The Laughing Wolf

Semi-Live Coverage Of The Space Commission

This is an experiment, so bear with me as I attempt to semi-live blog part of the afternoon session from The President’s Commission On Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy. I had wanted to attend, then things came up where I could not, then things changed yet again and I am here. The getting here was interesting at times and tedious, but I will be here for what I consider some key presentations on space commercialization.

It is an interesting experience getting in, as airport-style security has been set-up and I had to go back to the car and deposit my pocket knife before entering. Started to ask about the nail clippers, but decided not to push it. The site is interesting in that there are no publicly available drink or food machines, and only some people have access to bottled water and the like. Some are indeed more equal than others.

While I did not make it in time for all the sessions, I was here in time to here some of Buzz Aldrin’s comments. Buzz is, as ever, enthusiastic and made some good points. While I disagree with his focus on some things, he does bring up a number of interesting factors.

This is also a technology experiment for me. I had hoped to use Wi-Fi, but there is none in this building, or none that we can access at least. However, we do have Ethernet provided and I cheerfully making use of it. My trusty Nikon digital is here, along with a new multi-media card reader. If all goes well, I will try to post a picture or two this afternoon.

Things should start back momentarily, so stay tuned

1315 Hours: Mr. Michael E. Kearny, President and CEO of Spacehab is the first speaker. Things are running a bit behind, so let’s list some of the Players:

Chariman: Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr.
Gen. Lester L. Lyles (Ret.)
Dr. Laurie Leshin
Michael P. Jackson
Carly Fiorina
Dr. Paul Spudis
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Robert S. Walker
Dr. Maria T. Zuber
Steven G. Schmitt

The panel of interest to me is Commercial Space & Economic Feasibility. It will feature Mr. Kearny; Mr. Marco H. Caceres, Senior Analyst & Director Space, The Teal Group; Mr. Stephen Fleming, General Partner, EGL Ventures.

1323 Hours: Kearny: things have been challenging, but… Multiple contracts with NASA for Spacehab module and unpressurized pallets. Buy back un-used resources from NASA from own funds, sell to users. Contract has been good for NASA, but problematic as well. NASA not used to this type of contract, not normal way of government doing business. While all held to high ethical standards, not really working out as well. Discussions of different markets: Government launch and infrastructure vs. a typical robust market – in current market model, government is a limiting factor. Using commercial launch and infrastructure would benefit NASA and other customers. Six companies currently offer ability to take cargo to ISS at fixed price; government can go to fixed price contracts and get cargo to ISS in six months if they so choose. NASA should solicit bids for commercial services.

1330 Hours: Caceres: Analyst, determine what is real and what is not. Was skeptic on President’s proposal, but willing to be convinced. Thought it was a stunt, given lack of cost and other information. Gave benefit of the doubt to it, because we need more launch services, we want more launches, satellites, etc., We want our companies to make lots of money, benefit economy. No matter how much a long shot something seems, we include it in our forecasts, until proven otherwise. Examples include Teledesic, Iridium, etc. Yet, even with a system the size and complexity of Teledesic, people were hopeful and it was given the benefit of the doubt, all wanted it to succeed, general consensus was to see how Iridium went before getting excited about Teledesic. As things progressed, began to include in forecasts. Ultimately, Teledesic went nowhere; but, we took it seriously even when not included because we could see it being successful. More on timelines, noting all including ISS were within 10 years. Problem holding attention and approval for anything over 10 years. Industry tends to look at things 5-10 years out. World-wide mission model is a 10 year model. Anything over 10 is data, but not considered real. Chances are that anything over 10 will not be implemented as originally planned. Kennedy speech brought up, with 10 year goal. (seems to be writ in stone). Kennedy vision short-term, not long-term; would not have had same impact if stretched out. Average person can’t or won’t see that far out. Just 8 years to meet Kennedy’s challenge. Reagan challenge similar, but underestimated costs and delays and budgetary problems. ISS (NASA) came across as a program trying to stay alive at any cost, rather than a realistic program with high goals. Unique construction project, no more. Good for contractors, jobs, and politicians. Has not caught imagination of public. Suffered from space no longer being new, no cold-war race with Soviets. Somewhere along the way, public lost interest. Teledesic suffered similar fate.

1340: Caceres: ISS gives a good model of how NOT to do things. Current vision must move faster, better, etc. If keep linking moon and Mars, it will result in information overload to public, loss of interest, etc. De-link the two efforts, or see both go down.

1345: Fleming: Spaceflight has been government monopoly for 40 years, Wall Street has never invested. Quick history lesson. National Railroad Program in the 1870s would have been doomed to failure: Automobile program, same; National Airplane Program, same; so why did we end up with a National Space Program in the 60s? What happened? Private industry never really engaged, still no privately funded space flight, compare with Kitty Hawk. Said the four most dangerous words in the English Language “It’s different this time.” Dissection of Kennedy speech. Flags and footprints make a lousy business plan. Went to moon to early, never went back. Shuttle not profitable, ISS same, no real interest from industry in investing. Wandering in desert of government monopoly. We can afford this, but what can we do with it? Flags and footprints? Or develop an industry with full economic benefits. What if we go to Mars? Flags and footprints again, nothing of sustainable value. Commission has two missions: minimize costs, and break mindset. We don’t want a series of spectacular stunts, but building of benefits/infrastructure. Today, it cost about twice the object’s weight in gold to put it in orbit. Costs have got to come down 10x to 100x. That is going to control what we do in future space missions. $37.00 stamps; $1,500.00 Fed Ex; $200/gallon gas, imagine it. This is why Wall Street has stayed away. $10,000.00 wrenches and $3 million cost to get someone there to turn it, along with two years planning, it can’t be done. Yesteryday, heard from from entrepreneurs who can help lower these costs. Build them all, let the market sort it out. Provide the payloads, reasonable regulation, and that will bring the costs down. This will vastly help with options to go to the moon and beyond. How to do it: BE A CUSTOMER! Don’t insist on design control, let a thousand flowers bloom. Let entrepreneurs be creative, some will go broke, that is what capitalism is all about. This is what Wall Street will invest in. We will (need) to make space launch boring. Profitable industries are sustainable, government programs are not. With private industry, costs of missions to moon and Mars will drop 10 to 100 times. “Reach low orbit, and you’re halfway to anywhere in the Solar System,” Robert Heinlein.

Aldridge: You are all implying a major cultural change. Government will identify what needs to be done, then turn it over to industry, instead of how now done

Fleming: The post office did not tell the airlines how to run a plane or airline. They let them do it.

Kearney: follow-ups and similar points

Aldridge: What recommendation can we make?

Several points and examples, but all agreed that government should provide the payloads, and not try to manage launches, etc.

Carly: (Given all), why do you think Spacehab contract was let? What made them decide to do it that way at that time?

Kearney: (summation) NASA was looking at trying to stimulate commercialization at the time, and this was such effort. Discussion of various business models and such, and how market selects, how Spacehab has changed. Astounding that NASA did it. Discussions of extensive NASA paperwork to launch, how commercial customers can’t or won’t do it. How Spacehab does it all, meeting every point (emphasized to Gen. Lyles) for 20 percent of what it costs NASA. Discussion of complexity and paperwork, and contrasts commercial venture with Russians on napkin versus the massive paperwork and complexity with NASA. To get to moon and Mars, must be done differently from current.

Tyson: When I think of business model, I don’t think of one where only customer is government. With airplanes, other customers. Given excess launch capacity reported now, where do you say, how does this square with not having other customers to up usage rate? For that to work, do you need more than the government.

Fleming: Yes, you do need and yes there is/will be. Volume is key. Need mass production because all rockets built now are essentially hand made, unique. Need reliable mass production to bring down price. Government as customer helps make this possible. When cost starts dropping by half, then other markets open up.

Kearney: disputes excess launch capacity info, pointing out costs, lost business, etc. Research, commercial research, that would love to fly and can fly at $10,000/pound, but can’t get it.

Spudis: It is different this time. Learning to use space resources makes it so. This is a mission to change the paradyme by no longer dragging things up from gravity well. Seems incensed at flags and footprints line.

Walker: If we were to put out an RFP reasonably quickly, how soon would the half dozen or so companies be ready to deliver goods to ISS?

Kearney: 30-36 months, explanation, possibly sooner

Walker: Before the gap then?

Kearney: Yes. More discussion

Walker: Moon prize, is that a valid figure?

Fleming: Yes, discussion of same and potential profits. Prizes do not make a business plan, but they can stimulate technologies.

Carly: Not a question, but a summary: I think what we have heard today is that the President’s vision is bold, that we should approach this bold goal with focus and a sense of urgency, we have heard that we have to approach it with the full set of resources at our disposal,; but fundamentally I think what we have heard is that we need to be more bold, to restructure the way we do things.

NOTE: THESE ARE NOT QUOTES, PARAPHRASES AT BEST

Fleming: I agree. Railroads as model, discussion

Caceres: You have to be bolder, we are a different society now

Kearney: discussion of free market and what it can do, now people can drive and change things. Pointed out that no customers on airmail flights, no passengers really at that time. Only later did that come about.

Jackson: If we are going to do business in a different model, I want to know what the whole toolkit looks like. I understand can’t lay out everything, but that being said ti seems the launching of the new model that seems the hardest. What other things can we use to help that. Investment, prizes, etc. Long discussion of various government agencies and programs. Should there be international help?

Fleming: what tools? Lot can be learned from DoD, part. DARPA. Make things more friendly to startups. DARPA model could go a long way to jump starting

Kearney: on the subject of FAR, there are ways. FAR part 12 gives mechanism as boilerplates can be waived. Multiple suppliers, fixed price. Second issue first and foremost when you are doing a business case is the market. How many will I be able to sell. First step is creating a stable and profitable market with multiple suppliers so that there is competition.

???: Brands? On Sides of Rockets?

Kearney: Why not? From a commercial perspective, if it is safe and won’t harm the astronauts, we don’t care.

Fleming: Advertising is good, and NASA should be able to advertise.

End of panel, thanks.

Courtesy of Stephen Fleming, here is his presentation:

Hope this works... It does, drag to desktop or click whatever is required to download it to your desktop...

Media panel underway, some of it preaching to the choir here. Mr. Daniel Stone, President and CEO , Space Holdings (Space.Com, etc.) up taking NASA to the woodshed on outreach, PIO, etc.

The Commercial Space & Economic Feasability Panel

Lot of good ideas and comments from media panel. Some things they call for, such as advertising and marketing, are illegal. That is why NASA does not do them. That is why NASA does Outreach instead. Interest is there, just needs to be tapped.

Discussion of multi-media, HD, etc., and how it can help with involvement.

Lyles: Rating top agencies to work, WaPo, how public doesn’t know NASA at top; AF experience, crisis in recruiting; is NASA at a crisis point?

Stone: Yes. At point, beyond. Special time given all that is going on. Comments on IRS and NASA as most visited gov sites, bet is that NASA is most popular. While there are ways NASA can piggyback, it will require a lot of money but it is money well spent. Good investment. NASA has advantage of having their brand on others.

Robbins: conversation with Whitson, ISS, focus on science. Realize now that didn’t have a lot to talk about, because not a lot of science going on. So if you are going to market NASA what are you going to do? People are kind of holding back a bit to see if this vision is real, if there is a cogent program that makes sense. More discussion, point is that by time Apollo 12 took off, interest had begun to plummet. Public didn’t think that one thing was building on another, leading somewhere else.

Discussion

Lyles: Rating top agencies to work, WaPo, how public doesn’t know NASA at top; AF experience, crisis in recruiting; is NASA at a crisis point?

Stone: Yes. At point, beyond. Special time given all that is going on. Comments on IRS and NASA as most visited gov sites, bet is that NASA is most popular. While there are ways NASA can piggyback, it will require a lot of money but it is money well spent. Good investment. NASA has advantage of having their brand on others.

Robbins: conversation with Whitson, ISS, focus on science. Realize now that didn’t have a lot to talk about, because not a lot of science going on. So if you are going to market NASA what are you going to do? People are kind of holding back a bit to see if this vision is real, if there is a cogent program that makes sense. More discussion, point is that by time Apollo 12 took off, interest had begun to plummet. Public didn’t think that one thing was building on another, leading somewhere else.

Robbins: need to change NASA? Need to change culture of academia! Need to assure them that it is okay to talk in plain terms. Discussion. If science community is not speaking in a clear voice, then I can’t put it in paper. NASA needs people who can translate into plain language. Science, academic community need to do this.

Tyson: Mercury 7, didn’t have to advertise. Marketing is a four letter word because when you hear that you have to convince people to like it, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. How handle? (much longer to make point).

Stone: has to be somewhere in middle, served up in a way that children will be willing to consume. Bit of arrogance in deciding what is good for you. Has to be truth and credible, but consumable. That is not a four letter word.

Robbins: JPL and good media relations. JSC, no.

Tyson: Could you judge between interest in space as represented by missions and space as represented by scientific discovery? Can you judge where split is?

Stone: yes, baseline at Space.Com is on astronomy and scientific discovery, surges when missions, over time what we have seen is an increase in the base as more people sucked in by missions, which brings it together. What we do is help bring those worlds together, ties it all together. Not discrete, but a whole.

Robbins: Doesn’t need launch, just be interesting. Get info out in a way that is compelling, and it will be received. Flintsone factor. If scientists can better convey what they do, it will get out.

More to come?

Well, some at least. I am here with Michael Mealling of Rocket Forge who is also live blogging. Actually, I think he is true live while I am semi-live. :) Not sure how much I will cover the rest today, but will just see how it goes. Some of the key points I wanted to hear and see made, and both are satisfied.

Public statements going on right now. Dog's breakfast. Hope Michael gets to speak, not one of the first four names called. Nor among the next two names called. Drat.

Some good points being made, about removing some of the fear of failure, leadership, and more. Some very interesting points and comments as well. Keeps it interesting. Most is very predictable. Drat again. Lots of buy in to current model and mindset. Double drat.

Michael still not one chosen to speak. Bleep.

NEOs have come up, not surprised. NEO=Near Earth Object. Wait one, not an Armagetdown or similar bad movie thing, seems to be focusing on exploration potential. No exploitation mentioned yet, but different. Nice twist.

Michael not chosen yet again. Bleep.

One speaker passes; latest is author who wrote a book about the truth about Challenger, headed where? Clear to him that NASA charter needs to be overhauled and that is how to implement all these great ideas. Second point is that to be in space business without heavy lift capability is essential. Build the rocket and they will come. Finally, propulsion R&D is vital. Cryo, nuke, etc. all need to be explored. Need to hit, and restore the total belief that the American public owns NASA. It has to be the will of the people. Decide, then go forward, lots of rah rah, offers his services.

Next speaker makes points, including low turnout, lack of coverage here. Reaching out is important, because solid public support is a must.

Third public hearing is concluded. I intend to visit, get some good Indian food, and head back home.

-30-