I promised a 2nd part to a small mini-series, in preparation for the release of the Review of Human Space Flight Plans committee report, which is expected to happen very soon.
There are those who say that space commercialization is nothing more then developing luxary spaceliners for the super rich. The reality is very different, and is very much in line with liberal philosphy.
I hope everyone read the great interview from this morning with Richard Garriott. There are those who think that helping space commercialization is nothing more than subsidizing a single (or very few) companies, so they can fly wealthy tourists into space much cheaper. In fact the reality is quite different.
Let me start by defining the reality as we speak - right now, there is a potential market for getting humans to LEO (one of these markets is tourism, but it is by no means the only one). Right now though, this market it largely untapped and untested.
In addition, there is the market NASA creates, by utilizing contractors for Shuttle, and utilizing those same contractors for Orion, and Constellation. I believe the number is around 80% of the work is done by big Aerospace contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the like), and only a small amount is done by NASA. All of these contracts are of the traditional cost-plus contracts ie overruns are expected, the companies make a profit no matter the amounts of overruns, or delays. And everyone here is aware of the problems of a cost-plus contract.
And a big need that NASA has is getting astronauts to Earth orbit. Which brings us to the big point - why not merge these to markets together? And do so in a fashion that encourages growth of the industry, lowers the price of getting to orbit, and has a better return in getting results?
The key in all of this is insuring that getting NASA to embrace slightly different contracting proceedures, at least for stuff that is, relatively speaking, easier (which getting to Earth orbit should be after 40+ years of doing it). These include some very simple things:
- Fixed Price contracts - the amount of money NASA pays to a commercial company will never increase beyond what is originally set forth in the contract - if the contract says $10 million dollars, NASA will only pay that - any cost overruns will come out of the companies pocket
- Payment for results - If the company providing the hardware or service doesn't deliver, they don't get paid & lose the contract
- Service contract - long term, going to earth orbit should be like going from New York to L.A. - you buy your ticket on an airplane/high speed rail, and get on and go - you don't worry about maintaining the train or the plane.
NASA already has some experience with this - the COTS program, and in fact, there was one company that failed to delivery, and they lost the contract. There are other areas like this that we can do as well, but the most important one is helping in the creation of the earth to LEO market. This will provide an on-ramp for other people to utilize this new industry, earth to LEO human transportation, like Bigelow Aerospace.
I want to be clear on something - I have no intention of praying at the alter of Zombie Reagan - I don't view markets as the end all of existence. But markets and commercialization are powerful tools - we are embracing them for green technologies, and there are good reasons to embrace them for space development.
To paraphrase a quote from NASA's new Administrator "We can't fund NASA enough to do everything we want it to do"
Good government, and space development are part of the liberal philosophy. And it will allow NASA to go further into space.