NASA Administrator Calls for Space Privatization

According to this story on Wired News, NASA honcho Dan Goldin is now actively encouraging private companies to become more active in space research and exploration. In a speech he gave yesterday at the 8th annual Space Frontier Foundation conference, he is quoted as saying, "A partnership between NASA and the Space Frontier Foundation -- which consists mostly of aerospace companies -- will be the only way to make the new millennium the space millennium." For decades, NASA has seemingly done more to hinder than to help private industry get into space. Maybe this represents a long-overdue about-face. I sure hope so.

Comments

Three things limiting space exploration

[Bryce]

If I had to pick three limiting factors, here's what I'd point to:

Lack of Volume & Scale - Spacecraft today are mostly made in ones and twos. Everyone in the industry knows that the key to reducing costs is through Henry Ford-style Economy of Scale. I've sat through dozens of "cheap spacecraft" seminars that each boiled down to, "...and by doing this umpteen zillion times we'll reduce cost to X".

Unfortunately, the sticking point is not that we need to figure out a clever way of engineering an assembly line (which we pretty much already know really well through the automotive industry) but in figuring out how to greatly increase the demand. Some people speculate that as costs lower, demand will naturally pick up. Maybe, but then you're stuck with the chicken and egg situation of needing to increase demand before the cost savings kick in.

Another problem is that it really isn't possible to design a Model T of spacecraft - each one is slightly different, and has slightly different needs. And with launch costs as high as they are, you really try to maximize the functionality you get from the mass you are allowed. This is the failing of _many_ spacecraft mass production schemes.

Risk Adversity (or, Politics & Regulations) - An incredible amount of money goes into making sure that a satellite will not fail. Most of this is plain old paperwork - tons of it. _Especially_ with expensive spacecraft. The cynic in me observes that this fear is driven less by the desire to avoid astronaut deaths or loss of expensive equipment, than the fear of having your career destroyed when something you're involved in fails - there is an incredible amount of shame associated with being involved in a failed spacecraft (or even a failed _test_!!). And this drives up costs a LOT. Build two, and if the first fails, fix the second and launch it.

Aerospace companies are so frightened about investing in a new piece of hardware, it makes me laugh that Golden expects them to invest in risky new space ventures! He's right, that NASA ain't the one to do it, but neither are the big massive aerospace companies. Way too much adversity to risk. $1B is a lot of money to be risking to a stray meteorite, when you could be putting it into internet IPO's. ;-)

Customization - Unlike cars, one satellite is not just like any other. Each one is custom tailored to meet particular needs.

Surprisingly, software is a major expense of satellite systems. It's very hand crafted. I would hope that some day someone abstracts the software for a spacecraft such that customization could be done via something like a config file, instead of custom low level hand coding.

Now, it seems to me that this need to customize each spacecraft could be addressed by making engineering software that is more dynamic and capable of doing most of the design customization automatically. But development of such software is beyond the ken of most aerospacers. The aerospace industry is still very much in the horse and buggy days when it comes to its design and analysis software. Most of it is in FORTRAN. That which is not, is often in Excel. But programming is considered to be monkey work, and is either given low priority, or inadequately funded (or both.) Smart, computer-literate kids like us end up quitting the aerospace industry and joining a dotcom.

Usually when I bring up the point that computers have gotten very powerful and can do a lot of the work that is currently done by hand, I usually get nothing more helpful than a "When I was your age, we used punch cards! And we liked it." 8-\ *Sigh* _ONE_ day someone will write a powerful, generalized and unified satellite engineering and design program and really clean up in the satellite business.

Anyway, I don't see these problems disappearing any time soon, and no matter how much NASA may wish for commercial companies to forge ahead in space exploration, it ain't gonna happen that easily. My personal opinion is that until a few more markets open up in space, commercial industry ain't going to be pushing us very far.

The next question is: How to build some new markets in space? That's the biggie that everyone is trying to answer. If you're curious of some of the many ideas people have thought of for getting started, check out www.asi.org, an organization founded on the very principles of furthering exploration through commercial means.

Bryce

The Real History

[Baldrson]

I watched Goldin's NASA violate the the intent, if not the letter, of the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 when it launched the Advanced Communication Satellite aboard a shuttle. I then watched it refuse to provide the support due the launch vouchers program that was passed into law in 1992.

See my congressional testimony for some background on this space commercialization legislation.

Both of these laws were drafted, promoted and passed by citizen activists without "old boy network" lobbyists.

As evidenced by his long-term actions as well as his words, Goldin's idea of space commercialization is essentially the national socialist model of "free enterprise": The government works in partnership with elite private companies toward national goals.

There is a better way.

In the early 60's, NASA was prohibited from exactly one space technology: communication satellites.

Commerce has developed in exactly one technology: communication satellites.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that risk management is most properly done without government underwriting since such underwriting is inevitably targeted toward those with the most political clout -- a feature which is negatively correlated with technical ability.

Space Exporation and who should do it

[jd]

Right now, I don't have much good to say about NASA, the way it's run, the attitudes of those who work there, or the quality of work that's done.

NASA, IMHO, has a serious problem. It's employees are too busy focussing on past achievements, they don't have time to do the work they're supposed to be doing.

(This is the view of someone who has worked as a programmer, contracted to NASA.)

Private industry's view of space is the same as it's view of anything else. How to increase profits and reduce costs. Be honest, here! What are the largest genuinely successful, genuinely private projects that have happened in the space industry? About the only one I can remember is Coca Cola's advertising on the side of a rocket. Iridium has been a catastrophic failure, bankrupting one company and nearly taking out all the backers, too. Telecom satellites are OK, and all that (but notoriously unreliable - anyone remember the Great Shutdown, after one satellite failed?) and are hardly space research, these days. (In fact, if you read A.C.Clarke's letter in Wireless World, there wasn't much research TO do, past the 1940's.)

There isn't anything for private industry, in space. Not yet. The costs of launching are too high, the benefits of zero gee and extraplanetary work are far too low, at least from a marketing standpoint. As mentioned before, cheap, throwaway satellites that handle strictly marketable, terrestrial traffic is all they care about and all that there's any money in.

If NASA cuts out it's R&D, which is what it sounds like it's doing, I'll bet that Private Industry won't pick it up. Any R&D now is going to be with the amateurs.

ObPREDICTION TIME: Amateur astronauts, probably from Australia, though possibly the US, will be the first to reach Mars. NASA's planned flight will be cancelled, and the corporate markets won't care.

Proposal for those interested: The ball's been dropped. There is easily enough technical know-how on Slashdot to carry an amateur space program to Mars, or beyond. Who wants to give it a shot?

Space Exploration and Private Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how many people at slashdot read the space newsgroups but this topic (space privitization) has been discussed and debated for the last..umm...since the start of newsgroups on BBS.

I see that one of the biggest misconceptions of privitization is that business, especially big business, is inherently more efficient or effective. The idea is that by making everything private all the problems are going away. Yet evidence shows just because something is a business does not necessarily make it better. Take for example HMO's in the US. Have they made the American health system better? General opinion is no. I recently read an article stating that the cost for an HMO to provide health care is 27% and the cost for a government is 3%. Which is better? The best public health system in the World is the government funded and run UK National Health System. It provides better care for less than the US system costs.

How about an example closer to our hearts, Open Source. How many would of you would agree that much Open Source software is as good if not better than their closed source breathren? Does Microsoft produce better operating systems than the public Open Source developers because it is a business? Business is in a market for one and only one reason, profit. Everything and anything is suborbinate to that reason. To say otherwise is to deceive yourself. The point is that business (or the free market) is not always the best solution. It is not the panacea for all the ills of space exploration and development that so many advocates claim. That is not say that there is not a role for business in space exploration and development. It is just different from what a lot of people see.

Space exploration and development is unlike any recent projects. The scale and complexity relative to the time is immense. The best analog is the travels of the 15th century explorers who, you will remember, were mostly funded by the monarchs of the day. The state so to speak. The risk of the space exploration and development along with the large time before a return on investment is seen does not make it worthwhile for business to invest. It is simply not a sensible investment option.

The first moon base, the mars missions etc. will be carried out by some public organization. These missions offer little or no return on investment and so it is unlikely (if not downright improbable) that any business is going to front the money for no return on investment. The likely aerospace companies are not ones to wear costs if they can avoid it. The US aerospace companies continually jack up the cost of items to the US government instead of wearing the cost increases like any other organization would. Whether the public organization is NASA is not determinable at this stage. Remember, NASA is the United States only and such missions are, politically, better done as an international partnership.

What is the role of business in space? It has already started with the communications satellites. The next area is going to be SSTO RLV (single stage to orbit reusabel launch vehicle). I expect that the revolutionary engine (probably a Rocket Based Combined Cycle Engine, RBCC, for those interested.) will be developed at NASA or some similar public or non business organization. The worst thing for that organization to do would to license that engine technology to a single company will do more damage than good. Competition in the SSTO RLV will do more to advance the general use of space than any other initiative. Once the SSTO RLV market is going next will come space tourism along with the first faltering steps into large scale microgravity manufacturing etc.

The role of business will be to fill niche markets and routine work such as SSTO RLVs. The focus of government and public organizations should be on the programs that open the niche market, leverage techonolgies such as RBCCs (Yes I am a fan of RBCCs for the simple reason that they have the potential to give a 35% payload fraction. For comparison rocket techonoly can only give 10%.), scientific exploration and big missions such as the first lunar base and Mars exploration.

About now some readers are going to be wondering whether I know about the Artemis program. Yes, I do and it is not a business. It is a public organization. Its' goal is the settlement of the moon, not to make a profit. The difference between Artemis and other projects is that it seeks to fund the program through the free market rather than the government. This does not make it a business. It is not trying to make a profit for the company owners. Artemis project seeks the settlment of the moon.

The thurst of this comment has been that business is unsuited to space exploration per se. Business is not going to front up and fund a lunar base or Mars missions. They will only come when it is a sensible invesment option and they can make money from it. They are not going to make money from a lunar base or Mars missions. At the moment space is not a sound investment option for most companies. It will become better once the SSTO RLV market is alive and kicking.

Strangely enough, the companies that are likely to put in the first major funding for big space projects such as a follow on lunar settlement and asteriod minning are going to be the big Japanese companies, the mining companies such as BHP and property development/construction companies. Not the major aerospace companies. These companies are use to large long term investments that take 5 to 10 years before payoff. The aerospace companies do not have that long term view. In other words, don't join an aerospace company if you want to go to space anytime soon. :)


Simon.

P.S. Lunar materials are not economically viable at this stage including He3. He3 fusion has to be proven to work before one can say that can be mined and sold for profit. It is all conjecture.

Headline not quite accurate

[Demona]

A "partnership" between the state and private industry usually (not necessarily in this case) spells facism. In any event, it certainly does not equate to privatization -- as I recall, nation-states have attempted to make it illegal for individuals to "own" anything on this planet, much less elsewhere. Nonetheless, it's a good sign.

"For I know a change has got to come...oh yes it will." (Sam Cook)

Gee, they've done a great job so far...

[Jerenk]

If we look at NASA's recent history, we find a lot of distressing items (the Mars observer being lost comes to mind). The fact that they had all of the shuttles at the Cape when Floyd was about to hit wasn't a great idea (who in the world though to have all of the shuttles in one place...).

HOWEVER, if we look a little farther back, we find the Apollo missions. This is quite possibly the United States's crowning achievement. They reached the moon. No one else has ever done anything like this before or since (from our planet ). What has changed??

I believe that what has changed is that the fire has gone away at NASA. People are treating it as their jobs, not as "I'm so lucky to be here. I'm going to do the best I can." Maybe by taking the space program private would help in this regard. But, I'm not entirely sure. If people really, really truly love space, they will work for any amount of money to be close to their dream. The only thing privatization (which I can't spell) achieves is the fact that they could lure "better" people with their better pools of money. Not sure that that will help at all...

OTOH, if the private companies find people who want to work in space-related fields for about what NASA is paying them, with their high financial resources, they could very well spend more on the actual missions (i.e. state-of-the-art equipment). At the risk of sounding foolish, I think it would be quite cool if NASA would allow sponsors to their missions. You could have the Yahoo! mission (paint the shuttle purple and gold like the cabs). This could be a really cool infusion of cash to help NASA out. =)

IMHO, our government needs to restore funding to NASA so that they can return to their peak. Private industry is shaky in this aspect. A unified space project is the only way to go...

Justin

Re:Gee, they've done a great job so far...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of attitude that has lost funding for NASA in the past, and continues to cost NASA money. The premise is that since NASA hasn't done anything as spectacular as the Apollo missions, that the program is a waste of funding.

The only thing that the Apollo missions accomplished on a practical scale was to demonstrate that the equipment could be built to go to another astronomical body. However, the research that NASA has done since Apollo has benefitted mankind in the form of new medical research, new materials for production and the like. All we got out of the Apollo missions were a bunch of moonrocks, and some equipment that is no longer in use.

I'm in no way deriding the Apollo missions. Yes it was quite an achievement. Humankind set a new distance from home at around 380,000 km. Sure, it helped to prove something. But first and foremost it was a political rivalry that had more to do with beating Russia to the moon than real science (and their reasons for going there were just as shallow as ours). When we accomplished that task, no more Apollo program. Seems like a real dead-end deal to me.

The loss of the Mars Climate Observer is not evidence that NASA is inept at implementing a program, since we don't have a clue if it was lost due to: operator error, poor engineering, or a simple hyper-velocity meteor striking the beast sending it hurling into the surface of the planet.

Despite setbacks, I'm all in favor of the smaller, better, cheaper approach that NASA has been implementing. We've had a real good showing with the Pathfinder mission to Mars. Real Science, and much cheaper than prior missions. Another key thing that NASA has been working on, ISS, is pivotal if we are to have a future in space. The only holdup there is that the Russian space program can't pay the bills and is holding up the project. If they can't get their act together, they really don't deserve to be part of the project as a main partner.

I'm in Huntsville, AL (the TRUE first piece of ISS, the Unity module, was manufactured here), but for political reasons, Zarya (the first Russian module) was called the "first," even though it was launched several months after Unity, and relied heavily on US money. If anything will kill ISS, it will be politics.

I'm all for privatizing NASA if it's feasible. The problem is, that it's not "commercially viable" except for reasons of research, which in and of itself does not generate revenue (and that is what companies are in the business to make). Business is always short-sighted and out to make a quick buck. Business doesn't want to dump millions or perhaps billions of dollars into something that they won't see immediate returns on. That's why privatization of NASA won't work right now. Maybe in the future, but I doubt it will happen very soon. If it did, it would set the space program further back than the recent rash of spending cuts have.

The best solution for NASA at this point is to get a leader in office, like Reagan, who understood the value of space. Also, a restructuring of the program to "trim the fat" probably wouldn't hurt from all the stories I've heard from friends that work at NASA.

My only concern about Space Privatization

[styxlord]

"Where do you want to go today?".

Daniel Golden has been incredible for NASA

[TrevorB]

Daniel Golden has done an incredible job for NASA in the past several years. He's taken a ho hum, shuttle after shuttle launching NASA without much focus, dealt with massive bugestary cuts, and trimmed NASA down (relatively) to a mean, lean space exploration machine. I know it's not quite what we expected when we were growing up, but who has done better? Not Private Business. The Russians stopped sending out interplanetary probes since their failed launch of a Mars probe in (I think) '96.

Can you remember this may active spacecraft ten years ago? (There are ten right now, alright, so I'm counting Voyager 1&2, the greatest missions ever, which are still alive and kicking 7 billion mies away). Half of these active missions are the new "better, faster, cheaper" created under Goldin's regime. Two missions to Mars every two years? The man has this incredible ability to convince the American public that science and space exploration are a good use of American tax dollars...

Goldin's ultimate goal it seems is to build a mega-telescope, most likely a huge interferometer, that could image the surfaces of planets in other solar systems, generating an Apollo 17 like image of an extra-solar Earth like planet to inspire the next generation. Deep Space 3 should be a good first test of space formation flying and interferometry.

Of course, NASA sounds like they're getting more cuts. One of those few instances where I guess you Americans would want Newt Gingrich, who was a big NASA fan himself, back where he was... OK, perhaps the only instance. ;)

At any rate, I hope Goldin gets to keep hold of the helm for a while, or that private industry manages to gain some of the public's interest in space. I don't want to see a return to the late 80's...

Re:The NASA's time is over

[rugger]

Cars were once impractical, so were planes, electricity, running water, computers and basicly everything else you use all the time.

Just because developing a technology may be extremely expensive initally, doesn't mean that it is a worthless technology. Space travel is a very advanced technology that will require a LOT of research and a LOT of money to develop. When computers were first produced, they cost a LOT of money, were impractical (no, a computer that is several tonne is not practical) and weren't very effective.

Also, space travel will provide spill over technologies in other industries as it is developed due to the new way scientists will solve problems. (I admit teflon sucks rocks though!).

It is extremely naive to simply dismiss an entire field of technology because of its expense. The results of this field could be incredible, given the money and resources required.

Oh, and NASA spends much less that the USA defence forces, so i can complain that USA spends 600 billion dollars (last time i checked) a year developing and using technology designed to kill people in a variety of ways, while keeping the technology secret so it cannot be used in other industries.

Incentives

[tekan]

[Hypothetical]

Suppose you are IBM, and one day you are approached by NASA to "participate" in a "people" mission to Mars. Now, participate, in this setting, means commit a large number of resources and money to the project. You're (IBM's) task is to design the workstations, servers, and communication networks. You would undoubtedly use the expertise of 3com or one of the other networking companies to provide that aspect of the project, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you are providing that as well. You spend several million dollars on R&D. You monopolize the time of certain core groups of engineers in your company, taking them away from "profitable" endeavors. You involve the reputation of your company in the project... this is something that is rather "high stakes", since if it fails, everyone will know about (imagine losing some/all of the astronauts due to a malfunction in one of the systems you designed). The mission and people would have no doubt had full insurance coverage before departure, but it is still a large risk for a company to take on (for some, their business is tied intricately to their reputation).

So I wonder, What is the "payoff" for a company like IBM to partner with entities like NASA?

Incentives: I can foresee a time when NASA (the US Government) will sign a contract with a private company guaranteeing them mining, land, mineral, etc rights to a particular chunk of Martian real estate. Now, this opens an interesting and probably contentious debate (if not wars) about who can make those dispersals of "property" that technically no government owns.

IMHO, The real space race might be the huge land-grab of the next century where multinational corporations are in a race to claim as much Martian "property" as they can for future terraforming (mining).

Re:The NASA's time is over

[the eric conspiracy]

What is the point of being a great nation unless you can do things like this? Is all America is about just accumulation of $$$ and driving SUV's up and down the highway? Why shouldn't we be trying for something better than just establishing the biggest consumer society in the history of the planet? What happened to the idea of trying to better yourself? What do you want history to remember our nation as? The nation that invented the fast food hamburger joint, the gas guzzler and television shows like Myt Mother The Car? Or do you want to remembered as the first nation to land on the moon, establish a L5 colony, and solve the problem of escaping the earth's gravity economically.

The fact is that a nation should stand for something, and NASA is one of the few things that the government spends money on that is not just a transfer of wealth from high income to low income people.

Thank god.