Slashdot Mirror
How George W. Bush and NASA Saved SpaceX From Financial Ruin (blastingnews.com)
MarkWhittington quotes a report from Blasting News: Elon Musk and the people at SpaceX are rightly basking in the afterglow of finally landing the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket on a drone barge in the Atlantic. The same flight delivered an expandable module built by Bigelow Aerospace to the International Space Station. But, as Ars Technica points out, the launch, landing, and arrival at the space station would not have taken place had it not been for the generosity of NASA. George W. Bush began the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, which commercialized first cargo and then crew flights to and from the ISS. Four years later, SpaceX, having endured a number of launch failures of its small Falcon 1 rocket, was running out of cash. They were teetering on the brink of financial ruin as they were trying to develop a much larger and more complex Falcon 9 that would compete with more established launch vehicles such as the Atlas 5 and the Delta 4. Then NASA announced the initial contracts for COTS cargo flights. SpaceXâ(TM)s share was $1.6 billion. The NASA contract saved the company and allowed it to press on with building the Falcon 9 and the Dragon and then successfully compete for the Commercial Crew contracts.
somebody had to post it
Doesn't Capitalism always show the right way to do it without that pesky government influence.
NASA awarded a contract and will get full value from it. It wasn't charity.
In the end, if it reduces the cost of lifting payloads to orbit, it will be the government that will be the true beneficiaries.
I didn't think that much of Bush as president, and I think even less of Obama, but I have to admit both of them have done an excellent job with the US space program. We seem to have finally just about reversed a long decline and are set to branch out again.
After 9/11 came and went, George W. signed into a law a $3,000 tax credit for workers to go back to school for job training or a new career. (This was different than an earlier law that Bill Clinton gets credit for.) I was able to go back to school to learn computer programming and earn my technical certifications to leave my dead-end job as a video game tester and start work in the IT field. My entire school bill while taking classes part-time and working full-time over five years was FREE! Today I make more money — and pay more in taxes — than I did as a video game tester prior to the dot com bust. Thanks, George W.!
Doesn't Capitalism always show the right way to do it
Which it did, because eventually the commercial space services are MUCH cheaper and better than NASA.
Remember SpaceX is not the only commercial space company...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We generally referred to COTS as "Commercial Off The Shelf".
In the shuttle and before days since it was the early days of computers and digital communications there was a LOT of custom hardware. Most of our networking was serial, and let me tell there was some weird custom equipment floating around. I got Mil-Spec certified in wire-wrap more than a decade after the spec was cancelled.
This was good equipment when it was created for what they wanted it for. Long story short when the shuttle launched a reel to reel flight recorder seemed like a good idea. By the time it quit flying you could do everything that flight recorder did with an iPod, it would be more reliable, hold more, you could put a triple redundant system in far less space and use less power doing it. Due to government red tape and "certification" programs this sort of thing didn't often happen.
When the shuttle was decommissioned the COTS initiative - as we knew it - really began to take off (my first five years there were still COTS, just lesser). It basically meant if you had a monitor go bad on one of our OS/2 systems (really) with a 15" IBM CRT monitor with a particular part number I could instead use any 15" CRT we happened to have laying around in spares, and if I didn't happen to have anything of the sort I could even use some good judgement (maybe requiring an engineer to approve it maybe not, I would ask a shift sup to be sure) even put an LCD with a VGA port on it. Don't something "radical" like that before COTS as we knew it would have caused a QC guy to have a heart attack, which during his time in the hospital recovering he would drain an entire Sam's-Club sized box of G2 pens in the ways he would write us up.
Often acronyms around there had two meanings, the official public one, and the one the people who wrote it actually meant. There were some humorous ones thrown out there on occasion, some of which had entire program names changed when the right person actually figured out what was intended.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
But only because the commercial companies took all the taxpayer paid research and built on it to create the commercial platforms. Good think the commercial companies don't have to pay that money back via patent royalties.
After the Space Shuttle retired, and with all replacement programs canned by Congress, NASA had no way to get astronauts into space, except by hitching a ride with the Russians, and NASA had no native way to resupply the ISS.
The COTS program has already fixed one of those. NASA now has access to two locally-made spacecraft that can fly on either the entirely-American Falcon 9, or the partially-foreign Antares or Atlas V. This gives pretty robust resiliency - a single accident cannot halt the entire system. (Two back-to-back RUDs can do that, though, as we saw).
The CCD program is getting NASA access to two spacecraft capable of shuttling astronauts to low orbit - one built to fly atop basically any lift rocket that can handle the load. Three other spacecraft are in the program, theoretically able to replace either of the two main CCD craft should they fall too far behind schedule or too far over budget - helping to ensure robust access to space.
Where would NASA be right now without them? Well, they could still loft satellites or probes on the high-price ULA vehicles, but they'd probably have to abandon the ISS. Between only having Russia for crew transfers, and only having Russia, Japan and the ESA for resupply missions, they would not have been able to effectively operate the ISS.
The entire cost of COTS, CRS and CCD combined is $12.3B. For comparison, the Constellation program cost $9B, and produced no flyable launch vehicles or spacecraft before it was canceled. SLS will have cost us $18B by the time it makes its first test flight. Considering the commercial programs* have given us multiple, redundant systems, and included the cost of dozens of missions, while SLS is a single spacecraft for a single rocket that will perform a single flight on its $18B budget, I think we're getting a pretty good deal.
* SLS is technically "commercial" as it is being made by several independent corporations. However, the key difference is that it is not competitive. If Aerojet Rocketdyne cannot produce engines at sufficient quality and quantity, or at a low enough price, NASA has no alternative. Same for the boosters and Orbital ATK, or the upper stage and Boeing, etc.. (The other difference is that the COTS/CRS/CCD program rockets are assembled by the contractor, while SLS will be assembled by NASA, but this is not a particularly meaningful distinction)
From TFA: "The next president, or some in Congress, may begin asking why NASA is spending billions to develop its own heavy-lift rocket when SpaceX already has one."
As I recall, within about a year of taking office, Obama tried to kill the SLS (Nasa's heavy rocket) on this reasoning (that private companies could do the job better, given the chance, and secondarily that the funding NASA was getting for SLS was insufficient to achieve anything in a reasonable time frame) but Congress resurrected it.
Can anyone who has followed this more closely comment on the political history of COTS, and in particular the attitude of Bush and then Obama, and Congress/Senate, to COTS and SLS?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
When it comes right down to it, wasn't NASA created to foster American companies and inspire the next generation of Scientists, Technologists, Engineers and Mathematicians?
Kudos to them believing in SpaceX and I hope that they continue to promote and support other up and coming companies.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
why is there so much political junk on a tech/nerd site?
This is how the entire aerospace/aviation industry has functioned from the beginning. Government pays for R&D and private industry capitalizes on it. Boeing's 747 came from work done to develop the C-5. If you're shocked by this story then you haven't been paying attention for the last fifty years.
I'm a musk fan like most here, and certainly no one sane will doubt that without NASA SpaceX wouldn't exist, but I wonder if SpaceX just went public if they could have avoided "financial ruin".
No. You have an overly idealistic idea of the benefits of going public.
At the time Space-X won the NASA contract, they had blown up three launches in a row, and succeeded in launching exacly once. In the space industry, pretty much nobody would launch a satellite on a booster with that bad a record. (Not quite nobody: Uzbekistan took the risk. Yeah: that was it. Uzbekistan.)
You can't go public with a company that has only one product, and that a product that almost nobody will buy. They were out of money; they couldn't keep launching to get a better launch record because they didn't have the cash. Yes, in this case, NASA really did their bacon.
dog-eat-dog capitalism for the poor...
Come 'on folks. You're never going to get that small gov't you keep dreaming of. The wealthy and powerful won't allow it. So why not take some of that big gov't for yourselves? If there's a tool and it does good work, use it. Yeah, it's a dangerous tool, but so is fire.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So if SpaceX fails, the taxpayer picks up the cost,
...and also SpaceX would have foldded. This was their last chance.
Tax payers aren't the only one holding the burden.
But if SpaceX succeeds, they reap the profits?
As is the government (The whole point of financing projects like SpaceX is the prospect that the developed technology will help cheaper flights)
and thus indirectly the tax payers (Less cost for NASA to be spent on launchers, and thus less costs to be passed to tax payers).
Though, given how NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket compared to all of your government spendings (e.g.: see all the "War on things") I don't think the taxpayers will notice it going either way.
with the billions we invested unlikely to ever be repaid.
In the grand scheme of things, NASA, ESA and all the various other space agencies *need* to advance the research and development of launcher technologies.
As these technologies progress, overall cost of space (including scientific mission, but also telecoms putting sattelites, etc.) will definitely go lower. Also more possibilities will open. (Launching bigger scientific platform which weren't possible before, due to the cost of all the launchers to bring all the pieces in orbit).
And that requires investing money.
Some project will work (and currently, looks like SpaceX will eventually work), some other will fail.
It's not possible to predict with 100% certainty in advance (otherwise, if it was already known to work, it would have been put into production).
But overall all these investment will eventually be worth, once some of the more successful projects brings new technology.
A couple of billion will get lost here and there on failed project, but in the end the overall science will advance.
And again, these billion are dwarfed by the trillion your government is spending elsewhere...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Maybe you like this one better?
How Barack H. Obama and DOE Unsaved Solyndra from Financial Success.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"I now inform you that you are too far from reality."
Nope. He went public on Tesla and Solar City and now hate answering to shareholders.
In addition, he was ready to sell it to the Google boys.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NASA, and esp W, did NOT save SpaceX. Dr. Griffen talked congress into backing COTS, which is what was invested into SpaceX.
Prior to this, SpaceX (and Tesla) was running out of money. But Musk had already made arrangements to sell to the google boys.
So, no, SpaceX (and Tesla) were not headed into financial ruin. However, COTS (and not CRS), allowed Musk to keep HIS %.
Sadly, Whittington is a joke in that he does not understand space, nor really cares. He is a POLITICIAN who is pushing his agenda to help the GOP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'll get upset when he stands on an aircraft carrier with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Whittington gets so many things wrong. In particular, CSR was, and continues to be, a major savings for NASA.
Prior to SpaceX, it would have costs NASA 300M to have the same cargo delivered by ULA.
WIth SpaceX, it brought the price down to 140M.
And shortly, SpaceX will bring the price down further with first stage and dragon re-use.
Regardless, Whittington always attempts to credit ppl like W, when in fact, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with W, and everything with Dr. Griffin.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Whittington is a failed programmer, who then became a failed author, who then became a failed journalist, but is now, a political hack for the GOP. The guy is all over the place without a single bit of logic in his writing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You're crediting George W Bush with wise and foresighted... government spending? We don't need George W Bush to demonstrate the utility of government spending in spurring innovation that the private sector wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Kennedy did that in the 60s.
Both parties believe in welfare, they only differ on who should get the dough; poor people on one side, and corporations on the other.
Poor people voting for democrats make sense. Poor people voting for republicans are just idiots
Actually, it's poor people AND corporations on one side, ONLY corporations on the other.
Giving away someone else's money is not charity. It is theft.
The government prints the money, so it is ALL theirs.
"Space" is nothing but corporate welfare.
I thought it was "quantum foam"?
The difference is that Bush isn't claiming credit, people are crediting him.
... it's about getting the job done.
In that regard I think we can put the merit squarley in Space Xs' ballpark.
Same goes for Tesla. No matter now many billions of public funding go into it, they acutally have a few car models to show around and have achieved something yet unseen: Making electic cars sexy. Say what you want - Musk has pulled some stunts that others would've put in the domain of science fiction just a decade ago and so far he's come out on top. If it's all publicly funded, that's absolutely fine by me. He and his crew get the job done. Give him all the billions he needs is my call.
As for overpriced publicly funded projects that smack against the wall head on due to some irresponsible abysmal stupidity and lack of accountability - we still have plenty of those to bicker about.
My 0.02 Euros.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What do you call the myriad forms of welfare if not bailouts?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," in case someone isn't familiar with the reference.
All in all, his presidency was probably the worst in recent history, but IMO his policy on space was exemplary. He set some inspiring goals for NASA, he saved SpaceX (which wasn't an old, establishment defense contractor), and he cancelled the shuttle program (which was tremendously costly, extremely dangerous, and tethering us to low earth orbit). I think he deserves some credit for setting NASA in the right direction.
I'm an average Joe, where's this welfare you say I am getting?
Remind yourself of that next time you use GPS or something like Google Earth.
No, no you're not. Why are you going to lie to me? You could have just been honest and asked for more information. Your dishonest is not a requirement.
Things like unemployment (that you do not pay for, directly), welfare of many types, SSDI (not to be mistaken for SSI), scholarships, reduced tuition, adjusted rates for medical care if you visit the financial office - and don't tell me it doesn't exist, I've driven people to their appointments and helped them fill out the paperwork. They have a five dollar co-pay and only pay 10% which is still further reduced by income, at the local hospital network.
There are EITC, there are mortgage deductions, there are schools and a lot of things that are giving at low/no cost in schools for parents who qualify.
So, that's what you'd be able to get if you were eligible to get them. You're probably getting some of them, like the ability to write off your mortgage. See, Average Joe is in the lower 50% and doesn't actually pay shit for taxes. And that's good - they probably shouldn't. The welfare goes both ways and to deny it is stupid. You can be stupid, you're allowed. We can fix stupid, we can teach you. What we can't fix is willful ignorance.
Which path you select is entirely up to you. Given that you began with a lie, I'm pretty sure you're not going to choose wisely. That's unfortunate.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Actually it's well known from historical data that after the initial teething issues in a launcher are fixed the subsequent flights can easily achieve a reliability rate of 80-90%. Once you have a successful two launches in a row your risk is quite low. Assuming the launch company is competent at change management. Which is the case.
Average is at 50% not below so probably from 40-60 for a fairly representative range.
You have an awfully broad definition of welfare if you include mortgage deductions and free primary/secondary school.
By your definition I get welfare in the form of a mortgage deduction and none of the rest unless you include the benefits that I earned for 25 years as a member of the US military.
Self-employed so I do not qualify for unemployment benefits, SSDI not a chance, need-based scholarships and adjusted rates for medical, not a chance.
Last year I made enough to fall at the 60% mark and damn well paid income taxes.
Don't fucking attack my honesty if you have no clue about who I am. You are the dishonest one that is unwilling to admin that the minimal socialist policies that have been a part of the country since the founding might just have helped you to the position you are in.
FYI, the US military is the largest socialist organization we have, Collective protection of US interests and all. You pay taxes and expect us to defend you, socialism at it's finest.
George W. Bush started following the law George H. W. Bush signed when he was president: PL101-611, the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990.
That act required NASA to procure commercial launch services.
I say "started" because shortly after my subsequent congressional testimony on the importance of commercial incentives, I was working at Cape Canaveral on commercializing the MX missile as a launch vehicle when everyone in our firm received "VIP" seats to watch NASA launch a satellite. NASA continued to all-but-ignore the law. When I contacted Senator Gore's chief of staff of the Senate Science Committee to request Congressional oversight of the law, he informed me that our grassroots coalition simply did not possess the "power" required to see the law enforced. That is quite seriously no exaggeration of what he said. Since I had been working at SAIC on technologies that, let's just say, had a good deal of "power" I decided to drop out of politics lest I start thinking about exactly how much "power" I had. Ron Paul's 2007 campaign was the next time participated in politics.
There is a good deal more to this history, but since Google has decided they can't be bothered to make their search engine work in the unique case of Usenet archives, it is going to take some doing for people to find it. For those who can figure out how to make it work I suggest looking at the sci.space and sci.space.policy archives starting around the time that the L5 Society merged with the National Space Society.
Seastead this.
I'd like to see the analysis showing that. What the record mostly shows is that if a vehicle has failed before, it's likely to fail again.
The other thing the record showed was that (up until then) every single private space company building new launch vehicles went bankrupt. Every one.
In any case, though, it's irrelevant. Even if you say that investors shouldn't have been scared, nevertheless, investors were not about to invest major dollars in a company with a record of three failures and one success, and almost no customers. Investors are funny that way.
In retrospect, it would have been a good thing to buy a share of. But lots of things look good in the rear-view mirror.
You're fucking retarded. I'm about as socialist as they come. The *average* kid gets free lunch at school, and breakfast sometimes. The average person pays less than their share of taxes. The average person gets to write down their mortgage. The list goes on.
That's a good thing, Spaz.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."