Author Topic: Bolden On Commercial Spaceflight's Future (Read 3069 times)

mr. mark · « **on:** 04/12/2012 03:05 pm »

A very interesting article and a must read. I did not realize the extent of NASA's possible future reliance on the commercial spaceflight sector.

Bolden -"We have now got to the point where NASA should have nothing to do with it (access to space)," he said in an address today at Sydney University.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/moon-to-be-private-colony-nasa/story-fn3dxity-1226318687424

Namechange User · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/12/2012 03:22 pm »

This is exactly part of the problem. Communication, or lack of it and/or conflicting statements that ultimately hurt the effort in my opinion.

If NASA is at the point it should have "nothing to do with it", then why the requirements and why is NASA funding the majority of it?

yg1968 · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/12/2012 03:40 pm »

I don't know for sure but I suspect that Bolden may have been asked whether, NASA had any intention of colonizing the moon and he must have said that NASA does not intend to colonize the moon as that is more something that commercial companies should eventually be doing. But that doesn't mean that NASA shouldn't explore the moon before commercial companies step in. Hopefully, NASA will try to use commercial companies for some of its BEO exploration (e.g. cargo and crew to an L2 station, etc.) in order to pave the way.

As far as NASA stepping out of the way from colonizing efforts, I just think that Bolden means that eventually, the moon will be just as "easy" to get to as the ISS and that will be the time for NASA to step out of the way from moon exploration. But we are far from there yet and NASA still needs to pave the way towards this goal.

savuporo · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/12/2012 03:55 pm »

Quote from: OV-106 on 04/12/2012 03:22 pm

If NASA is at the point it should have "nothing to do with it", then why the requirements and why is NASA funding the majority of it?

I don't get that either. I understand incentives and nurturing an industry, but this is waaay too much involvement.

mr. mark · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/12/2012 03:57 pm »

If you take this line of thinking further out, I'm wondering if way down the road SLS and Orion will eventually be privatized. The way I see it it would follow a similar proposal that was attempted by USA when they tried to privatize the space shuttles.

dcporter · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/12/2012 09:56 pm »

Quote from: mr. mark on 04/12/2012 03:57 pm

I'm wondering if way down the road SLS and Orion will eventually be privatized.

STS didn't, and SLS won't, prove profitable without a heavily subsidized anchor tenant... AKA NASA.

IRobot · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/12/2012 09:59 pm »

I wonder what NASA could do with the current budget and no SLS development. It would be enough to pay private companies to take cargo and crew to LEO and loads of money for more serious space exploration!
I have no doubt this will happen, too bad if it is after the SLS money is spent...

93143 · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/12/2012 10:09 pm »

Quote from: dcporter on 04/12/2012 09:56 pm

Quote from: mr. mark on 04/12/2012 03:57 pm
I'm wondering if way down the road SLS and Orion will eventually be privatized.

STS didn't, and SLS won't, prove profitable without a heavily subsidized anchor tenant... AKA NASA.

[*cough*]

Robotbeat · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/12/2012 10:35 pm »

Quote from: 93143 on 04/12/2012 10:09 pm

Quote from: dcporter on 04/12/2012 09:56 pm
Quote from: mr. mark on 04/12/2012 03:57 pm
I'm wondering if way down the road SLS and Orion will eventually be privatized.

STS didn't, and SLS won't, prove profitable without a heavily subsidized anchor tenant... AKA NASA.

[*cough*]

...and where exactly is that company? No proof they're actually doing anything right now. Certainly can't say they're profitable.

93143 · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/13/2012 03:24 am »

Shuttle didn't "prove" profitable. But indications are it could have, if things had been slightly different over the last couple of years. Hence my link.

Therefore it is not reasonable to base a claim that SLS "won't" prove profitable on the fact that STS didn't, not without a massive amount of supporting reasoning that is utterly absent from the post I quoted.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/13/2012 03:29 am »

Quote from: 93143 on 04/13/2012 03:24 am

Shuttle didn't "prove" profitable. But indications are it could have, if things had been slightly different over the last couple of years. Hence my link.

Therefore it is not reasonable to base a claim that SLS "won't" prove profitable on the fact that STS didn't, not without a massive amount of supporting reasoning that is utterly absent from the post I quoted.

I'm pretty sure we both know where the burden of proof lies in this discussion, if we're honest with ourselves.

Jim · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/13/2012 03:49 am »

Quote from: 93143 on 04/13/2012 03:24 am

But indications are it could have, if things had been slightly different over the last couple of years.

No, it could not be. That link had nothing to do with profitability. Just operating the shuttle cheaper than NASA but still requiring NASA to use and fund it. Without NASA using and paying for its high price, it wouldn't work.