Huh?There is no market in supplying data on the outer and inner planets. And mars comm would be just as ludicrous, placing a transceiver on other spacecraft would be cheaper than a dedicated spacecraft much less a commercial one.
Huh?There is no market in supplying data on the outer and inner planets.
It would be nice if NASA were to express some of its space science requirements as a market. In English, that means that rather than have a program to obtain, say, topographic data of the Moon, NASA should lay out the requirements in detail, and then let private companies compete to meet those requirements.The decadal study outputs should be scrubbed to see which are appropriate for private companies to supply. That would save NASA some $$.Also, a commercial Mars communications network would be a Good Thing.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/07/2012 11:24 pmIt would be nice if NASA were to express some of its space science requirements as a market. In English, that means that rather than have a program to obtain, say, topographic data of the Moon, NASA should lay out the requirements in detail, and then let private companies compete to meet those requirements.The decadal study outputs should be scrubbed to see which are appropriate for private companies to supply. That would save NASA some $$.Also, a commercial Mars communications network would be a Good Thing.This makes no sense. Let's start with the obvious. You want the government *to legislate* a "commercial Mars network"? The two are incompatible. Second, you want NASA to specify, with requirements, a "market"? How is that even feasible? The rest of your statement while very strangely worded is essentially what happens now in the fact you want to have NASA give "detailed requirements" for something and then various companies compete to those requirements. You just reinvented the wheel.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 09/08/2012 09:52 pmQuote from: Danderman on 09/07/2012 11:24 pmIt would be nice if NASA were to express some of its space science requirements as a market. In English, that means that rather than have a program to obtain, say, topographic data of the Moon, NASA should lay out the requirements in detail, and then let private companies compete to meet those requirements.The decadal study outputs should be scrubbed to see which are appropriate for private companies to supply. That would save NASA some $$.Also, a commercial Mars communications network would be a Good Thing.This makes no sense. Let's start with the obvious. You want the government *to legislate* a "commercial Mars network"? The two are incompatible. Second, you want NASA to specify, with requirements, a "market"? How is that even feasible? The rest of your statement while very strangely worded is essentially what happens now in the fact you want to have NASA give "detailed requirements" for something and then various companies compete to those requirements. You just reinvented the wheel. pull-based, not push-based
Quote from: neilh on 09/09/2012 12:06 ampull-based, not push-basedAre thos fluff words supposed to enlighten me and others somehow?
pull-based, not push-based
Quote from: neilh on 09/09/2012 12:06 amQuote from: Go4TLI on 09/08/2012 09:52 pmQuote from: Danderman on 09/07/2012 11:24 pmIt would be nice if NASA were to express some of its space science requirements as a market. In English, that means that rather than have a program to obtain, say, topographic data of the Moon, NASA should lay out the requirements in detail, and then let private companies compete to meet those requirements.The decadal study outputs should be scrubbed to see which are appropriate for private companies to supply. That would save NASA some $$.Also, a commercial Mars communications network would be a Good Thing.This makes no sense. Let's start with the obvious. You want the government *to legislate* a "commercial Mars network"? The two are incompatible. Second, you want NASA to specify, with requirements, a "market"? How is that even feasible? The rest of your statement while very strangely worded is essentially what happens now in the fact you want to have NASA give "detailed requirements" for something and then various companies compete to those requirements. You just reinvented the wheel. pull-based, not push-basedAre those fluff words supposed to enlighten me and others somehow?
What space legislation would you like to see passed next year?
Another thing we really want to work on with NASA is restarting PU238 for future missions. As many of you know it takes roughly eight years from once you start production to getting useful material for missions.
Probably better to start fresh under another agency like FAA-AST. Launch services and data purchase for suborbital. Restore CRUSR to its original purpose of supporting suborbital RLVs, not sounding rockets and weather balloons. Create equivalent programs in DoD, NSF, NOAA, etc. Or maybe one central program under FAA that serves all government users. Spaceflight liability reform. Cancel JWST and replace it with commercial data purchases.
FAA is a regulatory agency, not a spaceflight operations agency. It does not have the expertise nor the mandate to do so.
NSF is not a operations agency, it just funds experimenters.
NASA is the space agency that does serve all gov't users (DOD, NOAA, NSF, etc)
Also you are have contradicting points. You can't have data and service purchases but then steer a solution. If sounding rockets and weather balloons meet the requirements put forth in CRUSR solicitations then so be it.
Um, I read Danderman's post as saying NASA should create a market.... Perhaps there is a debate to be had as far as, can the COTS model be extended to other endeavors (if that debate has not already been had in other threads).