iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

NASA To Outsource Space Travel To Private Companies As Part Of Obama's Budget Proposal

SETH BORENSTEIN AND ALICIA CHANG   01/31/10 10:29 AM ET   AP

Nasa Space Shuttle

WASHINGTON — Getting to space is about to be outsourced.

The Obama administration on Monday will propose in its new budget spending billions of dollars to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate spacecraft for NASA and others. Uncle Sam would buy its astronauts a ride into space just like hopping in a taxi.

The idea is that getting astronauts into orbit, which NASA has been doing for 49 years, is getting to be so old hat that someone other than the government can do it. It's no longer really the Right Stuff. Going private would free the space agency to do other things, such as explore beyond Earth's orbit, do more research and study the Earth with better satellites. And it would spur a new generation of private companies – even some with Internet roots – to innovate.

But there's some concern about that – from former NASA officials worried about safety and from congressional leaders worried about lost jobs. Some believe space is still a tough, dangerous enterprise not to be left to private companies out for a buck. Government would lose vital knowledge and control, critics fear.

Proponents of private space, an idea that has been kicking around for nearly 20 years, point to the airline industry in its infancy. Initially the Army flew most planes. But private companies eventually started building and operating aircraft, especially when they got a guaranteed customer in the U.S. government to deliver air mail.

That's what NASA would be: a guaranteed customer to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station through 2020. It would be similar to the few years that NASA paid Russia to fly astronauts on its Soyuz after the Columbia accident in 2003.

"With a $6 billion program you can have multiple winners. You'll literally have your Blackberry, your iPhone and your Android phone all competing for customers in the marketplace," said John Gedmark, executive director of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. The White House has said it will be adding $5.9 billion to the overall NASA budget over five years; Gedmark believes most or all will go to commercial space.

Mike Gold, corporate counsel at Bigelow Aerospace, which is building the first commercial space station and is a potential spacecraft provider, believes the government should have privatized astronaut launchings decades ago.

"It will force the aerospace world to become competitive again and restore us to our glory days," Gold said.

Last year as part of the stimulus package, NASA said it would give out $50 million in seed and planning money for the idea of a commercial spaceship. Several firms expressed interest and NASA will soon pick a winner or winners.

American University public policy professor and space expert Howard McCurdy said this is not as radical as it seems. The shuttle was built not by government workers but by Rockwell International, a private company. Then in 1996 the Clinton administration outsourced the shuttle's day-to-day launch and other operations to a private company.

"This is something that NASA has been drifting toward in the last 25 years," McCurdy said.

But the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, created after NASA's first fatal accident, warned that the existing private rockets are not rated by the government as safe for people to fly on. That has to be addressed with testing and study before jumping into commercial space, the panel said.

It's not that it is impossible to certify these rockets as safe enough for astronauts but it is a long process that is not spelled out, said former NASA associate administrator Scott Pace, now a space policy professor at George Washington University.

Peter Diamandis, founder of the X Prize Foundation, which sponsored a competition in suborbital spaceflight, dismissed safety worries: "We don't fly on U.S. Air Government. We fly on Southwest and JetBlue."

The Federal Aviation Administration, which has a commercial space division, would regulate private space safety and other issues.

Pace cautioned that Clinton era efforts to privatize parts of the National Reconnaissance Organization, which builds and operates U.S. spy satellites, as a failure and this could be similar. He added that there's such strong support in Congress for the current space program a change may be difficult to get through Capitol Hill.

New York University government professor Paul Light said: "My general caution is be careful about what you give away. It's awful expensive to get it back."

But there should be a lot of interest in giving astronauts the ride if the price is right, Gedmark said.

The leading contenders – most are mum at this point – to build private spaceships include established aerospace giants, such as Boeing Co. of Chicago and Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md., which built most of America's rockets and capsules. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have existing rocket families in Delta and Atlas, which launch commercial and government satellites regularly and reliably, but for the moment aren't rated by the government to be safe enough for humans. That may change.

But it's the newer space guard that brings some excitement to the field. PayPal founder Elon Musk may be ahead of most. His SpaceX already has a Falcon rocket and Dragon capsule. Other companies being mentioned include Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va., Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas and Sierra Nevada Corp. of Sparks, Nev.

In the 1980s, Tiffany Montague grew up wanting to get into space and figured she had to work for the government to do that. She joined the Air Force and was a high-altitude pilot. But now she works for Google, running a $30 million prize to encourage private companies to build a rover that can run around the moon.

"We're broadly interested in opening up space to everyone," Montague said in a phone interview Friday. She said Google is "supportive of commercial spaceflight, we're enthusiasts. But we're not space entrepreneurs – at least not yet. Who knows what we might do in the future."

___

Alicia Chang contributed from Los Angeles.

___

On the Net:

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/

Commercial Spaceflight Federation: http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/

Bigelow Aerospace: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/asap/index.html

X Prize Foundation: http://www.xprize.org/

Google Lunar X Prize: http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

SpaceX: http://www.spacex.com/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — Getting to space is about to be outsourced. The Obama administration on Monday will propose in its new budget spending billions of dollars to encourage private companies to build, ...
WASHINGTON — Getting to space is about to be outsourced. The Obama administration on Monday will propose in its new budget spending billions of dollars to encourage private companies to build, ...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 434
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
essayons7
Stranger in a strange land
01:01 AM on 02/02/2010
Hope they don't outsource it to Toyota.
09:03 PM on 02/01/2010
Reliance on the private sector comes in two flavors - corporate shills who want to funnel money to their client companies, and the inept/lazy who don't want to put the effort into doing things efficiently. The former tend to include mebers of Congress, the latter government administrators.
In case no one has noticed, the private sector has a history of overcharging and underperforming - the history of Defense procurement is loaded with examples, but there also examples such as attempts to develop computer systems for air traffic control, the FBI, and other government agencies.
I suspect that the history of the next decade or so is going to be one of a series of contracts for enthusiastic companies which then go bankrupt without fulfilling the contract because they overestimate their abilities and underestiates the complexity of the project.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
disgustedwithall
USA not free/safer if citizen requires gun for it.
11:56 AM on 02/03/2010
Yep agree on what you said..but why wait for the inept companies.. seems the housing and real estate and all associated with them proved that incompetence, bankruptcy and fee skimming are already here.. and there are big bonus and reelection funds for doing such.
06:17 PM on 02/01/2010
Um, we've already been doing this for years.
Although, maybe now some companies can be open about their technological capabilities.
And maybe we can see where the money is going instead of "we don't know (because we have plausible deniability.")
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
disgustedwithall
USA not free/safer if citizen requires gun for it.
02:24 PM on 02/01/2010
Oh well we only went into space, got the technical and science respect of the world for leading in such... actually inspired kids to get real education in science, rather then some sort of money handler.. So now we will see China on the Moon.. and probably China everywhere,...

But we will have the "Super Bowl" and various other roman gladiatorial type events in our 2000's versions of Rome's arena's games and privileged millionaire's that manpulate some sort ot a ball...... .now doesn't that make us proud?

And fittingly for a failing nation.. most know more about the teams, names and stats of their city-state gladiators then they do about computing simple interest or the names of their elected gov people.
01:17 PM on 02/01/2010
Live update from the ongoing NASA budget briefing:

Constellation, Ares I, Ares V, and Orion are CANCELED

New programs funded over the next five years:

$7.8B for on-orbit propellant transfer, propellant depots, in-situ resources, electric propulsion
$3.1B for heavy-lift propulsion technologies including new rocket engines and stages
$3B for robotic precursor missions to moon and elsewhere to prepare for manned exploration
$2B for science and research enhancements on the international space station
$6B for commercial launch vehicles and spacecraft for cargo and crew transport
$2B for launch range and payload processing improvements at kennedy space center
$4.9B for development of advanced communications, sensors, and robotics
$2B for earth and climate science remote sensing and data processing
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:46 PM on 02/01/2010
No HLV. Exploration deferred to develop better technology.

Money quotes from Bolden:

"""Put simply, the Constellation program threatened other important parts of NASA’s endeavors and mission, while failing to achieve the trajectory of a program that was sustainable, executable, and ultimately successful. The Augustine Committee reflected on this situation, and found that a root cause of this troubled state was a decades-long, systemic under-investment in new technology and innovation. We essentially were trying to recreate the glories of the past with the technologies of the past, and, not surprisingly, the result was a program anchored in the past. This is not the vision that the President has for NASA, nor is it the best way to move forward on our efforts in space."""
02:53 PM on 02/01/2010
Yes, exploration will be deferred to develop better technology, but HLV technology has been allocated over $3B over the next five years, and then by 2016, NASA will select an HLV proposal through a competitive bidding process.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Uosdwis
12:51 PM on 02/01/2010
Boy, will there be finger-pointing when the NEXT disaster happens.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Caru
Politics is fun to watch.
12:42 PM on 02/01/2010
Introducing the Space-Military-Industrial complex.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:32 PM on 02/01/2010
NASA should stick to things it does best: orchestrating public reaction to urgent scientific news -- like the Martian microfossil crisis of 1996.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:38 AM on 02/01/2010
Another example of cooperation. Our National labs. Really big co operations of Science, Industry, and Government. Non-profit Private Contract Operators Directed by a Government Agency. Some of you talk like you think that kind of mix could never work.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:58 AM on 02/01/2010
Please consider. We have all been able to cooperate before. There is a way. Just consider the Antarctic U.N. protocols as a rough template. Rough idea from below link.
FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXT ON ANTARCTICA CONCLUDES WORK FOR CURRENT SESSION

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991111.gadis3165.doc.html

It would work better with full U.S. support, but then, nothing is perfect.
08:16 AM on 02/01/2010
Wait, we're going to pay private companies to build spacecraft, after which we will then pay a premium for our pilots to fly the damned things? We're going to rent the spacecraft that we paid to build? That's like buying a car, and then paying a rental charge every time you want to drive it.

In what universe could this ever be considered a good idea?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
IntelligenceIsBliss
02:47 AM on 02/01/2010
And there goes thousands of more high-paying technology jobs to China, India and Europe.
08:17 AM on 02/01/2010
Exactly. What the hell?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:05 AM on 02/01/2010
That's the fault of unilateral disarmament (AKA "Free Trade" ). Separate but very, very important. We should not stop development because we are going to be looted, we should stop the looting.
01:49 AM on 02/01/2010
The End.

This has been America.

Thank you for watching.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
01:52 AM on 02/01/2010
No, this is not the end - this is the beginning
01:54 AM on 02/01/2010
It's the beginning of something, I guess. But not the United States that people have been singing about for the last couple centuries.

What's the point of having a country?
01:42 AM on 02/01/2010
As a former federal official who is familiar with contracting and contractors, I can say with absolute truth that this is a mistake and will be costly problem detrimental to this country.
01:47 AM on 02/01/2010
The existing NASA contracting system is terrible. This is an attempt to improve it. The only people who think this is a bad idea either don't know much about NASA or have connections to MSFC (the main source of dysfunction within NASA).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jtt
-
01:23 AM on 02/01/2010
I would like to see leadership here instead of a punt to the Military Industrial Complex. Unlss it means a significant increase in NASA spending as the article is possibly suggesting.

Then, if done right this could be very beneficial.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
01:32 AM on 02/01/2010
Believe me, the MIC doesn't want this. They want to keep the cost-plus contracting system that NASA currently does - Boeing and Lockheed Martin have made a LOT of noise about this.