NASA Does a U-Turn, Opens To Private Industry

mattnyc99 writes "Popular Mechanics is reporting that NASA — faced with the looming retirement of the space shuttle, and planning for longer missions like the one to Mars we've been discussing — is looking to free up its budget and depend a lot more on private space startups to carry key payloads into orbit in the next few years. For an agency so steeped in bureaucracy, it seems like everyone from NASA chief Mike Griffin to contracted officials to the key players in this in-depth podcast roundtable is finally acknowledging that commercial rocketeering (space tourists aside) is a more efficient means of getting back into space for NASA. Quoting: 'Because of a new focus for NASA's strategic investments — not to mention incentives like the Ansari X Prize, which spurred the space-tourism business, and the Google Lunar X Prize, which could do the same for payloads — private-sector spaceships could be ready for government service soon, says Sam Scimemi, who heads NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. "The industry has grown up," he tells PM. "It used to be that only NASA or the Air Force could do such things."'"

Comments

Ahh...Popular Mechanics

[iamlucky13]

Only 2 years late on this story. *sigh* I remember when I could read Popular Mechanics and learn new things.

The most recent detail in that article dates back to three months ago when NASA re-awarded to Orbital Sciences the funds that Rocketplane Kistler forfeited when they failed to meet their milestones.

Also, it's not like NASA has been closed to private industry before. The true story of the Fisher space pen is a small, but great example. NASA just doesn't typically provide open-ended opportunities like this, much less with discretionary development funding.

Give em a go

[Fluffeh]

Lets not be too negative. At least it's turning in the right direction. They might not really be walking down that path yet as we all hope they do, but getting them to look to the right direction is something better than nothing.

Oh No!! Not NASA!!

[linesma]

It was bound to happen, it had been brewing since the draw down of the Clinton years, and they are finally admitting it, NASA is mainly a non-government organization. Just like the military, which has yet to truly admit it (but they have in a way), things are mostly done by outside contractors or civilian employees making more than they could if they worked for the military doing the same job. Or tax dollars at work!!

Re:Oh No!! Not NASA!!

[wasted]

Just like the military, which has yet to truly admit it (but they have in a way), things are mostly done by outside contractors or civilian employees making more than they could if they worked for the military doing the same job. Our tax dollars at work!!

Although the individual contractors make more than they would if they were in the military, the contracts I am familiar with usually end up saving the military money. It usually takes significantly fewer contractors, (since contractors don't have as many bureaucratic layers and don't need to be temporarily absent to attend training, take medical leave, attend command meetings, or touchy-feely workshops,) and don't have many of the non-salary costs of the military (such as transfers, schools, support personnel, etc.).

If the military's hiring contractors saves money and frees military personnel from mundane, unrewarding, and/or unchallenging jobs, I'm all for it, even if the individual contractors cost more on a per-person basis. On the other hand, if the military is spending more money on contractors than it would spend by using military personnel, it is a waste of tax dollars, and if I recall correctly, part of a US Military officer's duty is to ensure that tax dollars are not wasted, and if tax dollars are being wasted, someone is not doing their job. (I forget the exact wording requiring officers to be vigilant of costs; someone who knows will probably respond and correct me.)

Re:People Seem To Be Unaware

[timeOday]

First paragraph:

For decades, NASA kept a tight fist around the construction and operation of the spacecraft that ferried its astronauts and hardware into orbit. Sure, an army of private contractors actually built the vehicles, but NASA oversaw the designs--and always kept the pink slips. Now, however, the agency seems to be shifting course, as NASA officials insist that the budding commercial spacecraft fleet represents the only way the United States can realize its dreams of solar-system conquest on schedule and at an affordable cost.

NASA not owning the successor to the shuttle does seem like a significant change to me.

Annoying

[Migraineman]

It used to be that only NASA or the Air Force could do such things.

WtF? It used to be that NASA and the Air Force had a strangle-hold on spaceflight. They were the only ones who could do such things. Ugh, this annoys the crap out of me.

The Shuttle was a huge program when it was first considered. Congress mandated it's use to justify the expenditure. The Air Force levied horrible constraints against development, turning it into the mediocre performer it is today. The Congressional mandate effectively stopped any substantial commercial spaceflight development until pretty recently.

I've flown a payload on the Shuttle (STS-116.) Lemme say that the oversight for flying on a manned launch vehicle was enormous. That's a completely unnecessary burden for most launches. The single-use unmanned boosters are a much more effective method for putting everything but people into orbit.

The US space program is 20-30 years behind where it should be. I can't stand when folks think it's a wonderful thing that the bureaucrats are finally getting a clue. We should be completely furious that it's taken this long.

Re:Annoying

[Migraineman]

I definitely think that the programmatic split is the right thing to do. There is no reason to send a flight crew up with every single launch. The Shuttle's original mission objectives had a much more hands-on expectation. That has turned out to be inaccurate.

The Shuttle is an impressive piece of hardware, but it's payload capacity is a huge step backward from that of the Saturn series. The Saturn V (which happens to be man-rated as well,) could loft 118,000kg into LEO. You'll need four or five Shuttle trips to move the equivalent mass, assuming your payload can be neatly sectioned into quarters and reassembled on-orbit. There's an enormous payload penalty imposed on the Shuttle - life support systems, avionics, wings, re-usable engines - all contributing in a negative manner to the payload capacity.

I haven't been following the recent Ares developments. I got tired of watching the Shuttle program participants trying to lobby their respective programs into the Ares plans. The space program is as much a political entity as it is a technical one. That alone will guarantee that it won't be anywhere near an optimal [technical] solution. As long as the politicians hold the purse strings, we're going to get more of the same.

Re:private...bureaucracy...efficient..private sect

[JonBuck]

There's one very good reason why private industry hasn't put people in orbit yet.

There's no profit in it.

Oh, there's profit in commercial satellites. We have thousands of them orbiting. But to actually put people in orbit is still a money-losing proposition. Although that might change in the medium term.

Ever heard of Bigelow Aerospace?

Governments may lead the way, but it's private citizens who really make changes. It's been like that for centuries, from Columbus, to Lewis and Clark, to Alan Shepherd. It was often a century or more before settlers followed explorers into the New World, and space may follow that example. But in order to get any real movement, there has to be something else: Profit.

Re:private...bureaucracy...efficient..private sect

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Columbus funded by the Queen? Isn't that equivalent to today's government? Also, Columbus didn't make "great" changes...he began exploiting and enslaving the native Indian population. (Read his own journals)

Your notion that profit is the motivation needed for "real movement" is laughable...and patently incorrect if history is at all relevant.

To name a few examples, the state has been responsible for the "big ideas" behind electronics (and hence computers), the Internet, biotechnology, space travel/exploration, etc... The list is very long and quite impressive. The fact that a number of private individuals and companies have been able to piggy back off of this collective work and enrich themselves is actually quite disgraceful.