The Laughing Wolf

The “New” Space Initiative

While there is still not a lot of detail, I have reviewed the documents available online at the White House, including the speech given today. There are not a lot of surprises here, so let’s get down to it.

The model remains Apollo and government, which is not a surprise. Everything so far focuses on government leadership, government accomplishment, and government control. There is absolutely no mention of private enterprise, commercial interest in space, or even NASA’s own legal obligations to commercialize space to the fullest extent possible (see NASA Charter and the various Commercial Space Acts). This is a NASA vision, and not an American space vision that was announced.

Point 1: ISS. The goal is to complete all obligations to the ISS and the international partners by 2010. This is to free up budget resources and to get out from under a project that has busted every budget projection. I rather suspect that if it could be shelved, it would, but the current international agreements are binding. The President has had a special place in his heart for the ISS and its management ever since he was stuck with a check that was some 48 billion more than he had been told. There is also the fact that the ISS can’t do what was promised, will most likely continue to go over budget, and will continue to be a problem for NASA. If we can finish up our obligations, then we can claim success and walk away.

Point 1A: Shuttle. The goal is to return it to flight as a stopgap until something better can be created. Not a bad idea at all, though the proposed plan leads to

Point 2: Crew Exploration Vehicle. The new vehicle is supposed to be able to go from the Earth to the ISS, and from Earth orbit to the moon and beyond. The problem is, making a one-size-fits-all vehicle like this means that it will be a large and expensive project that will do none of its several jobs well. That is almost precisely how we ended up with the current shuttle, with all of its expense and problems. There is also the fact that NASA has yet to successfully design and test any advanced transportation system since the Shuttle. There are lots of neat presentations, lots of documentation, and a bunch of delaminated fuel tanks that never worked. In other words, no successfully bent metal, and very little bent metal period.

Point 3: Return to the Moon. This is a worthy goal, and NASA has plenty of time to achieve it. The President is correct when he sites the resources and advantages of a presence on the moon, even though he is not pointing out anything that Robert Heinlein and others didn’t point out 50 or so years ago.

I’m not going to go into the sub-bullets here, but they are worth reading. They actually do make sense for a government-focused operation, and even have some relevance outside of government.

To the surprise of some, I am going to come out and say that I like the proposal. It is reasonable for a governmental program; it will facilitate the re-organization and re-focusing of NASA; it shows far more fiscal soundness that I have come to expect from this Administration, with a workable and realistic budget plan; and, most of all, it ignores free enterprise.

That’s right, I am happy it ignores free enterprise. The fact is, that NASA has never been comfortable with its obligations to commercialize space, and in fact has done a great deal to impede such efforts. Talk, off the record, to almost any scientist or major manager at NASA HQ (or even the field centers) and you will find commercial and commercialization to be very dirty words, unless of course they can find some way to get a cut. Had the President’s plan forced NASA to work with private industry and private space efforts, I am willing to guarantee that it would have proved a major impediment to such activities.

Take a close look at the timeline too: There is lots of time. It is a government timeline, and one that private enterprise should be able to run rings around – at least for low Earth orbit activities. Take a look at the timelines for NASA efforts to develop new launch vehicles, then go take a look at the proposed timelines for companies such as Scaled Composites and XCOR. Heck, take a look at any of the X-Prize contenders and compare.

Let’s expand it a bit as well. Go take a look at Luna Corp and similar companies, and their timelines. Look at what they need to get their robotic explorers and exploiters to the moon. Then look at what NASA needs.

You know, the President is not nearly as stupid as his critics try to portray him to be. In fact, he has been pretty shrewd and smart on many major issues. He may not be the best spoken person around, but he is not stupid. Do you think that he may have had some method to his madness here? For what if private industry does create and provide launch services? What if they do send probes on to the moon? Do you think that maybe NASA might, by dint of budget and language, be encouraged to make use of it? It is an intriguing possibility, since the actual language and such is not yet fully available, or perhaps even fully worked out.

Even if not, the timeline and scope provide ample opportunity for private space enterprise to prove its claims. The President has made his announcement and hit the button of his obligation here. He has honored the ideal that was NASA, and provided a cover to try to re-organize and re-focus the agency. In so doing, he has also effectively issued a challenge to the private sector: do it better and do it faster.

For if industry can, then there is the possibility of NASA having to use those services. If not, then the government can proceed on down the same tired path.

I had no realistic hope of a truly visionary plan that would make use of the engine of private enterprise, nor was I surprised. I had a number of concerns that this plan would or could cripple private space efforts, and I am pleased (and a bit surprised) that it did not do so from the start.

All in all, I like this plan because while it breaks no new ground, it does not appear to place limits on non-governmental possibilities. I can live with a tired re-hash of the past, provided that it does not prevent others from creating a brighter future.

-30-