Commercial Space Proponents Respond

Yet another manifestation of the us/them - venomous mentality that has permeated our culture and society. Demonize 'the enemy' and go on the attack. Doesn't matter what the issue is; 'common ground' is a territory that has sunk forever underneath the sea.

Sorry for the world we're leaving you with, kids. As you can see, we really mucked it up.

So when the sacred cow of Constellation was being canceled "commercial" was cheering the bull to the death.

Now that their sacred cow is being slaughtered as well, they complain and cry like little kids.

Actually killing the funding for CruSR would be a blessing for the crewed Suborbital industry since it would allow them to stay focused on the needs of commercial markets. Introducing so much money at this point would create the risk of simply turning the firms into NASA contractors and distracting them from seeking commercial markets for their services.

Rather then pursuing NASA money for suborbital science these firms should look directly to universities, tech firms and private foundations for projects. The Northrop Grumman Foundation’s Weightless Flights program is a far better model to follow then seeking NASA funding. And look at how well SETI has prospered after it was written out of the NASA budget years ago. Do you think NASA would have ever built a system like the Allen Telescope Array for them?

Really its critical that Commercial Suborbital firms stay commercial in their focus and not be tempted into becoming NASA contractors. That is not a path that will benefit the industry's future, especially at this critical point in the industry's development.

As a side note, the cartoon the Space Frontier Foundation is using in their press release was originally created to show the unity of the country after 9/11 (its dated 9/14). Do they really think this issue is on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks?

"Commercial Space in Jeopardy, Call Your Senator TODAY"

I don't suppose the Space Frontier Foundation saw the irony in that. It's COMMERCIAL Space. If it's in jeopardy then advertise and/or make proposals to other businesses or rich space cadets who want to play astronaut. The only thing they need from the senate is permission to conduct space flight operations. Don't they already have that?

Agree that political debate has become too polarized and much too "venomous" for our own good. I don't think it's irreversible, though -- in the face of change and hard choices, we can raise the tone, and lower the volume, and maybe our kids will continue in the example.

I take your point, Thomas, but you might want to consider that a) $15 M per year is far less than most initial rounds of venture capital, and, when spread over multiple recipients, is barely the proverbial drop in the bucket, and b) it's my understanding that CRuSR participants are already pursuing the traditional funding areas you mention; however, in the ultra-conservative world of traditional funding, even a drop in the bucket from an agency like NASA lends needed legitimacy to the financing request and can go a long way in helping to open private wallets.

Touche -- but to answer your question seriously, the licensing procedures through the FAA's AST (a tribute to more than 30 year's work by many participants to develop a regulatory regime for private spaceflight - if not the only, than certainly the most extensive and well-coordinated such regime on the planet) don't provide the same level of support for commercial cargo and crew to the ISS as would the President's seal of approval (and miniscule funding request, given the national interests at stake) backed up by Congressional approval. So, yes, supporters of "commercial" space, call your senators, exercise your right to voice your support, and ask them for their support for the President's budget request as well!

Everyone please stop the lie of calling this 'commercial space'. It's not. This is just a new generation of contractors trying to muscle in on the established player's turf and the old guard contractors trying to fight back over who gets a bigger slice of the NASA pie, with everyone bringing their favorite congressman to the battle.
Nothing new here, standard Washington politics, I just wish folks would be honest enough to admit it.

Mr. Matula, brilliantly stated, sir!

If we really want to change the status quo, NASA should be returned to its original intended function of supplying industry with technical aid, not financial aid. NASA (& previously N.A.C.A.) were supposed to be essentially academic organizations that conducted or coordinated research & development of new technologies that could not be reasonably funded by commercial markets with the goal of injecting such technology into the commercial market place when brought to sufficient maturity for exploitation by private industry financed with commercial capital.
That system worked with epic success and gave America a century of leadership in the aircraft and airline industries.

The intent was NOT to treat NASA as a cash cow that is used as a profit center in its own right by a lethargic industry that never learns to stand on its own. That has been the great failure of national policy for NASA's premier manned space flight activities from Apollo all the way to Obama's 'Merchant 7' plan and the reason we have become so stagnated in space.

There is nothing new in the Obama plan. Same game, just different faces. Sure, the style of the contracts might be different than current norms, but anyone want to bet that a few years, a few mistakes, and a few contract mods down the road that no one will be able to tell the difference between the new contractors and the old contractors?