Except as otherwise provided in this section, the FederalGovernment shall acquire space transportation services from UnitedStates commercial providers whenever such services are required inthe course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable,the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the spacetransportation services capabilities of United States commercialproviders.
a private company wishes to purchase a heavy lift flight
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/25/2011 01:42 pma private company wishes to purchase a heavy lift flightThere is your flaw. That is not going to happen. No need for commercial heavy lift.
In the meantime, can you find a specific U.S. General Statute that prohibits NASA from selling a unique service?
1. Why not? As indicated, at least one private entity has already sketched up plans for a 70 ton payload.2. What makes your crystal ball the only one with a true view of the future?
1.Except that up through the mid 1980's that is the exact model that NASA followed. The move to privatize rocket launches began in the wake of the CHALLENGER disaster. Prior to that commercial satellite launches were bought from the government providers.2. In addition, I would ask how selling a unique capability to launch is different from renting out KSC facilities to private launch companies?
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/25/2011 01:59 pmIn the meantime, can you find a specific U.S. General Statute that prohibits NASA from selling a unique service?Not a statue, but another road block. NASA doesn't get to keep the money that it would receive in providing such a service. It would go to the US treasury general fund.This means;a. The launch doesn't provide more income for NASAb. It actually costs NASA money, since it would have to fund the launch
Quote from: Jim on 03/25/2011 01:49 pmQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/25/2011 01:42 pma private company wishes to purchase a heavy lift flightThere is your flaw. That is not going to happen. No need for commercial heavy lift.Since NASA doesn't have the current capability to launch a 70 ton payload, it doesn't have a "service" to sell. And, if NASA and/or DoD don't have 70 ton payloads scheduled for launch in the "near" future, ie next 7-10 years or whatever reasonable timeframe it would take to develop the launcher, then it probably shouldn't pay for the development of a 70-100 ton launcher. If some commerical company does have a 70 ton payload (Bigelow, I assume), then they should discuss with a commerical launch partner how they are going to get that beast into orbit. I'm sure Elon Musk doesn't care who the 2.5 Billion comes from, if he doesn't have to fund the development using his own cash. Of course, once that capability existed, then NASA would be obligated to use it, once they had a mission that required a 70 ton payload.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/25/2011 02:31 pm1.Except that up through the mid 1980's that is the exact model that NASA followed. The move to privatize rocket launches began in the wake of the CHALLENGER disaster. Prior to that commercial satellite launches were bought from the government providers.2. In addition, I would ask how selling a unique capability to launch is different from renting out KSC facilities to private launch companies?1. And NASA didn't care about the money it was bleeding out in subsidizing commercial spacecraft. NASA just wanted to fly the shuttle and what it flew didn't matter.2. different rules apply. It isn't "renting". The user is paying for the contractor support. Not the same thing in creating a vehicle and selling it.Don't bother, you are going to lose this one.
I would beg to differ on 'b'. That would be entirely dependent on what NASA chose to charge for such a launch. At the bare minimum I would expect:1)cost of vehicle2)cost of fuel3)cost of manpower dedicated to launchNow, whether there is anything extra tacked on as a 'profit margin' is dependent upon what the law allows, more than likely, this would be prohibited. The amounts in question relating to NASA getting the money are the payroll and profit elements. Ideally, the customer would pay the sources directly for the equipment and fuel, eliminating the need for NASA to be middleman.Besides, if NASA could point to it and say 'SEE NASA is paying money into the coffers', it might win over more support for big plans.
I'm afraid that I don't see how a 'unique' service is different from the facilities rental in this case. It is a service that is available from no other source. Basically it is the same thing as an EELV or a Falcon 9 launching from the eastern range, in that it requires Range Support and clearances. What is different is that the processing and launch operations would be handled by NASA staff (or contractors) instead of a private operation (a la SpaceX).
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/25/2011 02:54 pmI'm afraid that I don't see how a 'unique' service is different from the facilities rental in this case. It is a service that is available from no other source. Basically it is the same thing as an EELV or a Falcon 9 launching from the eastern range, in that it requires Range Support and clearances. What is different is that the processing and launch operations would be handled by NASA staff (or contractors) instead of a private operation (a la SpaceX).No, not the same thing. The range doesn't buy hardware and you are ignoring the procurement of all the hardware of the NASA HLV.The range is an airport (Which have fed workers and collect fees) , and EELV's and Spacex are airlines. To follow the same analogy, for SLS, NASA is Airbus and United Airlines.
One key thing of import to note. Nowhere in this law is NASA proscribed from selling a NASA unique launch service to the commercial sector. Therefore, if no commercial provider has a heavy lift launcher, and a private company wishes to purchase a heavy lift flight from a NASA unique heavy lift launcher, there do not appear to be any limitations (at least in this statute) to NASA selling the private company that service.