      p. Before I get into this I must say that I have a lot of respect for James Burk. He was involved with the Artemis Society long before I was (I'm its current Chairman of the Board). So please don't take my response to his article below as a 'fisking'. Its more of a discussion between two different points of view done in a point by point style. But I did feel that I had to respond, even as the commission has probably finished its document already so the point of this is probably moot. p. The gist of my disagreement with James is that his article takes a very governmental/NASA view of what should be done. Yes, he does suggest that private enterprise take a role but that is only given as a secondary recommendation and isn't mentioned anywhere else. But each recommendation gets a response so read on…. bq. __ p. Recommendation #1: NASA Needs Fundamental & Youthful Transformation p. This is perhaps the most important of all; Without a transformation of NASA, this journey won't even begin. Frankly, the NASA of today is not the same as the NASA of Apollo. The historic time of the 1960's, now referred to as the “Golden Age of Space”, has created an agency that rested on its laurels almost as soon as the original organizational goal of landing on the Moon by 1970 was achieved. p. I personally don't feel that NASA should be dismantled as an agency, but certainly all options should be on the table for whoever will lead the transformation. Closing some of the sacred field centers, which are relentlessly guarded by congressmen fearing angry voters in their local districts, should certainly be an option. However, there is likely a way to do this fundamental reorganization by preserving existing brick & mortar institutions but changing the mentality and methodologies of the people who work in them. __ p. Expecting the same agency to produce something different given almost identical circumstances is not looking at the reality of how organizations like NASA work and when it is appropriate to use government agencies to accomplish goals. No amount of youth is going to change the simple fact that without competition and the promise of great reward every organization will stagnate. Its a simple truth of human beings, we thrive on competition and we stagnate without it. NASA doesn't need youth, it needs a competitor. p. But if you're going to insist that NASA have a role in our move to a space based industry, you are correct. NASA will need to be shaken up so completely that there are no established power bases to protect. One of the recommendations that is already being discussed is requiring a high degree of rotation of employees at field centers. No one should ever retire from NASA. bq. __ p. NASA has become a giant bureaucracy, inhabited by career bureaucrats which are retiring at a record rate. NASA needs a dramatic infusion of youthful talent, much like the dot-com culture that existed in the late 90's but mostly evaporated when the Internet bubble burst. Many of those same talented young technophiles are still unemployed. The government should provide a wide range of incentives to get these young men & women reemployed, working for NASA and other space-related government agencies & companies. __ p. The government can't provide those incentives. The people that fueled that bubble and the innovation that has come from the Internet are driven by risk and reward. And that's something the government simply can't and should never attempt to do. Those people are going to work for companies like SpaceX, XCOR, Scaled Composites, Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems, JP Aerospace, etc. Why is there a instinctive reaction to suggest that the best and brightest go to work for NASA? The Internet didn't take off until after the governmental prohibition against commercial speech was removed. Would DARPA have ever built Ebay? bq. __ p. Recommendation #2: Every branch of government needs to participate p. This is a national vision, not a NASA vision. NASA will likely be the “lead federal agency” for the new vision, but certainly should not be the sole owner. Every government agency: local, state and federal, should take part in the vision and do what they can to participate in its success. NASA should be a part of going to space, not the exclusive agent of space for this country. __ For those parts that the government will do, yes. bq. __ p. At a basic level, organizations like the National Science Foundation, US Geological Survey, NOAA, and all branches of the armed forces should directly participate in the research and development of new space technologies, including new launch vehicles, satellites, LaGrange point assets, and planetary bases. There is a lot of science to be done in the course of exploration, and our science-based agencies will need to participate. __ p. But why should the government be developing assets? There are numerous companies that will be able to provide launch services. Why the assumption that the government should do them? The same goes for satellites, LaGrange point assets, etc. If indeed the agency is about science then they should simply contract with private companies for providing the data that allows that agency to do the science that is their mandate. Does the NSF build its own electric power plant for each building it uses to house its employees? Companies like Transorbital and SpaceDev have already figured out entire lunar and asteroidal missions. All they need are a few core contracts from those agencies and they will be able to provide those services much more cost effectively than any government agency. bq. __ p. The U.S. Military should be willing to spend the big bucks to develop new launch systems, since they will ultimately be dual-use vehicles that the military will want to use, even if NASA were to develop them independently. Plus, I recognize based on the current national situation, that the US Military budget will likely not be cut anytime soon, and they have far more resources than NASA does or likely ever will. Spending 30-50 billion to develop new launch technologies over several years for the Pentagon is relatively minor in their whole scheme. That said, they should be made to share any breakthroughs with NASA and private industry, so that everyone can benefit from cheaper access to space. __ p. Why should the government be putting businesses like Beal Aerospace out of business by competing with them by developing yet another launch vehicle that has no basis in economics and business management? At most the only thing the government should be doing is very basic research into propulsion and aeronautical technologies the way the original NACA did for aviation. p. My recommendation would be to forbid the government from producing any launch vehicles and that all launches from now on be put out for bid under a FAR part 12 bid (straight flat fee for service) and in no way is the government allowed to dictate operational aspects other than those needed to ensure delivery of the required science data. bq. __ p. At a further level of cooperation, there exists a huge need to educate the public about space and excite them about the possibilities. Local and state governments should ensure that math & science education is strong (more on that later). Other federal agencies like the Department of Education should take the lead in public outreach for the new space efforts. __ p. Nothing motivates the public like a return on an investment. Show kids that they can get rich and have fun by going into engineering and you'd have to beat them off with a stick. Just look at the number of people who are flying to Mojave on June 21st to see Space Ship One's test flight. They expect almost 100,000 for the launch. The excitement is there. Its just not for government programs. bq. __ p. Recommendation #3: The program must be sustained, not just over 20-30 years, but forever p. The idea that this project requires a “long-term commitment” is somewhat of an understatement. In fact, it would be visionary to attempt to reorganize parts of our society around space exploration, as ultimately that will be what happens once human beings occupy space on a routine basis. We need to make space a part of everyday life, tattoo it on our foreheads, and write it into our DNA. Once we go out into space, we will never go back, and critics need to understand that and understand the benefits of doing that. __ p. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said at one point in the deliberations, the only things that are ever sustainable in the entire history of mankind are driven by one of four possible things: religion (god said do it), fear (do it or we die), glory (do it and I'm a hero or do it because the chicks dig it), or money (do it so I can get rich). Religion, fear and glory have little relevance these days as something you can build a sustainable enterprise on. But money is. So if its sustainability your after then the only real way to do that is by making it pay for itself. bq. __ p. NASA's current vision appears to go out to 2020, with human landings on the Moon and the continuation of robotic Mars exploration with Sample Return and further surface exploration. We need to look further, to a 50-100 year plan for space exploration. We need to set goals so far that they hurt, because that is how the real advances in technology and space exploration will be made. In the late 1990's an effort was discussed to create an interstellar precursor mission which would send a space telescope outside the orbit of Pluto. We need to do things like this; Mars and Jupiter are great, but I can't wait until we explore Alpha Centauri. We need a 100 year plan to do that. __ p. 100 year plans? The Soviets didn't even plan beyond 5 years! Did the Industrial Revolution happen according to a plan? Did the Information Age start out with a 100 year plan that said by year 20 someone should create a company called Microsoft? The point I'm trying to make is that you can't setup a plan for something like that. What you can do is create an environment that allows private enterprise to take hold and innovate the way it always has. Its the difference between the government building airplanes just for the US Postal Service and the government making a rule that any airplane making a flight between two towns is guaranteed a contract for carrying mail from town to town. The first would only had the Post Office actually flying. The second is what built common carrier passenger aviation. bq. __ p. Sustaining this vision will also require the existing worldwide space industry to grow exponentially. Much like computers have, space needs to become more and more profitable so that new companies are always being created to go after new opportunities. This should not be hard to do, because once cheap access to space is achieved, and people begin to colonize the moons, planets, and asteroids, the commercial opportunities will truly be limitless. __ p. Close, but not there yet. You'll never get cheap access to space without applying principles of private enterprise to it. Yes, the idea is the right direction but you have to realize that its private enterprise that has to be there from the very beginning. The west was won because private companies built the railroads and the government gave them incentives for developing the land around the rails. If the government had built the railroads then most of the West would still be empty because there was no incentive to develop the land around them. bq. __ p. Recommendation #4: Resources need to be protected from the critics who would have us turn away from space p. For decades, critics of spending government money on space have repeated the same mantra: Spend the money here on earth and fix our earth-bound problems first. While it is an attractive argument given the massive expenditures space requires, it is also a fallacy. Even if we could spend an infinite amount of money, there will always be social problems and unmet needs. That is part of human civilization, and turning away from space will only make things worse. p. The arguments of critics must be countered decisively. We need to make people understand that going into space will help solve the many social problems. And it will also do much more; going into space can help to answer some of the most profound scientific questions which are relevant to every human being: Who are we? Where do we come from? Are there others like us? Space exploration can also help to make discoveries which will fundamentally improve the human condition, and advances in related fields such as medicine, manufacturing, and computer technology. p. Another fact to counter the critics is, “If we don't do it, someone else will.” Some of the same critics of space also want to see America succeed on the world stage. Space exploration led by America offers a powerful and peaceful demonstration of the benefits of our society. It is in many ways a much better solution than, for example, countering terrorism with more violence. What is more positive and influential to a young Arab boy or girl, watching America conquer Iraq or watching America conquer Mars? p. Space resources need to be set aside and protected from governmental raiding. Much like Al Gore's “lockbox”, we need to set aside the resources that are needed, and do it years it advance. Responsible fiscal management from NASA and the other partners is also part of this. Congress should have a zero-tolerance policy toward deviations and overruns in these space programs. (more on this later) __ p. Most of this I agree with but with the corollary that the best way to create a 'lockbox' is to never put the money or the responsibility in the hands of the government to begin with. Laws that are made can be changed. Social Security was originally supposed to be a 'lock box'. I think that idea lasted about 5 years. It would be nice if governments were capable of doing what you suggest. So would free beer for everyone. Making a plan dependent on the government doing the right thing for 30 years is a sure way to fail that's been proven so many times that I'm sure its in some physics books as a fundamental law of the universe. bq. __ p. Recommendation #5: The American Math & Science education system is in disarray and needs to be reformed p. American students were #1 in the world in the 1950's in math & science skills. Now every year we are closer to the bottom of industrialized nations. This problem has been ignored for decades and, for me at least, is extremely disturbing. The effects are profound: not only are people lacking in basic skills that are needed in a 21st century technical society, but also the problem endangers our economy and accelerates the exodus of technical jobs out of the country. The Hart-Rudman commission on terrorism threats even said that the decline in math & science education was the second largest national security threat that America faces. p. The 21st century is about technology & America's economic and political leadership in the world depends on our ability to innovate and create new products & ideas, which will lead to industries that create technology jobs for Americans. The next generation of Americans, in school now, will create the new space industries of tomorrow. It is imperative that we give them all the tools they need to succeed in learning math & science. __ p. While I agree with this recommendation I think the best way to do this is to teach kids that the best way to get rich is not by planning on joining a major sports team. This is something I feel fairly strongly about: kids will do what looks cool, what “gets the chicks”, what gets the bling-bling. We just need to show them that the real cash is in business and engineering. We should also not stop at math and science. IMHO we should make basic business management and accounting just as much of a required course as physics or history. bq. __ p. Secondary Recommendations: p. National Space Council should be reconstituted p. The National Space Council, headed by the Vice President, coordinates space policy direction for the nation. Lyndon Johnson, the first head of the National Space Council was a strong advocate of going to the Moon and was at least partially responsible for the growth & success of NASA. p. The National Space Council was disbanded at the beginning of the Clinton Administration and should be reconstituted under George W. Bush and future Presidents. There should be legislation that provides for a Space Council so that doesn't happen again. Prominent members of the space community should be asked to join; people like Neal Degrasse Tyson, Buzz Aldrin, and Robert Zubrin. __ p. I definitely agree that the council should be re-instated. As far as the actual members I"m sure if I suggested that Zubrin not be there because he'd bankrupt the country on a government run Mars trip instead of building a space industry I'd be ripped a new one. I would suggest you put a large number of people on it who have run large organizations, especially for profit ones. And it will also need a strong relationship with the Department of Commerce. bq. __ p. Congress should have a zero-tolerance policy toward NASA financial mismanagement p. The current NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has done a great job of auditing NASA and returning it on a path to fiscal responsibility. Yet even he admits NASA has a long way to go. Congress did not act during the 1990s when previous financial scandals happened, under the watch of Administrator Dan Goldin. Congressmen became visibly angry many times during budget hearings, but never held NASA to account. Goldin earned the right to be fired from NASA many times, but never was. He actually became the longest running Administrator ever, even longer than James Webb. That is frankly embarrassing. If O'Keefe or lower managers in NASA repeat some of the same mistakes, they should be dismissed immediately. __ p. No complaints there. One way to ensure that is to get NASA out of things it shouldn't be doing like launch operations. bq. __ p. NASA should get out of the way of the private sector For too long, NASA has stifled creativity and entrepreneurialism on the part of non-governmental efforts to pioneer space. In the late 1990s, many firms such as Rotary Rocket and Beal Aerospace were working on bringing SSTO/RLV technologies to market, and NASA did everything to prevent their success. Firms like LunaCorp and TransOrbital were talking about private lunar missions and NASA did everything to stifle them, including spreading rumors of a new NASA moon probe, which ultimately amounted to nothing and caused their funding opportunities to dry up. __ p. Exactly! So why is this relegated to a secondary recommendation when it should be #1 on the list? bq. __ p. Let the commercial sector do what it excels at, namely cutting through bureaucracy and accomplishing goals on a short time-frame. Instead of stifling private sector efforts, NASA should do everything they can to help them. NASA should enhance and expand their programs to transfer technologies & methods developed internally to start-up companies. __ p. But as you mention above, the best way they can help in most cases is to simply get completely out of the way. Sure, for something like a NACA type organization there would the technology transfer. But for everything else NASA should just be a customer requesting scientific data and the innovation happens within the commercial enterprises. bq. __ p. During the Apollo days, most of the hardware and operations were conducted by private contractors. That model has worked before and should be returned to for future projects. Let NASA set the direction & goals, but let the private sector implement them and create wealth & commercial opportunities from them. That is a much faster way to get into space, and also much cheaper for the public. __ The contract-only approach doesn't create wealth because the contractor is protected from the customer. Direction and goals should be set by the private sector based on market demand and the ability to serve that market based on a given price point. A NASA driven contract only view is simply a way of transferring tax revenues to the winner of the bid. The inefficiencies of that drive out any prayer of building a sustainable industry because it removes the freedom all businesses need to determine what markets to exploit and how. p. The difference may seem subtle but its a really important one. In a contractor based relationship NASA would hire TransOrbital to build them a lunar orbiter to NASA based specifications. In a vendor based relationship NASA would simply purchase a slot on Trailblazer the same way everyone else is. The important distinction is that its TransOrbital that is determining what missions are economically viable and how the mission goals are met economically. Additionally, with the contractor based method the only customer is NASA. In the vendor based method there are multiple customers and NASA is just one of many. p. In other words, the contract based method is the equivalent of the government telling Microsoft what features should be in Windows and then buying everyone a copy and sending it to us with our tax refund. That's Soviet style central planning and its proven not to work. bq. __ p. The Public Needs to Take Ownership As has been said many times during the Commission's hearings, the American & world public needs to “take ownership” of the space vision. What that means is that people need to get so excited about it that they want to go themselves, and they definitely want it to succeed. That is not really hard to do because space sells itself. p. NASA and the government, however, need to do everything possible to facilitate this happening. They need to “market” space and take the same actions that the many space activist groups have taken for public outreach. NASA representatives should regularly visit schools, universities, and local organizations (such as rotary clubs) to talk about space and get people excited. NASA should also create a volunteer corps which can assist in this mission, and assist in other activities that will promote space exploration. __ p. We don't do this with any other enterprise. Why should space require representatives from a single government agency to advocate for them? The IT industry regularly has job fairs but you never see the US Government's National Information Technology Administration there to advocate for IT. Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, etc are all there doing it. There is no need for an information technology 'volunteer corps'. If you tie private enterprise to it and build the correct regulatory environment the 'advocacy' will come on its own. The public will 'own' it the same way the 'own' the Internet, or the auto industry, or the housing industry. bq. __ p. The early retirement of the Hubble, and any other potential public relations disasters, must be avoided or dealt with in a professional manner. The way in which the decision to not service the Hubble with a space shuttle has been somewhat disastrous and a good example of “what not to do”. p. Science Should Drive Space Exploration Space exploration is ultimately the search for the truth, as is science. The more that space exploration advances, the more science will advance. The converse of that can also be true. Science discoveries and unanswered questions can create goals and objectives for space exploration. Apollo-style “flags and footprints” missions are not as sustainable as science-driven missions where answers will spawn new questions. __ p. Exploration is an action, not a reason in and of itself. Christopher Columbus explored in order to make money. Others explored for religious reasons. Some did it for the personal glory it gave them (stated in a more modern way: the chicks dig it). And throughout history nothing sustainable has been built around the search for truth. Science is only able to happen when market driven technology provides for the methods to do the science. Pure science is no more sustainable than flags-and-footprints. p. *So, I have to completely disagree with this notion that the driver of the entire effort is Science. Science is in the far back seat to the entire effort. The real driver should be pure economic expansion. *To move America'seconomy into space permanently in a way that builds wealth directly and which begins to move humans into space permanently. That means making it a core goal that ordinary citizens be able to go as early as possible using as little government involvement as possible. Once people are there for their vacation they can do some science in the process. The reason scientists can afford to do research around the world is that the travel industry makes billions flying ordinary people for tourism and business reasons. If the travel industry were driven by Science as its core mission it would still cost millions to travel around the world. p. No, the driver has to be to build a profitable industry the way we did with aviation and railroads. bq. __ p. In Conclusion p. The final report of the Moon-Mars Commission will be historic and long-reaching. If many or all of these recommendations are included, and the report is influential within NASA and the worldwide community, then I believe the report will be effective at building a new space exploration initiative that can take us to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. __ p. Agreed, but only if the recommendations are to look beyond the government to American industry and entrepreneurialism. bq. __p. If the report lacks a substantial number of these recommendations, I believe it will not be effective, and this will become an exercise that is largely academic. The Moon-Mars Commission report will be placed on a dusty shelf next to the Stafford Report, the Augustine Commission report, and the Post-Apollo Directions for the Future report, all of which discussed broad goals for the nation's space program that were never acted upon. I hope and pray that doesn't happen again. __ p. I believe that the Commission will probably do the right thing. Their discussion suggest that a few “get it”. My fear is that the sausage grinder that is our political process (especially in an election year) will turn a set of good recommendations into meaningless mish-mash of government programs. Comments Some New Logo Shwag 06/07/04 00:00:00      I spent a few hours updating the Rocketforge logo so I could put it on some Cafepress stuff and this is the result. We also have a mug and a t-shirt. You can also find mugs with the Apollo control console and BBQ aprons with the standard rocket equation on the front. Stop by the store and see what's there! Comments Next page