NASA should be very interested in nurturing a private space industry with many comparably low cost options to choose from.
But their charter is really more along the lines of developing the technology and then gifting it to industry rather than being essentially venture capitalists.While I may agree that the SLS is unnecessary, I'd rather see that money go into development of spacecraft that can be lofted by existing EELVs.
I do however not think that NASA should be directly developing launchers and spacecraft.
Launchers, no. Spacecraft, yes. Private industry is going to develop LEO spacecraft, not BEO (despite what Elon says).
... The only possible surprise is maybe that ATK did not get an award after they said they would compete. The only mystery is whether ATK did not submit, or were rejected. In any case, a topic for a different thread.
No. That is not part of the NASA Charter. Any interest NASA has in commercial capabilities is to fulfill a very specific and narrow NASA need. Nurturing a private industry along is totally beyond what NASA is tasked to do.
(c) Commercial Use of Space.--Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
NASA specific needs and a totally separate commercial industry are 2 completely different animals.
Commercial companies outside the NASA needs scope need to put their own money into their business ventures, or seek venture capital, just like every other startup in history. Government money is not for business development.
Quote from: clongton on 12/15/2012 12:44 amNo. That is not part of the NASA Charter. Any interest NASA has in commercial capabilities is to fulfill a very specific and narrow NASA need. Nurturing a private industry along is totally beyond what NASA is tasked to do.Have you even read the space act?Quote(c) Commercial Use of Space.--Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.htmlQuoteNASA specific needs and a totally separate commercial industry are 2 completely different animals.Agreed.QuoteCommercial companies outside the NASA needs scope need to put their own money into their business ventures, or seek venture capital, just like every other startup in history. Government money is not for business development.Agreed.Unfortunately, the beloved geniuses in Congress don't agree and have chartered NASA with "nurturing" private industry.. this never ends well.
The problem is that this only works when there is not unfair competition from cost plus government projects like the SLS.It makes investment into private space very risky for a venture capitalist, if there is the chance for a government subsidized competition.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he meant the psychological competition. Whether we like it or not, people see the commercial crew providers as "competing" with SLS and the rest of the government program.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 12/12/2012 07:18 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 12/12/2012 06:53 pmI agree with QuantumG, I wish commercial crew had followed the COTS-D model. COTS-D was underfunded but it didn't have a certification phase. If a certification phase is absolutely necessary, it should be as light as possible. As far as politics, there is already a government option as a back up if required. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. I get the feeling that the CPC phase qualifies as a light certification phase. But phase 2 of certification worries me as it seems a lot more intrusive. Incidentally, I don't think that DOD contracts are a model for effeciency and should not be the model for defining what commercial crew should be. I agree with that as well.Something to keep in mind is that the environment is a bit different between commercial crew and COTS. Right now you have a very strong political influence (hence why we have 2.5 companies in iCAP vice 2.0 or 1.0) and you also have a very, VERY uncertain funding situation. Therefore the current SAA, CPC and future planning ar being structure for maiximum flexibility within the constraints of politics, desires of NASA, desires of the companies...
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/12/2012 06:53 pmI agree with QuantumG, I wish commercial crew had followed the COTS-D model. COTS-D was underfunded but it didn't have a certification phase. If a certification phase is absolutely necessary, it should be as light as possible. As far as politics, there is already a government option as a back up if required. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. I get the feeling that the CPC phase qualifies as a light certification phase. But phase 2 of certification worries me as it seems a lot more intrusive. Incidentally, I don't think that DOD contracts are a model for effeciency and should not be the model for defining what commercial crew should be. I agree with that as well.
I agree with QuantumG, I wish commercial crew had followed the COTS-D model. COTS-D was underfunded but it didn't have a certification phase. If a certification phase is absolutely necessary, it should be as light as possible. As far as politics, there is already a government option as a back up if required. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. I get the feeling that the CPC phase qualifies as a light certification phase. But phase 2 of certification worries me as it seems a lot more intrusive. Incidentally, I don't think that DOD contracts are a model for effeciency and should not be the model for defining what commercial crew should be.
Here are the highlights from the CPC selection statement. -NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance. -SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance. -On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings." -See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company.
I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/22/2012 02:34 pmHere are the highlights from the CPC selection statement. -NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance. -SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance. -On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings." -See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company. I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?