Narrowing the Space Flight Gap

MarkWhittington writes with an article on the AssociatedContent site, discussing the impending US space flight gap. Between 2010 (the end of the shuttle era) and 2015 (expected date for the launch of the Orion project) the United States will have little or no spaceflight capability. This is an obvious concern to some members of Congress and NASA. "Is all, therefore, doom and gloom? Not necessarily. Just over a year ago, NASA chose two companies for its Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program ... The goal of COTS was for the two companies to build prototype space craft capable of delivering crews and cargo to the International Space Station. A second phase of the COTS program would consist of a competition for a contract to actually deliver crews and cargo to ISS after 2010 ... Private industry may well come to the rescue and preserve American access to space, at least until Orion becomes operational."

Comments

I just know this is gonna kill my karma...

[JK_the_Slacker]

Try 1: In Soviet Russia, the government bails out private industry!

Try 2: I for one welcome our new private sector spacefaring overlords!

Try 3 Yes, it can exit the atmosphere, but can it run Linux?

Try 4: 2010: Google puts up a spacecraft before Microsoft. Chair sales skyrocket (as do some of the chairs).

There, that should cover it.

Re:I just know this is gonna kill my karma...

[tcolberg]

The ban would not be permanent, but merely limited to the 2008 fiscal year. The point is not to keep NASA from Mars, but to force additional funding for what is currently an unfunded mandate. In 2004, when Bush announced his new space goals, NASA's budget was $15.5 billion. In 2007, the budget was only $16.3 billion. Adjusted for inflation, NASA's budget has been DECREASING despite having a mandate to undertake a new era of spaceflight. The Bush administration needs to work with Congress to dramatically increase NASA's funding levels.

With this temporary ban on manned Mars exploration, it can be interpreted that the Congress wants NASA to maintain its current scientific missions, including robotics, without cannibalizing them in order to pay for development of the manned Mars mission.

COTS is the problem.

[Remus Shepherd]

I work in the space industry, on the Landsat satellite program.

There's a law that we must have an operating Landsat satellite -- it's that important to geology, agriculture, urban planning, etc. Landsats 1-7 were all specified and built by the government or its contractors.

In the early 2000s it came time to build Landsat 8 (known as LDCM, because nobody likes the abbreviation 'L8'). The government directive was to use the COTS program: Buy data from an existing commercial satellite, or get a commercial company to build and operate it for profit, with the government its preferred customer.

But there are no satellites that create the precise kind of data that Landsat needs. And when companies measured the profit potential of building the right kind of satellite, they walked away. If I recall the COTS LDCM request for proposal got zero bidders.

The government has finally given up on its free market fever and allowed LDCM to be a non-COTS system. Meanwhile, because we dicked around trying to shoehorn a government project into a commercial venture, we're going to be 4-8 years late in launching the next Landsat satellite. Assuming budgetary problems don't kill the entire 30+ year program.

COTS, and the recent governmental zeal to make everything part of the free market, is what has crippled and bankrupted the US space program. Some things are just better if done by governments, and at this point in history spaceflight is one of those things.

Re:COTS is the problem.

[R2.0]

I work for a Very Large Charitable Organization, and a number of years ago we wrote a software application in house - it worked OK, but never really well. When it came time to replace it, the word came down - WE SHALL USE COTS! One little problem - our real world application is literally one-of-a-kind. NO ONE made a commercial version of our software that did what we needed it to do. But since the directive was COTS only, we bought the next best thing, and are now having the vendor modify it (so much for the OTS part). Now it's late, over budget, still doesn't work, and we are seriously considering just throwing the whole thing away and hiring the developers to write In House 2.0.

COTS is to avoid $600 toilet seats, not things which are nearly unique.

Re:Oh noes!!1!

[GodfatherofSoul]

Thank you for your Libertarian, "drown government in a bath tub" input, Mr. Norquist. Developing the infrastructure and knowledge to explore the universe is such as waste of time. By the way, Grover. I would have loved to have heard your fiscal conservative input while your party was generating $2 trillion dollars in debt for a bogus war and handouts to friendly corporations like Halliburton, even after they'd been busted screwing the government out of "hundreds of millions of dollars." But, I suppose we need to focus on the money wasted by scientists, bridges to nowhere, and all the welfare crack moms that are the real cause of our excessive governmetn spending.

Yet again, I'll advocate for these...

[Dr. Manhattan]

...even though no one will have the guts to actually build 'em: the nuclear liberty ship.

Will lift a thousand tons to orbit in a reusable and totally non-polluting craft. (Yup, the exhaust isn't radioactive at all.) But it's "nucular", and therefore terrible. Even though we could finally launch a bunch of solar powersats and turn the U.S. into a net energy exporter...

Who would have thought?

[Brass Cannon]

What would you have thought in 1969 (had you been alive) when Armstrong landed on the moon, if someone asked you where the US space program would be in 2007?

Colonies on the Moon? Sure.
Humans on Mars? Check.
Remote exploration of the outer planets? Probably.

The US unable to launch a manned mission into orbit? Absolutely not.

But here we are. Armstrong will most likely be dead before we go back to the Moon.

What a terrible shame.

Re:Monopoly?

[WindBourne]

1. Spacex.
2. Spacedev.
3. T/Space.
4. Armadillo.
5. New Shepard (hmmm, actually, that is the craft itself).
6. Space Horizon.
7. Scaled Compostites/Northrup (with sales to Virgin).

And that is just a few of the players.