| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Topic: Focus on Earth to Orbit Transportation

Page history last edited by Ken Davidian 15 years, 9 months ago

Question:  Since all commercial space development depends on getting off the Earth's surface and into orbit in the first place, should NASA focus on* any emerging market other than the Earth To Orbit (ETO) services?

 

Position: NASA should only focus on ETO transportation, because...

 

  • All aspects of commercial space development depend on the Earth-to-Orbit market developing and thriving. Without it, every other commercial space market, in or beyond LEO, are unachievable. NASA needs to use all its limited resources and influence to maximize its impact on the possibility of success by the emerging commercial entities to provide low-cost and reliable ETO transportation.
  • The reality of a viable commercial space sector favors those markets that are more near-term than those which will only develop in later time frames. The near-term viability of ETO transportation is far greater than any other potential or emerging market, and is supported by the existance of a diverse customer base (US government, international governments, and private), as well as an extant (if only partial) regulatory environment.
  • NASA distorts markets. Markets are things that businesses develop and sell to, not government agencies. If you lower ETO costs then exploration becomes something that large numbers of people/organizations get to define on their own. Most of the explorers that Space Adventures have flown have done some kind of work on Station. NASA is not the only entity that can invest in and develop these emerging markets. NASA should focus on its mission and leave emerging markets to businesses and organizations chartered and built to do so. (Based on comment by Mike M. below.)
  • Another aspect of ETO transportation (actually, OTE transportation to be precise) is Thermal Protection Systems. TPS is one of the biggest issues for RLVs. ARC's work on TPS systems and the arcjet facilities are crucial to RLVs being commercially viable. The industry has enough basic research to figure out the propulsion problems on its own. What it *does* need is basic materials research on highly reusable, low cost TPS systems. (Based on comment by Mike M. below.)

 

Position: NASA should focus on ETO Transportation and other markets, because...

  • It’s the destination that keeps them coming back.  It might be a pretty drive across the desert, but to build the highway and gas stations, and cars, it’s going to take Las Vegas.  ETO Transportation, while very difficult, is only half the equation.  Destinations (the rest of the why) need to be developed in parallel.
  • If NASA does not invest in other emerging markets, we might end up with large numbers of people heading to space with: 1) Only tourist activities to carry out; 2) Insufficient technology to provide safe space travel; 3) Insufficient technology to sustain our presence in space. (Based on comment by Frank C. below.)

 

*NOTE: The phrase "focus on" is intended to apply to encouraging (a) the commercial development of ETO transportation systems that can meet demands of the "general public"  (i.e., is not "inherently governmental") as well as (b) enabling governmental demand for their services. It is not intended to apply to NASA developing an ETO transportation system to meet non-governmental demands.

Comments (7)

Frank C said

at 12:45 pm on Jun 6, 2008

NASA should focus other emerging markets.

Cheap ETO is the current key to humanity's movement to space in large numbers. We need to invest in this research if we want to have a chance to build a space economy.

That said, if NASA does not invest in other emerging markets, we might end up with large numbers of people heading to space with:
1) Only tourist activities to carry out.
2) Insufficient technology to provide safe space travel.
3) Insufficient technology to sustain our presence in space.

In essence, transportation becomes a very small fraction of the space exploration equation once we solve ETO. We should invest in research in developing sustainable techology (as with Abu Dabi and its green city: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Abu_Dhabi_starts_constructing_'green_city'). This kind of research would make Earth more liveable, but would result in a situation in which spaceflight would not have to be supported so closely from the ground as it currently is (by Progress supply vehicles and Mission Control centers).

That's just one example, but there are lots of others. Aerospace engineers are fired up about ETO, and it is not an easy problem to solve, but when it is, I think we may face a situation in which near-Earth space is inundated with humans, cargo, debris and weapons - a dangerous scenario. Think of it as when AOL released its dial-up service and it was incapable of supporting the flux of use.

It's important to think about exploration as more than transportation technology.

Michael Mealling said

at 9:48 am on Jun 23, 2008

Frank,
I agree but anything that starts with "NASA should focus on other emerging markets" scares the pants off me. NASA distorts markets. Markets are things that businesses develop and sell to, not government agencies. If you lower ETO costs then exploration becomes something that large numbers of people/organizations get to define on their own. Most of the explorers that Space Adventures have flown have done some kind of work on Station. NASA is not the only entity that can invest in and develop these emerging markets. NASA should focus on its mission and leave emerging markets to businesses and organizations chartered and built to do so.
With that said, I do think there is a need for NACA-style R&D for lowering costs to the industry: Basic research into life support systems, propulsion, power generation and transport, fuel/fluids transfer, refueling architectures, etc. But in these cases its not NASA that builds the mission, but NASA that does the research and assists others in building the missions.

Ken Davidian said

at 9:25 am on Jun 24, 2008

Michael,

Counter-Point 1. In response to your comment about the government distorting the market, doesn't that make the presumption that free markets even exist at all? In this week's issue of AvWeek, there is a letter to the editor that makes the point that there really is no such thing, except at the pizza parlor level of business. Is the presumption of free markets, in high-tech and high-cost markets, simply wishful thinking?

Counter-Point 2. NASA actually *is* a part of the market, after all, since it will represent some portion of the demand-side of the equation. Given that, shouldn't it be reasonable to expect that NASA *would* distort the market, as any customer would be expected to do? Or is your point that NASA would distort the market disproportionately, since we are a pretty big gorilla in the space marketplace?

Michael Mealling said

at 9:41 am on Jun 24, 2008

Ken,

Correct. I guess I'm talking about proportionality as opposed to a pure free market. My neo-libertarian proclivities aside, yes, government does buy things on the market and does affect those markets when it does so. But in most everything besides aerospace and military hardware, when the government does so it is not the largest part of that market. It may be the largest single customer (how much toilet paper does the government buy?) but even then its affect is mitigated by the combined force of the rest of the market.

What I was getting at was NASA being on the supply side of the equation with respect to ETO transportation. If NASA focuses on ETO transportation by attempting to supply a transportation system or sub-systems then by virtue of its subsidized position it will distort the market place to a much greater degree due to the naturally limited number of transportation suppliers. If NASA focuses on just the demand side of that by being a good and "normal" government customer (FAR Part 12) then it will only distort it in the same way it distorts the toilet paper market.

Get me in a bar talking politics and after a couple of drinks I'll object to both. But in real life I can live with the later. ;-)

Ken Davidian said

at 8:36 am on Jun 25, 2008

Mike,

I added a clarification by what was meant by the phrase "focus on" to reflect the distinction you pointed out in your comment. Does that clarification remove the need for the "NASA distorts markets" bullet in the discussion? Just wondering in the name of clarity and brevity. Otherwise, I see no need to delete that bullet...

Michael Mealling said

at 9:21 am on Jun 25, 2008

Ken,
Yes. That helps immensely. I still think its a generally applicable statement that anytime government participation in a market place is disproportionate that it distorts that market place. Maybe reword that bullet point to say something more like this:

* Disproportionate government involvement in a market (either on the supply or demand side) distorts that market place. If/When NASA focuses (see clarification below) on any market it should do so with the #1 requirement of reducing NASA's participation/support over reasonable time frames, even at the detriment of existing NASA resources.

I guess an example of what I'm after is ISS vs Bigelow. Yes, NASA operates ISS and has been working with Bigelow on inflatables. What I would like to see is some general statement about stations that is equivalent to what Griffin said about COTS: "As they stand up, we stand down". I.e. a statement from NASA that one of the alternatives to "retiring" the station in 2016 (yea, I know, that's a budgetary date, not any real technical date) is to begin to move to Bigelow's station. If NASA were to maintain ISS in competition with Bigelow and at a subsidized cost, then that would be a distorted market.

Michael Mealling said

at 9:28 am on Jun 25, 2008

Here's another example of "focusing on ETO" that, IMHO, is a good thing to be doing: Thermal Protection Systems. TPS is one of the biggest issues for RLVs. ARCs work on TPS systems and the arcjet facilities are, IMHO, crucial to RLVs being commercially viable. I think the industry has enough basic research to figure out the propulsion problems on its own. What it does need is basic materials research on highly reusable, low cost TPS systems.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.