Space Access Notes: Day Three, Part Three

Jim Muncy: Polispace
The last speaker was Jim Muncy, one of the main representatives of alt.space in the policy world of Washington DC. He made two points, one dealing with the VSE, and the other dealing with some work they're doing with the military side of space. I want to go into more detail on the VSE stuff, so I'll mention the mil-space stuff first.

Jim basically brought up the fact that the military is becoming more and more interested in operational space access, and that this is a really good fit for what we're trying to develop in the commercial space access world. They've seen that time and again, the commercial world is working on developing some of the very technologies that the military has been blowing large amounts of cash to do via more traditional methods. What Jim and others have been trying to do is to make the military aware of what we're up to, and to try and find ways to get them to take advantage of the things that we're already doing, so they don't end up reinventing the wheel at much greater cost. He brought up the AFRL Center for Entrepreneurial Space Access that they're trying to get setup and funded. It would basically serve as a portal for the Air Force to be able to do cooperative work with alt.space companies. He mentioned ideas like "externships" where mil-space people would come and work in an internship-like environment with an alt.space company, providing experience and insight, while at the same time helping the mil-space guys learn more about how the entrepreneurial world works, and to hopefully help them work together better in the future. It'll be interesting to see what Jim et al can do with this this year.

Now for the VSE related stuff. When Jim started off his talk, he actually started out by chewing some of us space bloggers out for spending more time ripping on the bad parts of the VSE implementation instead of focusing on the good things they're doing like COTS. He probably didn't need to look right at me the whole time he was chewing us out, but I got the hint. I'll try to play nicer with the other boys and girls.

Then he made a very good point.

He remdinded us of a point that has now been made several times by various higher ups in NASA--that the CEV is going to be too expensive for them to both use it to service the station as well as pay for the rest of the VSE. Basically, as they first mentioned a year ago at Return to the Moon, NASA absolutely needs COTS to work, or they won't be able to afford the rest of the VSE. Jim's point was that COTS is a really good idea, and NASA deserves to be praised for doing it.

...And then asked for more. :-)

It's kind of ironic that so many people have talked about how we can't allow those unreliable private space companies to be on the critical path for the VSE, but the reality is that we already are. Whether they like it or not, commercial space is on the critical path to carrying out the VSE. NASA's choice at this point is do they recognize that fact, recognize that they've hit on a really good idea with COTS, and give it the resources it needs to succeed, or do they try and pretend that COTS isn't the critical path, and keep focusing on trying to get the Shaft flying? Even if the CLV and the CEV developments go perfectly, and even if those cost overruns that ATK is already admitting to end up being just a typo on their part, they won't have money to develop and field the rest of the systems they need to return to The Moon without having the COTS program work. In a way, you could put it as No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.

The opposite however isn't true. If COTS works, and we have 2-3 commercial companies flying people and cargo to orbit on a regular basis, it doesn't matter if the CLV/CEV succeed or not--we'll still be able to do the VSE.

In fact, if you look even closer, you realize that the only way we can fulfill our ISS commitments, avoid having a 2-4 year gap in US manned space capability, and afford to return to The Moon is if NASA can succesfully use the COTS program to help promote commercial manned orbital access. Sinking another 2-3 billion into the shuttle or into the CLV development or into the CEV development won't solve those problems. So, if NASA really wants to ensure that the VSE happens, if they really want to retire the shuttle in 2010, if they really want to make sure that the US has manned access to space on domestic launchers, they should be working harder to make sure COTS is a success. If instead of giving only 1% of NASA's budget over the next four years to what ammounts to the real critical path, they instead gave it say 2-5%, they could go a long way towards making COTS a more sure thing.

And as I said earlier, if COTS succeeds, even if the rest of the CEV/CLV stuff doesn't work out, there's still a good chance that privately operated lunar missions might still be a reality, using something along the lines of CSI's Lunar Express idea, combined with say, an MSS lander predelivered to lunar orbit.

I agree with Jim wholeheartedly. NASA did come up with a really good idea in doing the COTS program. So good that it really deserves enough resources to ensure it becomes a reality.

Conclusions
So that's another year of Space Access folks! No huge earth-shattering revelations or announcements, but we managed to accomplish a lot of our goals from last year, many companies are now building hardware that will soon be flying, the political and regulator environments are becoming better, we're getting taken more seriously by investors, and NASA's really starting to do a much better job of working well with the new commercial space industry.

Let's just hope that this time next year we will be looking back at a succesful X-Prize Cup, showing off pictures in our presentations of goofy-oversized checks being handed out, that we'll be celebrating the succesful debut of the Rocket Racing League, and that NASA, flush from its successes in the COTS program and with the Centennial Challenges, will be in a better position to get the money that they need allocated to those programs.