starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner

["L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

NASA As an Equity Partner


by Kenneth Schweitzer
Washington - May 13, 2003

NASA was embarking on a Space transportation system to replace the Space
Shuttle before the Columbia disaster occurred. The current national Space
transportation plan calls for the development of both near-term and
long-term Space vehicle development programs.

The government's near-term development program, designated the Orbital Space
Plane (OSP), is intended to utilize existing technologies to develop a small
human transportation vehicle to fulfill International Space Station (ISS)
support needs, both for personnel transport to the ISS and rescue from the
Station.

Following the Columbia disaster there are calls to fully fund and even speed
up this vehicle system, instead of trying to build a new Shuttle orbiter to
replace Columbia as was done following the loss of Challenger.

The OSP is to use currently available technology, something private industry
can handle on its own. It is NASA's (aka the government's) duty to
facilitate the commercial application of high-potential high-risk
technologies by mitigating the risks through an extensive research and
testing program too expensive and risky for private companies to pursue on
their own.

The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated
spacecraft ever flown. It has repeatedly proven itself both for the ISS
roles of transport and rescue.

NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the use of
Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it ensures a
primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS.

The recent commitment by the Russian government to provide the necessary
support to keep the ISS program functioning and on track to completion
demonstrates their willingness to be an equal partner if given the credit
and recognition their proud Space industry deserves and demands from the
world. This solves the OSP mission immediately and far less expensively than
pouring billions of dollars into the OSP program.

The reusable launch vehicle (RLV) start-ups that have come on the scene over
the past decade are ready to bring a more modern OSP capability to NASA and
commercial users. Capital in the form of money, not technical inability nor
management incompetence, is the reason they have failed to date.

Kistler Aerospace, a small start-up founded some ten years ago encompassing
ex-NASA managers and engineers, had reportedly been able to obtain hundreds
of millions of dollars for the development of their Two-Stage-To-Orbit
(TSTO) vehicle, which is based on existing technologies.

Northrop-Grumman, a contractor on their vehicle, became an equity partner,
investing more than $30 million into their vehicle's development. Through
the assistance of this 'large established aerospace contractor', the small
rocket start-up nearly completed their first vehicle before funds ran out.
Kistler's rocket services would have included ISS support flights such as
Station re-supply.

This is just one example of a multitude of capable start-ups that were able
to find millions of dollars in private investment in the past few years.
They were ready and capable to support NASA's needs but only lacked
sufficient capital to complete their vehicle's developments.

NASA needs to become an equity partner with two or three of today's most
promising smaller launch start-ups to satisfy the ISS's needs, either
through matching the privately raised funds or through investing a direct
fixed amount.

Not a competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, but
between the smaller 'new' players.

Expending just 50% of the funds earmarked for the OSP program, NASA can
easily support two or three of these start-ups through first flight. The
remaining funds from the OSP program should be used to support and ensure
the research and development activities of the 3rd-generation launch
technology projects, such as the flight-testing of X-vehicles containing
scramjet engine technologies and new materials, too risky and expensive for
private industry to pursue on their own.

There is no justification for the government to continue to waste funds on
the OSP program when the agency's needs can be met more productively by
'investing' in the small launch start-ups.

Not learning the lessons of the Shuttle program of putting all your eggs in
one basket, NASA's OSP program as currently defined would select only one
vehicle concept for development in 2004 from of the established 'big boys',
where instead 2 or 3 promising start-ups can receive the capital support
they require.

With the adequate capital provided by NASA at least one of these firms would
be able to prove themselves. By some chance they fail, a Russian government
and Space industry that feels needed again can continue to develop their
Soyuz craft or perhaps even China at that point can join the ISS program,
supporting the ISS through their more modern Soyuz-based spacecraft. Either
way everyone wins. By going with the current OSP program nobody wins.

Under this new path, NASA is taken out of the RLV business for at least a
generation, opening up a new playing field of smaller operators for the
Shuttle follow-on system, one where NASA has an equitable interest in their
success.

By giving a chance to these new players today, the government will be
helping to build a mature, competitive, and vibrant Space transportation
industry, that in fifteen years will be able to utilize and bring to market
the government's 3rd-generation technology research efforts.

Kenneth Schweitzer is the author of MADE IN SPACE
<http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/15126>, now available through 1stBooks.com