Two Commercial Space Companies Are Working to Put Americans Back into Space (ContributorNetwork)

There has been a lot of news lately about "Commercial Space" efforts -- since several companies are working on capsules that promise to be able to lift people into space. These efforts would help to replace a few of the Space Shuttle's capabilities. Recently I have seen some of the hardware from many of the commercial developers and wanted to share some thoughts about two of them.

Two developers stand out -- SpaceX (a company started by Elon Musk) and Boeing. In many ways these two remind an experienced space guy of the story of the tortoise and the hare. Is SpaceX the glamorous hare, getting a fast start? One of the advantages they have is Ken Bowersox, a retired Shuttle commander who knows exactly what has to be done to fly a reliable system. In this effort, is Boeing the cautious tortoise -- moving slowly but deliberately? They have not flown a capsule yet, and have recently decided to use the experienced Atlas rocket team to lift their capsule. Maybe due to their experience, they have an effort that is getting much less publicity.

SpaceX has already flown a version of their capsule and so has leaped ahead in the eye of the public. It is also a new company, started by a young entrepreneur who came out of the Internet business. Based in Los Angeles, it certainly has the star power. Since SpaceX is a company that is the project of a person -- Elon Musk -- what would happen if he is distracted? He also has a car company, Tesla Motors, that has taken a lot of his attention. Even his personal life and his recent expensive divorce could affect the priority that he could give to SpaceX. That company is spread very thin -- they are developing a series of rockets (the Falcon) as well as two versions of their Dragon capsules -- one for cargo and one for people. The Falcon rocket has had all of the developmental troubles that we have seen with similar complex systems, and could also delay SpaceX. Recently they have been working on a launch pad in California as well. The company has already started talking about possibly sending the Dragon capsule as far as the Moon -- an ambitious goal. SpaceX has the reputation of not wanting advice from any of the people who have the experience in spaceflight.

Boeing is using a capsule design that is intended to be as simple as possible -- it is designed to just go to the Space Station. As we have seen many times with aerospace systems, simplicity is the best assurance we have of reliability. They also have the resources of a company that has developed many space systems as well as innovative aircraft; so their pool of talent is very deep. The concern that observers have is -- could problems in their other businesses cause them to pull back from a risky investment? Are they too cautious, and too reliant on the government? Their recent decision to use the Atlas rocket, a system that has flown reliably for years and probably has few surprises left in it, gives them a strong rocket to lift their capsule into space. It also has a well proven launch team in Florida, they have flown that rocket many more times that SpaceX has flown Falcon.

The next few years, as both companies fly their capsules and rockets, will be very interesting. This is a exciting time for the space business, as we watch two totally different companies approach a very difficult and merciless task with different philosophies.

View the original article here

Is Obama's Commercial Space Plan for NASA About to Take a Wrong Turn? (ContributorNetwork)

One of the warmest supporters of the Obama commercial crew program has sounded the alarm that it may be about to go off the rails. Clark Lindsey, a blogger who champions commercial space, had this to say:

"Unfortunately, there are signs that NASA management may find its own way to undermine the commercial crew program. The statement from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation this week hints that there are moves within NASA to run CCDev not in the commercial services approach taken with COTS, and to a great extent by the USAF with the EELV program, but in the standard NASA top-down, sub-contractor procurement mode. This will bring in a huge array of rules and procedures that will drive costs up and up."

Lindsey goes on to speculate in the comments section of his post that entrepreneurial companies such as SpaceX may want to pull out of the commercial crew plan altogether rather than have to operate under NASA rules.

The statement that Lindsey quotes, which urges a more commercial approach to acquiring space launch services, does seem to hint that NASA may be considering a more traditional NASA/contractor regime to manage the commercial crew program. This would defeat the purpose of doing a commercial space effort, turning SpaceX and other entrepreneurial space companies into another Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

Lindsey's warning is just the latest wrinkle in the debate over the Obama approach to commercial space, which expanded the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems program, by offering massive subsidies, starting at almost six billion dollars, but perhaps more if necessary. However, if Lindsey's scenario pans out, the old adage that those who accept government money, also has to accept government rules will once again be proven.

One of the reasons for this seems to stem from who in the Obama administration are making the decisions. In contrast to the previous Bush administration, the current regime has a conspicuous lack of people with actual business experience. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and even NASA Administrator Mike Griffin all had run businesses and met payrolls. They knew how businesses work and how the government could either help or stifle them. Neither President Obama, Science Czar John Holdren, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, nor NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver has any experience running a private company.

Inevitable the Obama people have reverted to the mind-set that government knows best and that it can direct business rather than taking a hands-off approach and allow the commercial sector to do what it does best, provide goods and services at a good price.

One of the other problems with the Obama approach is that there seems to be a lack of encouragement to the commercial space sector to nurture private markets for human space launch services. I, in contrast to the approach taken to build the EELV family of rockets, this is by deliberate design. Obama's people fear that just as a lot of private markets did not materialize for the EELV, private markets for commercial crew, such as space tourism or servicing private space stations like the one planned by Bigelow Aerospace, will not come to fruition. Thus the government is the primary investor and the sole customer for commercial space under the Obama plan.

One possible way out of this is to pass an idea called "Zero Taxes, Zero Gravity" that creates an enterprise zone in space in which goods and services created there would not be taxed. Thus would private markets be created and the commercial space sector would not be so dependent on the government for income.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here