The Laughing Wolf

Talking At Cross Terms

In recent discussions with Rand and others, both on and offline, there have been some difficulties, namely we appeared to be talking past one another. When this happens, there is usually a very simple reason for it, and that is the case here. We are using similar terminology for some issues, but with very different meanings. The fact is, this is true in a much larger sense and with a much broader audience, so it behooves us all to deal with what we truly mean when we talk about something.

Much of the problem, as with many problems involving space, lies at NASA. Within that agency, there are two schools of thought with one being dominant. There is the minor school that holds with the idea that industry should select and do (and fund) commercial research designed to investigate the feasibility of space and microgravity for a variety of purposes. Then there is the larger school, which holds that they have developed or have designed some nifty something, and that industry should now fund it or pay NASA loads of money for developing, marketing, and actually doing the work. This is the same group that put forward the proposition that industry would be willing to throw money at NASA and the ISS for the sheer adventure, money that NASA could then do with what it wanted since industry would, of course, expect nothing in return. This is the same group that wanted companies to sponsor ISS racks, and was amazed that companies were not willing to do this if they could not have their logos on the sponsored hardware or have the sponsored rack referred to as the __________ Rack.

For many years, this larger group has put forth a variety of items as precursors for space manufacturing, or that were presented as true leaps in space commercialization. If you go back and look at them, most of them were NASA-developed hardware or ideas that industry was brought in on well after development. In short, it was a glorified spin-off operation rather than a true commercial development.

Adding to this was the deliberate downplay by NASA of true commercial research being done. It was not promoted, and sometimes was even presented as NASA research. A long-standing effort on my part was to break NASA PAO of the habit of stating “NASA did X” in regards commercial research. No, NASA did not do X. Company Y, (most often) in partnership with Commercial Space Center Z did X, with the assistance of NASA. There is a heck of a difference there.

It also does not help that NASA is incredibly risk averse. Anything that can be labled a “failure” is something to be buried and forgotten. A story or brochure that raised Dan’s ire was to be burned and buried, and an experiment or investigation that was not a complete success? Much the same, alas.

As for the “stand back, they are going to throw money at us” grandiose ideal as presented by the two Dan(s), well… As far as I can tell, NASA got zero dollars and nothing else out of those operations. Yet, they were billed as the epitome of space commercialization that would unlock the doors. Yeah, right.

The string of failures is bad enough, but worse yet is the poisoning of the terms that has occurred as a result. People, including a number of experts, have accepted the use of the terms space manufacturing and space commercialization for these efforts even though they are nothing of the sort. The net result is that you have “proof” that space manufacturing and space commercialization, or any specific segment of same, don’t work.

Bull.

The fact is, we really don’t know all that much about any area – with a couple of exceptions. The fact is and remains that research by industry for industry has a miniscule amount of research time in place. In fact, it is just enough time to develop good questions and determine how to proceed with investigations, rather than to make any form of judgment.

On the ground, if often takes months or years of research simply to identify which way to go with a given research project. Computer simulations and other operations can help shorten it, but the usual result of early experimentation is a lot more questions rather than pat answers.

The amount of time spent on true commercial research in space is measured in weeks, not months and years. There are some extremely promising areas, but very little has been proven from an economic or research viewpoint. We are still very much in the early idea stage, but as I have stated repeatedly, I also think that it is a stage where money can be made when regular, low-cost space access becomes available. The Shuttle ain’t it. The Big Dumb Boosters of Bomart ain’t it. Russian rockets ain’t it.

The real hope for exploring all the areas of potential research, development, and manufacturing lies in real access to space. It needs someone to win the X-prize, and it needs several competing services. Then, not only can research into the real opportunities for space commerce and manufacturing take off, the rest of us can as well.

Forget the “accepted” definitions of space manufacturing and space commercialization as espoused by NASA and others. Take back the terms and apply them as they were meant to be applied.

-30-