NAC Is Dissatisfied With NASA on Commercial Plans (or lack thereof)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving private industry money to develop their own manned spaceflight capability for their own private commercial purposes.

The problem is with the plan to integrate future private commercial manned spaceflight companies into the government manned space program-- which is completely unnecessary.

Marcel F. Williams

I disagree with what appears to be the Council's suggestion that every detail of commercial space projects must, or even can, be predicted in advance. Certainly the broad goals and strategies should be discussed. But this is a research and development program. If the commercial providers' business cases, costs, and operational schedules for transporting cargo and crew could be precisely predicted years ahead of time, they would be unable to develop any new technology. This is the same trap we fell into wih Shuttle; we have to actually test new technology, find out what works, and then plan operational applications. That was what we were doing with the RLV program before Mike Griffin canceled it.

This is a nice change from all the jumping up and down and yelling that's been going on for the last several months (from both sides of the issue). Finally, a calm, reasonable, practical, and sensible request. Hopefully this will lead to a true objective analysis of the commercial crew potential for either success or failure.

Successful implementation of NASA’s commercial crew transportation program requires NASA to better understand the underlying business cases and markets for commercial crew

Bingo!

It sure doesn't help that KSC, which has zero experience in human spaceflight Program Mgmt, is being put in the position of having to put 'meat on the bones' of the commerical crew plan.

It's hard to understand why anyone would object to seeing "commercial" crew plans before completely subsidizing them with non-commercial funding. Anyone arguing for handing out funding to non-public corporations without review obviously isn't looking out for the average taxpayer. All plans should be reviewed, all business cases should be publicly vetted before a dime of taxpayer investment. Only then can we be assured that NASA funding is being spent to actually further the cause of beyond earth orbit exploration.

"The problem is with the plan to integrate future private commercial manned spaceflight companies into the government manned space program"

This could not be more wrong. The best part of plan and what really makes it work is " integrating future private commercial manned spaceflight companies into the government manned space program"

There should not be a separate manned space program. There is not a separate gov't airline, trucking company or taxis service. You will not find one good reason and any reason you give can be easily shot down as a non issue.

“Successful implementation of NASA’s commercial crew transportation program requires NASA to better understand the underlying business cases and markets for commercial crew,” the NAC subcommittee stated in a draft for the full NAC hammered out July 22. “The committee has received inconsistent information on NASA crew requirements, and non-NASA human spaceflight markets.

Am I reading this statement correctly? Why is it NASA's responsibility to provide the commercial guys with analyses on "non-NASA human spaceflight markets"? Don't the commercial guys have the resources, or the desire, to perform their own market analysis?

In addition, there is little analysis of the impact of non-human spaceflight markets, such as cargo and traditional spacecraft launch, on the ability of commercial providers to offer viable crew transportation services.

What is Brett complaining about here? Where does the finger point?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving private industry money to develop their own manned spaceflight capability for their own private commercial purposes.

Are you sure about that? Have you been paying any attention at all to the whole WTO Boeing-Airbus fight about "illegal subsidies"? Disregarding how you define "illegal subsidies" I do believe WTO, Boeing, and Airbus would all disagree with your generalized statement... unless it furthers their own goals! Then such money is AOK! :-)

You mean to tell me this administration's "privatization plan" is ill-considered and ill-conceived? I'm shocked! Simply shocked!

They haven't analyzed the situation to determine whether there's a commercially viable market to support their plan? Is their "privatization plan" really anything different from paying Boeing, LockMart, etc. to develop a rocket to their specifications? None of this was done? Incredible!

I would never have thought it possible! Shocking!

@Ray,

Very good point. Cost plus contracts are competitively bid, so they are not considered subsidies. A good for instance would be instead of SpaceX competitively bidding for a COTS development contract, NASA just simply subsidized them with the money. The competition aspect drives the private entity/business to reduce cost. One question would be, what drives the process to choose a private entity/business for a government contract? Is it just the cost aspect?

KSC may not have human spaceflight "program" experience, but they do have many years (more than 50 launches) of procuring, analyzing, processing, and launching commercial rockets with high value NASA payloads in the Launch Services Program.

As the only "program" at KSC, LSP should be the model example for a commercial crew program. They provide insight/oversight of many different commercial providers (even within different rocket configurations) without a standing army the size of shuttle. Technical and programmatic risks are mitigated through a stringent process. Independent assessments are made to the launch vehicle providers designs, analyses, and tests. They are contractually held accountable to provide mission success.

In my opinion, this model could be easily adapted to what ever human spaceflight requirements NASA imposes on commercial providers. And most of that experience already resides at KSC, its history extends before it was brought to KSC in 1998. One can be assured that there will be enough "meat on the bones" given the correct budget to do so.

"Why is it NASA's responsibility to provide the commercial guys with analyses on "non-NASA human spaceflight markets"? Don't the commercial guys have the resources, or the desire, to perform their own market analysis?"

Because Washington is making a decision based on it!

COTS is only a good idea if there's a non-NASA market. If they go through the motions and wind up the exclusive Dragon customer, than there was no point to this whole exercise; tax dollars pay 100% of development plus profit. We might as well have skipped all the drama and just decide if we want to contract out for a Big Gemini the traditional way.

But if there are other customers, than this strategy pays off for the taxpayer; the vendor's debts are payed down by multiple customers and not only NASA.

So for the Congress to make a decision on this, they need to know what that market looks like.

NAC suggests NASA - a reputable federal space program - look into it.

You suggest we ask the rocket salesmen and take their word for it?

I think this is all a great idea, but of COURSE they should do some of their own research about it. Seriously now.

There is a government airline. Its called the US Air Force. Why? Because the military and private industry have totally different agendas.

In space, the government agenda is totally different from that of private industry. The government agenda is to explore the New Frontier. The private agenda is to make a profit from the New Frontier.

Marcel F. Williams

"There should not be a separate manned space program. There is not a separate gov't airline, trucking company or taxis service. You will not find one good reason and any reason you give can be easily shot down as a non issue."

So you think we shouldn't have a public school system as well as a private. Public to form the backbone and the security that it will always be there to support our population, and private to do the niche and specialized learning and teaching.

Or that we shouldn't have a "public" military only privately funded teams?

Or that we shouldn't have the USPS and UPS/Fedex should bear the brunt of all delivery to all instances and locations.

Or that we should have a publicly funded highway system or water system, or hospital systems?

There is a place for commercial, and there is a place for public. When service is needed, but there is not a business case for it that could support it's existence either wholly or partly. Like the above examples. Roads provide no viable business case but we all need them, public schools do not "make" money to support them selves, public hospitals (though there are private ones), the military certainly doesn't. Do you really think we could do all these things without public funding?

Space is a great example of this, it is in the best interest of ALL mankind pursue spaceflight and manned space flight. There are certainly some limited cases where business cases exist, but not by in large. I am not saying the government funded programs are without there problems... nor are any of the examples I listed pristine examples of bureaucratic excellence and might, but they NEED to exist.

I do not support squashing all commercial from existence, that is an idiotic stance. I however do not think you can look a reasonable person in the eye and say that there is no place for a publicly funded industry in these cases and many others I didn't list.

"There is a government airline. Its called the US Air Force."

Again, you could not be more wrong. The US Air Force is NOT the US gov't airline. When NASA, DOE, HHS, or USDA workers need to go to another city, the Air Force does not fly them. It is the US military's airline and yet, commercial airlines are used to deliver hardware and soldiers to and from places.

"So you think we shouldn't have a public school system as well as a private." I never said that. I said there shouldn't be a "separate" program. NASA LEO needs can be met by commercial means, there is no need for a US Gov't managed vehicle.

Also, we are not talking public utilities,services or infrastructure, space is a place. Launch vehicles and spacecraft are not utilities or infrastructure like roads, schools, etc, they are conveyances. Just as the gov't manages airports and the airspace (infrastructure), it can manage/support spaceports and space traffic but it does not need to operate the vehicles that use them.

Why do you still say such a ridiculous thing? The US military uses airlines. All the time. When shuffling troops they give 'em a plane ticket. Every time I go through ATL or any other major airport its full of US troops.

So what specifications exactly? Please expand on your statement.

Bare in mind that we already buy seats on Soyuz and are buying Dragon cargo flights.

" I never said that. I said there shouldn't be a "separate" program. NASA LEO needs can be met by commercial means, there is no need for a US Gov't managed vehicle.

Also, we are not talking public utilities,services or infrastructure, space is a place. Launch vehicles and spacecraft are not utilities or infrastructure like roads, schools, etc, they are conveyances. Just as the gov't manages airports and the airspace (infrastructure), it can manage/support spaceports and space traffic but it does not need to operate the vehicles that use them."

That did not answer the majority of my points, just dodged them. "any reason you give can be easily shot down as a non issue." Not yet you haven't. My point is that Commercial Crew access to LEO is no business model to pay back any investors each quarter expanding market share and shrinking risk exposure, unless that investor is the Govt and the "pay back" is simply LEO access. In that case you are giving up Govt control and oversight and gaining nothing, and arguably getting less of a craft but that's an opinion. I hope, and I think eventually this will happen, that the amazing US and world business class will come up with a reason for LEO to be profitable perhaps even a BEO sortie mission. Like space based power stations or He though that has many holes in the model. "Rich" upper class at many millions a pop is not a business model that will bring every American into space, or cause sweeping changes to the worlds access to space. However there simply isn't a business case for it now. While I wish them the best (yes even Musk though he needs to learn how to handle himself in public a bit better and not insult everyone), they are not ready for that weight on their shoulders. Just like I wouldn't trust a 5 year old to fix a BMW or inline hybrid vehicle, they have potential to become a player but they are not one currently that can support the claims they make.

Back on topic, "NASA LEO needs can be met by commercial means" no they can not in a timely manner barring some amazing breakthrough that I just don't see coming down the pipe. The "man rating" of Dragon isn't a stamp on after market procedure, nor are any of the other leading com-space players. To design to that level of redundancy and human factors (a term you should research) isn't something you just do in 3 years to a vehicle you have designed for carrying hunks of up mass inanimate objects.

"there is no need for a US Gov't managed vehicle"
If you think any gov astronauts are going to ride a craft which hasn't had oversight and "management" from gov safety you are kidding you self, or that the American tax payers (Congress) and by extension NASA will entrust the lives of it's men and woman to something they weren't involved in you are simply mistaken. Take the current ISS senario, if SpaceX failed to deliver something to ISS to service it and cost the 100s of billions by losing the craft do you not think America and the world would be up in arms? If instead you think that private "astronauts" (using the term loosely thus the quotes) are going to be riding private craft taking NASA and it's personnel totally out of the picture that is a totally different argument. If we as a country want to go down that route, I do see the support for that in congress or even from Obama and his "hope" and "game changing" ideas, that is something for a separate discussion.

"Also, we are not talking public utilities,services or infrastructure, space is a place." I would say space is a pulic service, and part of the public infrastructure but lets set that aside for a moment. Space is a place, and an idea, and an ideal for humankind expanding it's influence into the reaches of our current grasp. If tomorrow we discover X or element Y, or even reason Z for commercial to make millions or billions of dollars quarter after quarter without my tax dollars being the source of that year over year growth then that's a future I am glad to see arrive. When it's my tax dollars funding it, I want "our" US experts in manned space flight with 50+ years of experience at the wheel. The label commercial is more of a concept than a reality since the current crafts are designed and built by commercial companies like Lockheed, Boeing, USA, NG, and many others. And yes even the failures are "experience" and lessons learned. While SpaceX is lean and mean now, as well as the other players... if you put the weight of all human space flight on them trust me their processes and SQA (and equivalent DCMA) will bog them down as well. The greatest weakness I see in commercial is there lack of "knowing what they do not know, and asking the questions which they do not know".

@"Me" (and many of the rest of you) I don't and can't know your background in aerospace and manned space flight in general, but from my point of view their promises are as empty as the promises of early VSE of large budgets and greener pastures. We have hammered through for years to pull together the state of the current system, and throwing it away if foolish. Since discussions on this site seems to turn into walled arguments where each side just throws things over the wall and refuses to budge I will make this my last comment on this thread. But to each of you, research and do some looking into the fantasy time-lines, budget forecast, and functional inadequacies of some of these promises for your self.

That's a bit simplistic statement. Yes the military uses scheduled commercial airline service to move individual servicemembers between secure non hostile locations. They even will use chartered civilian aircraft to move whole units between, again secure non hostile destinations. They do not use commercial aircraft to move troops into and out of combat zones. The key in each of the commetcial cases is that the governement takes advantage of and uses capability that already exists and is servicing private markets similar to the governement's needs. That is not yet the case for commercial manned space flight. There is no commercial manned space flight market yet and it's not the governments job to create one. The poltical process is notoriously bad at picking economic winners and losers. If there is a commercial manned space flight market then commercial companies will develop it on their own without governement funding. Once that market and the capability to service it exists then it becomes logical for NASA to purchase flights or seats just like other government agency. Otherwise you are taking the risky position of abandoning your capability on the hope that this market really exists and that companies can exist supporting it.

Whoops typo "I do see the support" should be "I do NOT see the support". Kinda alters the whole meaning of that statement.