No bucks, no Buck Rogers. It's one of the tritest phrases in space policy debates, often used to wheedle more money from doubtful taxpayers.
Well, that isn't going to work this time around, no matter how pretty the PowerPoints. But we still want to do great things, and send explorers to cool places. Some say let's cancel NASA and start over... and the option is growing in appeal -- if it doesn't shape up soon. If NASA wants to survive, it needs to get a much bigger bang for our Buck Rogers bucks.
One obvious tool is to harness private capital as well as public resources. But that requires doing the government's business in a way that allows and even encourages those private energies to flourish. To do that NASA must use the most innovative and streamlined contracting methods at its disposal, rather than fall back to the tried-and-failed comfort of the Federal Acquisition Rules (FAR). It is the misuse of these rules that has often led to million- and billion-dollar cost overruns and the failure of innumerable projects and programs -- and frankly the current disastrous state of our federal space program. If they don't change this approach right away they are doomed.
Some in NASA are trying to change this, and with some success. Canceling some of the failures of the old methods such as Constellation and Ares was the first step. Now they are trying to get creative with novel and streamlined contracting methods that allow the commercial sector to do what it does best -- deliver amazingly creative and lowest-cost solutions and innovations rapidly and in a way that creates wealth and jobs. If these are applied correctly we can have an exciting program of exploration as the agency, freed of the space wagon's yoke, ventures forth to explore new worlds and as a bonus get a thriving commercial space industry that throws open the airlock of space to citizens and businesses, with permanent U.S.-founded communities beginning to grow in orbit and beyond.
To begin with, NASA has a responsibility to be a good customer. This means one that knows what it wants when it walks in, how much it wants and how often, and what it wants to pay -- and is willing to work with the vendor in creative ways to achieve its goal without micromanaging the process, changing its mind constantly or rewriting the deal in midstream. This is very difficult for almost any government agency, and one reason our nation is trillions of dollars in debt. But it can be done.
For example, as they demonstrated in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, NASA engineers partnering with commercial space companies can achieve a lot for a little if they're clear about and aligned on their goals and strategy for pursuing those goals.
The next step is carrying humans to orbit on commercial vehicles so we can stop pouring hundreds of millions into the Russian economy by buying rides on Soyuz vehicles and create a new industry and jobs here at home with our hard-earned tax dollars.
This Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program started out following the COTS model. But, of course, flying astronauts to the international space station is a slightly more emotional matter for NASA than delivering supplies. Flying an astronaut from Earth into orbit may seem clear-cut, but NASA has 50 years of sometimes painful history doing that, and it's almost impossible to push back on the agency's well-intentioned "help" if the project is set up using a contract that allows it.
Along the way, common sense is being tossed out the airlock in favor of a need to control and manage the process. Each day more of that old bias towards cost-plus, "let us meddle and control 'cause we're NASA and you're not," is creeping in, and the program has already become far more complex than is needed. The page count is growing daily on its guidelines and specifications. NASA managers are beginning to poke into the detailed operations and routines of the spaceflight firms at levels that are forcing more costs and hiring on their end to answer all the questions, and the program is teetering on the edge of slipping into the cost-plus spiral.
This is very bad for NASA, because every dollar spent going that first 200 miles is one the agency can't spend on the next several million. By overly managing the process to deliver its astronauts to low Earth orbit, they are slowing down and making much more expensive those same astronauts' ability to leap out beyond and explore. This is also bad for the birth of a commercial U.S. human spaceflight industry, as it forces extra costs and complexity on a system that must remain streamlined in order to usher in new commercial markets to spread costs over more customers.
Flying people into orbit is a well known and well understood process. Its success, be it on a government vehicle like the shuttle or a commercial spaceship, is a clear case of "know it when you see it." Either the astronaut or passenger has arrived alive, unharmed and had as pleasant a journey as possible or they have not. Simple. We do it millions of times a day to and from government airports across the country, and although space may be a more demanding environment, needing more complex technologies and systems to support the trip, it is no longer about rocket science -- it is about space transportation operations.
NASA came up with the COTS system to enable the development of commercial space transportation for payloads, followed by contracts to enable the delivery of routine payloads to the space station at low cost with high efficiency. The plan is working, even as it negotiates the normal obstacles any new approach has to overcome.
So why not do it again? Why toss out what has worked? Forget trying to coddle a culture of failure and financial irresponsibility. Let's for once focus on repeating a successful model, rather than abandoning it for one that was designed for the inner control freak in the system.
I know that NASA is trying to do the right thing, despite outside pressures from Congress.
To those pushing ahead towards the goal of low-cost, regular and safe access to orbit, I say, "Bravo!" To those trying to clog things up with paperwork and their own need to meddle and control, I say: "Drop the specs and back away from the FAR." Relax; employ common sense. You already have a tool that works. Adapt it but don't let it morph into something antithetical to its purpose. It worked once, and it will work again.
Combine incentives to quickly and affordably develop systems that serve your needs with a simple "buy the ride" purchase system and everyone wins. We'll save lots of bucks -- and that means we'll get more Buck Rogers.
Keep it simple, keep it common sense, and in a surprisingly short time, astronauts on their way to work at the space station or to board ships headed for the Far Frontier beyond Earth orbit will be able to kick back, relax and "leave the driving to us."
Santhosh Mathew, PhD: Seeking the Lost Seeds of Big Bang
Terry Newell: A Nation in Need of Awe
Barbara Crafton: Reflections on the Final Flight
John Bobey: Tips for NASA: Houston, You Have a Problem
Downix: if the commercial launch operators are required to use NASA's legacy facility for all human launches to orbit, that does impose a burden upon those contractors, and an un-needed extra cost for travel to any other destination, carrying other travelers.
The entire premise of this new approach is that NASA will no longer own a monopoly on travel by Americans to LEO.
We need to develop other launch points that are also free of the US Government's burdensome "range fees". The state governments are working to develop such facilities and the Federal level must 'stay out of the way' and allow this new industry to develop.
If Complex 39 is unique for US launches now, it soon will not be. There is no justification for any NASA facility to maintain its comfortable monopoly in this new ear.
Nothing in any of this is saying that alternate launch sites cannot be used, it is that if they wish to fly NASA Astronauts, they need to fly out of a particular site, that is all. No different than requiring for air cargo contractors for the US Military to operate out of US Military installations with suitable airfields when dealing with sensitive material.
Your definition of "suitable" is merely a scam to make it more difficult and costly for the private sector to develop this new market. There will be many passengers flying to other destinations.
Yours is the premise that does not stand up to examination. This is no more than the dinosaurs pretending that the asteroid has not yet hit the Yucatan.
Or is this over the 21st Century Complex concept, and not CCDev at all? The one where NASA has the CCDev winners launch from LC-39. That is not meddling, it is being smart with resources. NASA will need to handle the astronaut training and preparation, it will need to oversee the launches, and that has nothing to do with CCDev, it has to do with human spaceflight, commercial or not. Simply put, LC-39 offers the capability, no other sites do. To duplicate it's capability is expensive, and would add incredible amounts of logistical headaches as well as new red tape from agencies outside of NASA.
Carl Sagan and Arthur Clarke would have strongly agreed with Rick's "Go To the Stars" thinking.
It is imperative that we become a spacefaring species, or as Stephen Hawking says: "Face extinction".
We are running out of time.
Put Rick in charge and we will "get 'er done."