Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Joins CSF

Definition of commercial?

What percentage of monies is coming from these commercial companies versus government funding?

Is the beginning of a mass exodus from governmental contracts? Although as pointed out in a previous post the definition of commercial is definitely uncertain.

Damn the Politics!

> Definition of commercial?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

"The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers."

Commercial is not defined by the source of the money but the contracting mechanism. If the gov't procures a service at a fixed price, it is commercial. If is procuring hardware for it to operation, it is gov't

Definition of commercial? What percentage of monies is coming from ... government funding?

If one's human spaceflight objective is to achieve increasingly more affordable access to space, how the money gets spent - the risk and incentives - is as important how who is spending the money.

NASA's traditional cost-plus contractor model provides perverse incentives for a very, very expensive approach to spaceflight.

The "commercial", as in Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, approach is aims to leverage private investment and risk taking for a fixed price and defined milestone payments.

Witness the recent Falcon I and IX launch family program, or decade-old EELV competition, both programs delivered working launch vehicles for a fraction of the money already spent on the cost-plus Ares 1 program - which has yet to fly.

I would like to think that commercial also implies that the government (NASA) states clear requirements for the services provided and then essentially stands aside. The usual NASA version of (cost plus) procurements has them continually modifying requirements, looking over the contractors shoulder, second guessing all decisions and then complaining that is costs too much and takes too long. The EELV and SpaceX models say it can be done differently. Can NASA do business differently. Let's just say that I have my doubts on that.

I'm happy to see that CEOs of major companies are making wise decisions and joining with the future direction of Spaceflight, instead of sticking their head in the sand like our U.S. Congress.

Commercial ventures will lead the way for Space Development more and more as this Century progresses. Small steps for Commercial now, but large steps to follow in the last half of the 21st Century.