Commercial Space Gateway

So, Let's Talk About It: The NASA Resources Gap

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:55:28 GMT

Norm Augustine and the "Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee" that he Chaired, reputedly worked hard on a fast track, accepting input from most everyone, to define options that would fit inside or fall outside the current and projected NASA budget. It was obviously a tough, thankless job, and we can assume that none sought the assignment by NASA and the Obama Administration. According to their final report, "The Committee was asked to review the program of record [current approved NASA plan] and offer prospective alternatives, not to recommend a specific future course for the human spaceflight program". They deserve our appreciation for this major effort and their well-written report. If you don't agree, I suggest trying to put yourself in their place with their mandate.

The report has some elements that please many, but as a total package seems to please only a few. And it really was not focused on recommendations, but on options, even though they seemed to have some favorite ones (but who wouldn't). What it really nailed down was a fact that many seem to understand, but few want to acknowledge openly, let alone discuss in detail. The first paragraph of the Executive Summary nails it to the door for all to see:

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most demanding and unforgiving ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today."

NASA budget decreases, frozen budgets with no inflation factor included, unfunded White House mandates, and the need to rebuild the aging space infrastructure is forcing very difficult choices and many see some major downside for their particular interests. However, the entrepreneurial commercial space market seems to have emerged from this process with a broad vote of confidence from the Committee, from the NASA Administrator, and the public. There seems to be general agreement that NASA is clearly overextended and desperately needs to lower its costs for support of ongoing human-related flight operations, especially in low Earth orbit, by utilizing commercial solutions, whenever appropriate. If commercial space entities cannot attract sufficient investors or eventually make a profit, they will go out of business, but we all hope that U.S. companies, many of whom are already involved, will compete strongly with their international counterparts. What we need to surely avoid is NASA going out of business, not due to lack of funding, but lack of public confidence and support. Aerospace is one of our best manufacturing and export sectors which we must retain and expand for global competitiveness. Also, our commercial space entities, often in partnership with government, will build new infrastructure elements (launch vehicles, spacecraft, fuel depots, research labs, space services, etc.) that will lower costs, and ultimately increase reliability and expand the space enterprise market. That's a path to both economic vitality and sustainability.

Expansion of commercial space activity in partnership with NASA and DoD inevitably brings some conflict between civil servant and private sector jobs, at least during the initial challenging transition period. This has brought congressional resistance to the fore, especially from the strong NASA-funded mission development focused states such as Florida, Alabama, and Texas. Jeff Foust of The Space Review captured an insightful quote from Jeff Greason, the CEO of XCOR Aerospace and a member of the Augustine Committee. Greason states, "To put it brutally, this trade, to my mind, is a trade between whether we have a space program or a jobs program". And that's a trade that nobody wants to make. Ideally, of course, such transitions, would be done with overlapping government and private sector activity, no gaps in between projects, and evolve so people have some chance to adapt.

Due to the realities of the current economic chaos both in the U.S. and world-wide, change seems to be happening often in hard, disruptive ways. We need our mature workforce and our new workforce in both sectors to work together, especially during this transition period. We can't afford to lose any talent in either category. A new collaborative endeavor by government (NASA and the Air Force Research Lab) and the emerging commercial reusable launch vehicle industry (suborbital and orbital) is emerging, called the "Commercial RLV Technology Roadmap Project". Such public-private partnerships can greatly help to lower the conflict over jobs since both sectors have major roles to play in advancing these technologies to lower space access costs while steadily building an infrastructure that will produce long-term value for the nation. .

It's the REAL THING

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:37:03 GMT

I just returned from the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight (ISPCS). Copies of the presentations will soon be accessible via the New Mexico NASA Space Grant Consortium , the event organizer. However, with the help of a bevy of onsite bloggers, the speakers' comments, reactions to those comments, and comments on those reactions began reverberating throughout the online community even before they had concluded their remarks (HobbySpace.com, CosmicLog.msnbc.msn.com). Therefore, I certainly won't try to summarize the two days of plenary sessions. However, there were some important over-arching developments that can be distilled from the fine panel presentations, and here are my impressions.

-The global sense of expectation that there is a real, emerging commercial space industry is stronger and more widespread than a year ago. Government representatives, large and small industry, universities, workforce development organizations, and spaceport operators uniformly believe that some invisible corner has been turned.

-There is heightened concern over STEM education and where future aerospace workers will come from. Often this was not a formal part of the panelist's presentations, but was verbalized in the questions and comments section after a number of the talks. A similar concern was voiced about transfer of knowledge from the aging, experienced generation to the next generation. There were no concrete suggestions about what to do, but then this was not a workshop about how to solve that problem. There should be one, but that is another story.

-The Augustine report was mentioned often, both in formal presentations and followup comments. Most people saw it as an important signal and driver to accelerate development of commercial space endeavors, and it helps build the idea that there is a commercial space marketplace not just for wealthy joy-riders but for meeting practical needs. On a related front, the question of what constitutes "commercial space" was posed but not answered. The phrase does seem to be code for a shift away from government-centric operations toward a more diversified marketplace of space-related goods and services.

-NASA is grappling with how to fit in this new alignment, but is coming to accept the fact that they are assuming the role of science-based buyers of space access services in many cases, rather than just spaceflight pioneers. Within that, the NASA Administrator is regarded as having the "right stuff" and an open mind, but will take his cues from the White House.

-Representatives from spaceports in Sweden, Florida, Indiana, French New Guinea, and New Mexico were present. Importantly, there was strong vocal agreement that they do not see themselves as competitors with one another for launch business. There was recognition that each spaceport has its own strengths and weaknesses for certain users trying to do particular missions with given types of equipment, and that the term "competition" is pretty much meaningless at this point. They are very desirous of working together to develop point-to-point transportation, and working with the FAA and other authorities on common operational issues to make commercial space flight more routine. This is a good thing.

-There is a need to de-fragment the process of developing standard interactions between various spaceports and the flight systems of anticipated users. No one wants to see a situation where users launching from one spaceport would have to land at a destination with incompatible systems. And no one wants the government in the position of listening to multiple petitioners make their cases about why their specific way of doing launches and returns is safer or more efficient than someone else's. Industry needs to come to the table and jointly lay out a plan and develop standards.

The fact that venture capitalists would show up and talk about their investments and plans for the commercial space industry says something, too. The commercial space industry is real enough to create significant movement by a lot of highly knowledgeable players. Our pathway to the stars is opening up. This is an exciting time to be alive, and to look forward to many "firsts" and rich, new experiences.

To Bold(en)ly Go Where NASA Has Gone Before?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:13:11 GMT

Original written, 04 October 2009

According to a Sept. 10th article in The Wall Street Journal, the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, headed by former Lockheed Martin Corp. Chairman Norman Augustine, "... is recommending that NASA shelve its goal of rapidly returning to the moon and instead focus on nurturing a robust commercial space industry that can handle short-term objectives of the nation's space program, such as ferrying cargo and crew to the international space station."

If you've followed my writing during the last few years, you know that I've long advocated a space exploration/settlement/development schedule that is synchronized with and nurtures the evolving capabilities of the NewSpace industry, rather than attempt to meet a politically mandated deadline.

The four big questions before us are 1) does NASA want to follow the above recommendation, 2) will President Obama direct NASA to do so, 3) will Congress support or interfere with such a directive, and 4) would NASA do what it is told to do if so directed?

Here are my thoughts about the four questions:

1) In a Sept. 25th article in Space News, NASA Administrator Bolden says, “I would be telling you a lie if I told you we’re on board, we’re really excited about this.” And yet, while acknowledging that "Old habits die hard" and "Many of us who have grown up in the traditional space program, you know, we really believe we have all the answers," he does recognize the value of NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.

My interpretation: Bolden recognizes that NewSpace is important to NASA's success, yet he knows that there are many powerful NewSpace foes within NASA and Congress that he must either co-opt or crush if NASA and NewSpace are to achieve their full synergistic potential. Whichever path he chooses, it will be a path where NASA has already gone before, as it has already made both half-hearted and sincere efforts to nurture NewSpace, and it has worked hard to crush NewSpace companies such as Mir Corp. Perhaps even worse, it has ignored similar NewSpace advice from the past:

* In 1986, in the wake of the loss of the space shuttle Challenger, Congress created and President Reagan appointed The National Commission on Space. On p. 110 of its report, "Pioneering the Space Frontier," you will find this statement: "The Commission therefore recommends: That next-generation cargo and passenger transport vehicles be designed and developed to be readily operable by commercial firms after the operational phase is reached. The sooner the private sector can assume responsibility for design, specification, development, fabrication, fight test, production, and operation of space vehicles and launch and landing facilities, the sooner the United States can begin to pattern Earth-to-orbit transportation after commercial airline operations."

* In January 2004, President Bush directed NASA to a new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" mission and convened the "President's Commission on Implementation of United States Exploration Policy," which presented its recommendations in June 2004. Recommendation 3-1 states, "The Commission recommends NASA recognize and implement a far larger presence of private industry in space operations with the specific goal of allowing private industry to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit. In NASA decisions, the preferred choice for operational activities must be competitively awarded contracts with private and non-profit organizations and NASA's role must be limited to only those areas where there is irrefutable demonstration that only government can perform the proposed activity."

The results are the bleak options listed in the Augustine Committee report.

2) Among other things, I see in President Obama a manager who sincerely attempts to please all parties who will be affected by his decisions. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes all parties are willing to accept a compromise in which they all benefit more or less than they want. But sometimes a manager needs to crack heads, draw the line, and make it clear that not all parties can be made happy with a decision, and while some may be furious with the decision, that decision will be made in support of the greater good. I do not expect President Obama to dramatically change the status quo by directing NASA to do as reported in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal article.

3) Considering the to-be-expected efforts by Sen. Bill Nelson to save NASA jobs in Florida, and similar efforts by Sen. Richard Shelby, and the political ramifications thereof, I do not expect Congress to support dramatic changes at NASA.

4) Considering all the above, even if the President, Congress, and Administrator Bolden agreed to radically alter NASA's relationship with the NewSpace industry, I expect the "old habits" to which Bolden referred will fight progress every centimeter of the way, thereby continuing to delay, perhaps fatally, NASA's rejuvenation.

When it's all said and done, political inertia to maintain the status quo will over-power the political momentum for change, and the result will be NASA visibly struggling as NewSpace visibly advances.

London Cabby Saves US/Soviet Space Mission

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:43:52 GMT

When we think about what really matters to us in being part of the space enterprise, it usually comes down to people. The impacts can come from long-time colleagues, new collaborators, and international partners, but sometimes people who just cross our paths. This story is about a total stranger to whom I owe a great deal. Please add one of your own stories in the Comment field below to help remind us to appreciate the community that we are part of.

In 1980 I left my research position at the UC Berkeley Environmental Physiology Lab and started working for NASA as a space physiologist. Shortly after, I was asked to lead a three-person US delegation to Moscow to negotiate experiments to be flown on a Soviet biosatellite. The NASA Project Scientist provided me with a Nikon camera to document instrumentation, international equipment shipping forms, copies of existing agreements between the two “sides”, and notes on items to resolve during our three weeks of scheduled meetings. This critical material just fit into a leather briefcase I bought for the trip and intended to guard carefully.

We flew into London from California for an overnight stay with departure the next morning, Sunday, to Moscow. We woke early to breakfast at the hotel and I looked for my briefcase that also contained most of my money, my passport and visa. However, it wasn’t in my room and I panicked. My colleagues reminded me that when we arrived at Victoria Station on the shuttle bus from Heathrow, because the last cab was waiting, we grabbed each other’s bags sitting next to the bus, jumped in, and headed to the hotel. In spite of feeling jet-lagged, we stowed the luggage in our rooms, went right out to dinner and then a late night jazz club, to help shift our biorhythms. But why wasn’t my briefcase in one of their rooms? They didn’t have a clue.

I guessed it must have been left in the cab and ran to the stand outside the hotel and accosted the first in line. Was there a lost and found? Yes. Was it opened on Sunday? No. From where did I catch the cab to the hotel? Victoria Station. In desperation, I told the cabby that if I couldn’t retrieve the briefcase within a half-hour we would not only miss our plane, our entire trip to Moscow to negotiate a joint space flight, would collapse. He pulled me into his cab and headed for Victoria Station. I asked why, but he couldn’t explain. I knew Victoria Station was just a bus-to-cab transfer point in an unoccupied building with no doors. Of what possible use would it be to go there?

The cabby and I sprinted into the waiting room that contained a bare wooden counter. He jumped behind it and started flinging open cupboard doors and then reached in and pulled out my briefcase. I don't know who was more shocked, but we did a quick bear-hug dance of sorts, and ran back to his cab. Tears of relief and joy welled up in our eyes and as we raced back to the hotel, he assembled a likely story. The bus driver removed the briefcase from the back of the bus stowage compartment only after we had hopped into the cab, then he saw it sitting on the sidewalk after everyone had gone and figured someone would come right back to look for it. He had to leave for the airport, so he put it in the cupboard, never thinking it would sit there overnight.

In spite of my protestations, the cabby wouldn’t accept a tip, claiming his reward was to know that the “system” had worked and international cooperation would continue unabated, even between the two Cold Warriors. Whenever I see a black English taxi I feel very thankful for a cabby’s faith in his fellow man. In my experience, working on international collaborative space projects of the sort that also drive global space commerce, such stories emerge whenever people gather to share libations and discuss the incidents that make this work so incredibly addictive.

Future Outposts Beyond LEO Require R&D Now

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:57:20 GMT

Dr. Joan Vernikos, the former Director of NASA's Life Sciences Division is our first "Guest" Author-Analyst. Her books "The G-Connection" and "Stress Fitness for Seniors" provide knowledge gained and useful applications from space medicine to our lives on Earth. Links to these books, one of her NASA patents for a "human-powered artificial-gravity centrifuge", plus a bio are provided on her web site. She continues to be a srong advocate for promoting valuable collaborations between NASA and space commerce entities to develop innovations and products that benefit all.

The Space Age is still emerging. Many will take exception to this statement, but in terms of human space exploration I believe it’s true. We have much to do before we can practically design, develop and ethically attempt to implement human outposts beyond Earth. The recent 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Lunar landing reminds us that, because of the extraordinary confluence of events driven largely by the Soviet Sputnik launch, exploration by astronauts became national policy. However, Apollo’s roughly 10 day round-trip missions with brief 1-3 day periods on the Lunar surface, at low-gravity and high cosmic radiation exposure, provided little motivation to better understand the human response to this unusual environment. During Apollo Program development, the 14-day Gemini VII mission provided an initial glimpse of human adaptation to microgravity in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). But as long as the engineering wizards could design increasingly sophisticated machines, provide Earth-like spacesuit and spacecraft environments, and stock sufficient supplies, the crews performed mostly as expected.

Our commitment to human space exploration evaporated by Apollo 17 before all the planned missions were flown, mostly because of budget concerns and having no plan or capability to gain additional value from extended stays. Wisely, the next step focused on human biomedical research when NASA used a left-over and modified Saturn V rocket to launch SkyLab considered to be the first U.S. space station. SkyLab utilized an evacuated Saturn fuel stage for human habitation and research in microgravity. We knew that humans could survive the rigors of launch, earth-orbit for at least 14 days, a journey to/from and work on the Moon, some romping about in 1/6th G and return to Earth’s 1G, with relatively few physical problems. But there was enough evidence that had emerged to raise concerns for longer missions. SkyLab missions had three-person crews for durations of 28, 54 and 84 days and established a preliminary knowledge base for space medicine research in the U.S. Since then much more has been learned about identifying and attempting to manage microgravity risks as more astronauts experienced durations up to 6 months on Mir and the International Space Station (ISS).

What are human space exploration prospects for the future?

The recent preliminary report of the Commission on Human Space concluded that current NASA goals for human space exploration are unrealistic, based on projected funding. Independent of their view and any decisions that are subsequently made by the current Administration and NASA in this regard, we have important work that can be done now to further these objectives using existing and evolving LEO platforms. We need to conduct more studies on human and biological adaptations to microgravity, and develop more effective countermeasures to that adaptation to ensure human health in space, on return to Earth, and the verification of life support systems that could eventually extend human habitation opportunities to outposts beyond LEO. Demonstrated solutions to these challenges are needed before major decisions on destinations, mission design, and hardware can be made. There are, as the Commission has identified, major opportunities for involvement of the private sector in support of ISS utilization and future expandable space-based habitats.

There is an increased focus now on clarifying the reasons why humans should explore space along with the potential robotic methods for doing so. Cost and human safety challenges demand that we better define and understand the true value of this for support of national and international goals.

What should we do now?

Assuming that human space exploration will remain a national priority even as cost and value issues are addressed and clarified, there are some high-priority options for proceeding with R&D in the near-term.

1) Where there is minimal means for resupply from Earth, the top priority must be a reliable, closed loop, recyclable life support system, proven operational perhaps for up to three years. The first country to have such a system will lead in human space exploration. Russia, Japan and the European Space Agency are working on such systems, but U.S. efforts have at best been intermittent. Yet the potential for advanced technology development and applications is rich. Recycling of oxygen, CO2, and water, and technology to grow fresh food as well as preserve it for long periods must all be developed. How can we minimize waste and packaging? Perhaps we can make some of it edible or recyclable for the construction of habitats or to provide shielding. In situ resource utilization is a nice idea, but only as a fall-back even for the Moon. Advanced sensors, monitors and control systems are needed to operate the system reliably.

2) We need a new generation of light, flexible, and durable space suits that can resist corrosive planetary surface dust and ideally provide radiation shielding as well. A suit and gloves are needed that are comptible wssssith temperature extremes, can be worn all day, every day, and are readily repaired and perhaps made of as yet-to-be discovered materials.

3) Radiation research has progressed, but there is still no practical effective, lightweight shielding material. Unpopular though it may be, new astronaut selection for long missions should include genetic sensitivity screening. Resistance to radiation may be the only ethical basis for crew selection as such procedures become available. Bioengineering to increase resistance to radiation should be pursued with vigor in the next few years. Radioprotective measures must be safe and reliable.

4) Medical operations will require highly-compact effective new systems. Skylab forced NASA to ‘think small’ leading to miniaturization of instrumentation and non-invasive procedure development. Exploration requires shifting to another order of magnitude smaller – probably on the nanoscale. Novel drug delivery, new storage and biotechnology approaches will be needed. Portable brain tissue imaging methods should be refined. Cognitive group and self-evaluation, support procedures and training should be available where communication with home base is impractical.

5) The search for practical effective countermeasures is far from over. Exercise devices should be replaced with simpler, practical, sturdier solutions. As with radiation, genetic sensitivity to and means for developing increased resistance to bone loss must be explored. Methods for minimizing metabolic stress and boosting immunity are crucial. Options for providing artificial gravity must be revisited. For example, a human-powered 'green' centrifuge that is compact, user-friendly, and provides both passive gravity and exercise in gravity, while also generating power instead of draining resources is the type of thinking that is necessary.

As with Gemini and Apollo, innovations will be developed and unimagined discoveries lie in store. New knowledge and technologies will find related uses as they are appropriately commercialized for use in space and on Earth by industry partners. The ability to preserve healthy life is clearly a prerequisite to successful planning for human space exploration in the new Space Age, but the largest beneficiary, as always, will be us.

NASA's Mission: Clear as Mud

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:13:05 GMT

A provocative, timely article was posted on “The Space Review” site last week written by G. Ryan Faith of the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled, “Giving NASA a Clear Mission" . I generally concur with his insightful analysis of NASA’s historically vague mission definition, and I've provided a very brief summary of it below on which to base my comments. Bottom line, Faith suggests a new exploration mission for NASA that he thinks is clearer and whose goal is the open-ended “expansion of human influence” in space. We respond to this further below.

Let’s review his main points. Faith argues that currently NASA “has no mandate to explore space” and in addition Congress has tasked it with “a number of things that are related to neither space nor exploration”. He notes that the original Space Act of 1958 created NASA to “provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere and for other purposes”. I agree that this was a rather vague and not particularly inspiring goal. It’s interesting to note that Dr. John Logsdon (former Director of the Space Policy Institute at GWU) has written a first-class historical analysis that includes documentation of the chronically tenuous support for human space exploration by NASA, Congress and the general public, that supports Faith’s view.

I also conclude, based on many surveys and reports done over the years, that public support for NASA in general, and human space exploration in particular, is tentative and has not changed significantly from the post-Apollo era to the present. This appears to be true, especially for those born post-Apollo, in spite of President Bush’s 2004 announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration that for the first time, strongly supported the human element. Space advocates, and I count myself among them, generally support human space exploration, but we have yet to convert most taxpayers to our position. The appointment of the Augustine Committee by the Obama Administration to specifically review NASA’s human spaceflight plans is related to the marginal public support and major concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure funding for this significant portion of NASA’s objectives. This challenge appears to be a key element in what has driven Faith to search for a clearer NASA mission.

Faith considers the Apollo Program, initiated by President Kennedy in 1961, to have been a highly focused major research and technology development effort that morphed NASA into a space exploration agency. However, as he notes, the mandate was so specific to the Moon landing that when the Agency accomplished its goal in 1969, it no longer had a clear reason to exist. Thus the Apollo Program’s success and subsequent termination also erased the mandate for exploration. Faith concludes that this returned NASA to being an unfocused research entity and even though the Agency has pursued many of its priorities over the years, it hasn’t sent anyone beyond low Earth orbit since 1972.

Faith’s position is that even the subsequent development of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station were primarily technology-oriented, not capability-oriented goals. And, “once a given technology is developed, maintenance of that technology, rather than further expansion of basic capabilities, becomes paramount”. He proposes that if we expect NASA to pursue exploration again, the Agency must be specifically tasked to do so based on a clearer definition of that goal. And for that definition he proposes that “space exploration is the expansion of human influence in space”, which can also serve as the rationale for capabilities development. For him the key is that “such a mandate compels each step to build on past accomplishments and lay the groundwork for future missions.” That strategy has been a key element of the Russian space program and I think should be more common in the U.S., as well. The result of choosing such a mission, in Faith’s view, would be that, “the mandate for expanding human influence can’t run out”. Importantly, Faith sees this exploration path as creating opportunities for other stakeholders to play key roles, such as the private sector. I completely agree with him on the importance of the human element for increasing entrepreneurial space commerce – indeed, the Augustine Committee and NASA management seemingly are depending on it.

For those who strongly support human space exploration, I expect Faith’s broad goal for increased human influence will resonate strongly. For others who lean toward robotic planetary exploration, classic space science discovery missions like Kepler and the Hubble Telescope, and those who think NASA should align itself more strongly with protecting Earth from what appears to be significant threats from human industrialization, this focus will be too narrow. Many human space exploration advocates see the ultimate goal being human habitation of space beyond Earth, but that is infrequently mentioned within NASA, and even less so in Congress. The promotion of “human influence” in space may be more acceptable than “human settlement”, but if we’re looking for a definition of space exploration, it must include robotic explorers since they are ultimately sent and controlled by humans, and they can be seen as an extension of humans, as Faith agrees.

A recent NAS report titled, “America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs” concluded that NASA should more closely link its goals with our national challenges in order to garner public support sufficient to improve its prospects for stable funding and sustainability. I whole-heartedly support this recommendation and think NASA’s goal must include efforts to protect Earth from profound climate changes, damage to the biosphere, killer asteroid impacts, and similar threats. Perhaps this too can be considered part of the “human influence” if its regarded as a stewardship role. Ideally, a return-on-investment focus on “beneficial human influences” can be part of the mission definition that also applies directly to the expansion of space commerce. Faith is going in the right direction in his analysis, but we need to ensure NASA’s focus on space exploration is inclusive and seen as beneficial to humanity in general and our home planet.

Space exploration will receive stronger, more sustainable support from the general public when its mission is perceived as more inspirational, participatory, and clearly beneficial to our planet and our high priority societal needs. Once again, A. Lincoln had it right when he said, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail: without it nothing can succeed.” Space commerce has a special role in helping NASA identify and demonstrate the value that space has, is now, and will continue to provide to all. We need to learn how to better demonstrate and communicate that value at every opportunity.

"Privatization of Space Exploration": A Book Review

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:12:03 GMT

"Solomon Book" Source: Amazon.com

One of the ten Resource Types provided by the Commercial Space Gateway is “Books”. And for each there is a brief description of content with a link to its Amazon.com page for more information. I just read one of these books, by Lewis D. Solomon, titled, “The Privatization of Space Exploration: Business, Technology, Law and Policy” (2008). It was only 120 pages long, but to my surprise it provides a very good overview of the emergence of the entrepreneurial space sector and its broad significance for the commercial space industry and NASA. It integrates several key factors that are both driving and required by these new enterprises in order to succeed. It was a pleasure to read and I commend it to any who would like a quick tour of this emerging market.

The first chapter is “The Rise, Stagnation, and Possible Revitalization of NASA”. Solomon notes that “the iron triangle, consisting of private sector contractors, NASA, and congressional delegations” has controlled space infrastructure development for years. He gives a succinct but insightful analysis of NASA’s evolution and its recent interest in space commerce as a cost-effective option for providing future products and services to lease and/or purchase. NASA needs lower-cost innovative options to augment its decreasing capability to fund development of space infrastructure elements in-house or by using large aerospace contractors. Cheaper access to space is not only better – for NASA it is now essential. Innovative, entrepreneurial low-cost solutions to space transport and operations challenges are needed to leverage NASA’s chronically underfunded obligations.

Solomon identifies three key areas of focus for these "NewSpace" entities, namely: “regularizing suborbital space travel through less-expensive, but reliable and safe launch vehicles; significantly lowering the cost of launching payloads into space; and creating human habitations in space.” He considers winning of the Ansari X Prize in 2004 by Burt Rutan’s firm, teamed with Mojave Aerospace Ventures, by reaching a suborbital altitude of 62.5 miles twice within a two-week period, a major milestone in commercial space history. He likens it to the Wright Brothers successful aircraft flight at Kitty Hawk, NC in 1903. Solomon regards that event as transformational for NASA, the NewSpace sector, and especially, the public’s perception of our future in space.

Solomon describes the Mojave, CA SpacePort where Rutan’s company and several others have gathered as a kind of incubator for entrepreneurial research, development and testing and emerging space enterprises. He profiles four examples of NewSpace companies including: Virgin Galactic (low-cost access for personal flight to the edge of space) Space Adventures (personal space flight broker, spaceports), Space Exploration Technologies Corp. or SpaceX (low-cost, mostly reusable orbital rockets for transport of cargo and humans and free-flyer payloads), and Bigelow Aerospace (orbital space habitats, for research, manufacturing, 30-day habitation).

Solomon’s approach to profiling each of these NewSpace companies is to address a broad set of issues such as: origins/failures/successes; obstacles to overcome; key personnel; technology assets; and financing. This allows the reader to compare and assess the general strengths and weaknesses of these fascinating companies, most of which arose from their founder's expertise in IT/software, not aerospace. He finishes by describing the legal environment faced by these companies and gives a realistic summing up.

The author, like many, sees reliable, safe, frequent, and lower-cost access to space as the key to the future of space commerce. Beginning with suborbital flight, then progressing to orbital free-flyers and transport services to space platforms like the International Space Station, and finally to Bigelow’s expandable habitats, is the evolutionary path often associated with NewSpace companies. The “holy grail” for space commerce would be development of the true, but elusive, Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) that could be flown more than daily. The initial space planes that are being developed for suborbital flight are seen as an initial step in that direction. The goals of these pioneering NewSpace companies can be grand and often go beyond just the profit motive, especially for those who are largely self-funded. As Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX often says, “long-term our ambition is to help humanity become a multiplanet species”. He also claims he’s in it for the long-haul, and that is probably what it will take.

Spacefaring (2): Paths to Realization

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:36:35 GMT

"Habot (habitat + robot)" Source: SpaceRef

I didn't envision addressing “spacefaring” again so soon, but events keep driving the issue of “human settlement in space” to front and center since it is the rationale for much of human spaceflight. That, of course, is the focus of the current "Augustine Committee" with a mandate to assess options for the future of human space exploration. They will soon report their formal recommendations to NASA that apparently project a significant delay in human exploration beyond LEO, due primarily to budget limitations. If implemented, that would impact NASA, its contractors, and the entrepreneurial commercial space sector in many ways that are already being discussed. The need for these three sectors to collaborate is increasing in parallel with the likelihood of expanded competition all around. Things may get a bit dicey soon but the NASA committment to increased involvement by entrepreneurial space entities must not falter, now that it is well underway.

But it was John Hickman’s recent Space Review article on “Coping with the Closing: Disempowerment in the Post-Apollo Narratives About the Space Frontier” that convinced me to continue this story. Hickman reminded me of how differently I think about human exploration and habitation than many of those who haven’t actually worked in space research and space infrastructure development. Hickman is a political scientist who is also an advocate for human settlement of space but approaches that from a broad social science viewpoint. Based on my background working with NASA and international space projects for more than 40 years, I can understand his views but see science and technical issues as being just as important as those in the area of strategy and political economy about which he also wrote, a decade ago. However, I do like his reference to the successful completion of the Panama Canal by the U.S. as being a reasonable analog for a first venture in human habitation perhaps leading to future settlement on the Moon. The point being, it will take a major national committment of resources, even if the space commerce sector is heavily involved.

In his recent article Hickman profiles several space advocate “narratives” based on the “emotionally painful truth that the entity [NASA] that briefly opened space as a geographic frontier [Apollo] was also the same entity that closed it [Apollo termination]”. My interpretation of this is quite different. President Kennedy’s view of, and NASA’s strategy on Apollo was driven primarily by perceived Cold War Soviet political threats based on space technology “gaps”, not our intent to open up human frontiers on the Moon. Public opinion on lunar exploration then was similar to what it is now, with about 60% of people seeing it as a worthwhile goal. This story has been well told recently associated with the 50th year anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing.

The reality is that we were not prepared to continue spending almost 5% of our GDP on NASA in 1969 and our technology, even though superb at accomplishing this goal, was never designed to establish a “frontier” (human outpost or settlement) on the Moon. We didn’t have life support systems to stay more than just a few days even if we had wanted to, and we don’t have them developed yet for even a short-stay return visit. As I wrote recently, we need to do intensive R&D on the effects on humans of chronic microgravity and radiation beyond LEO and on advanced life support systems that are practical, effective and as far as possible closed-loop with an emphasis on using in situ (local) resources. Such research was one of the key rationales for building the ISS, and it is just becoming possible with completion of the ISS, with sufficient equipment, facilities and crew time available to really conduct significant research.

We also, as the Augustine Committee knows so well, need to identify and secure sufficient research funding to support university and commercial space investigators and developers in these endeavors. In many cases, our international partners are better prepared than we to fully activate their ISS research. We need ongoing R&D to determine how to utilize the ISS "outpost" as a path to spacefaring that includes homesteading, while regularly demonstrating to the public and congress the value of doing so for the nation. Luckily several cost-effective entrepreneurial space projects in suborbital space, on orbital free-flyers, and leading to cargo and human transport to/from the ISS will not only help us do this research, but also provide key infrastructure development on the path to spacefaring.

Imagining the Future & Acting Now to Get There

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:15:44 GMT

As Commercial Space Gateway Editor, I’m usually researching and writing about the future as it is envisioned and shaped by federal government policies, public-private funding for commercial space R&D, and entrepreneurial space business development. However, I’m also very interested in NASA’s long involvement in what they now call “GreenSpace” and the potential utilization of these technologies for space commerce.

NASA Ames Research Center spearheaded this recent initiative but other NASA Centers are also now involved. Over its 50 year existance, NASA has by necessity become expert at R&D associated with extreme environments, planetary monitoring, alternative energy production and efficiency, life support and sustainable systems. It’s no accident that Dr. James Hansen, one of the world’s leading experts on climate change works for NASA. Many credit NASA and the Apollo mission’s first photos of “spaceship” Earth in the midst of the black cosmos and the famous “Earthrise” viewed from the Moon as bringing the modern environmental movement into being.

So with this long-held interest, I just read an article in the “New Scientist” titled, “Comment: Why People Don’t Act on Climate Change” which addresses a difficult question we all need to ponder. Apparently climate change scientists find it difficult to modify their business travel behavior even when they will be speaking to their peers in other countries about the need to decrease carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. This tendency to disconnect our ability to imagine the future from current actions to implement change will have major consequences for our future, with implications for space commerce development, as well.

The struggle that others have with this disconnect doesn’t surprise me because I know how hard it is to change my own behavior. Like many, I am recyling more materials, buying more “green” products, eating less meat, driving less, and yes, walking more. But, I’m also flying long distances to conferences as I’ve done for years, without thinking too much about it. Significant changes in behavior seem to happen only when we’re forced to make them or there are financial benefits, and that’s just the way we operate.

Our ancient ancestors probably left their familiar caves to head South only when the temperatures kept dropping and they couldn’t find sufficient food locally. Now, associated with emerging climate changes we need to imagine dramatic changes we can make in how we capture, distribute and save energy, produce and buy food, recycle materials, conserve and reuse water, travel, and much more.

Have we become any better at imagining the future and proactively making changes now so that a better future can be realized? That capability is supposedly one that separates us from other creatures living on our planet. I don’t know about you, but I’m not pleased about having to make any big changes. I like to work on long-term projects and bring things to fruition and then enjoy them for years. My wife, however, a designer by training and inclination, likes nothing better than changing things around, regularly. It’s the change process itself that seems to energize her and I often find her with a paint brush in hand in some corner of the house late at night working away. It’s a good thing there are more like her or we would never adapt to new challenges.

In another article titled,"The Green Summit: 10 X Bigger than Kyoto", Alex Koyfman, posted in The Green Chip Review, profiles several factors that are driving economic changes including major investments. He finds that international agreements and changes in law often drive increased investments that will move us toward changes for a better future. Koyfman notes that, “We've all heard about proposed emissions cuts, gas guzzler taxes, and investor resistance to technologies destined to compete with industries that rely on historically-dominant power sources, such as oil and coal. What few understand today is that climate change is actually one of the most significant drivers of the economy that we're likely to see in our lifetimes.” He contends that, “Where before new sectors opened and prospered in response to technical innovations and the never-ending quest for greater speed, better standardization, and increased volume, we are today — for the first time in history — being influenced by environmental limitations.”

Delegates from 192 nations will meet in Copenhagen this December for an historic summit, and a coordinated multi-national strategy will be drawn up to deal with our environmental challenges. Enormous resources, both monetary and human, have already been committed to what billionaire venture capitalist John Doerr — who helped bring you Google and Amazon — has called "nothing less than the re-industrialization of the whole planet." It’s my contention that this need will also extend to rebuilding our space infrastructure.

I recently wrote an article titled, “Policy Updates: Let’s Build on our Infrastructure” that argues for strong alignment of future space development with major national challenges, including climate change. The involvement of the private sector in developing an updated space infrastructure that can help us address challenges such as global warming, disaster mitigation, off-Earth rare resource mining, and space-based solar power R&D, also requires that we imagine our future in order to shape it. We need to learn to start working on and adapting to changes earlier so that we’re not going to be “driven from our caves”. We need sufficient time to create innovations to reindustrialize both Earth and space since the strong linkage between them is becoming more and more obvious.

Spacefaring: Our Real Prospects for Homesteading Off-Earth?

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:32:45 GMT

"Our Nearest Neighbor" Source: NASA

Judging the prospects for human settlement beyond Earth requires assessment of elements such as; the rationale for, the technical, biological and social readiness for, the political will for, and the funding resources available, for doing so. I focus here primarily on the rationale for and technical and biological capabilities for human settlement. Even that is a large topic. Also, I fully acknowledge the advisability of using, as possible, advanced robotics with the “virtual presence” and remote manipulation they can provide to assist in all aspects of human settlement. It is envisioned that they will be the initial explorers and risk analysis agents that preceed humans. Subsequently, when teamed with humans, they can help create the infrastructure to support people and robots in a very challenging environment and greatly facilitate space commercialization opportunities and applications. However, robotics will have to be addressed later.

A common view within space advocacy groups and the human exploration elements of NASA is that “spacefaring” on a space platform traveling for months beyond Earth, a large asteroid or another planet like the Moon would logically occur in stages which can help us operationally define this vague term. The first would be “sortie” or short visits to demonstrate the feasibility of getting there, briefly living and working there, and coming back. We did that long ago during Apollo. The second would be to establish an “outpost” with imported facilities and supplies sufficient to stay longer and test the limits of people and systems to operate together safely and efficiently. Apollo did none of that except to provide a sporty “lunar buggy” that extended human travel distances for exploration. The third stage would be to establish a permanently occupied “settlement” of facilities, resources and people who would stay for fixed periods and then be replaced as we do now on the International Space Station (ISS). The fourth stage could be called “frontier” where people move to their new home assuming it will have sufficient resources, with ongoing related processing efforts, to provide mostly local “life support” for themselves, and perhaps in the future for a growing population that might start with plants and animals in artificial ecosystems.

This staging when applied to spacefaring on the Moon provides a useful view of the “precursor” phase that has recently begun (remote exploration with lunar orbiters, crash-landing “excavators”, water "scouts", and lots of strategic analyses) and the R&D necessary to allow us to perhaps permanently inhabit the planet “next-door”. Much work would be required, with significant involvement by the entrepreneurial space sector in partnership with the government, to make the Moon habitable for short periods gradually extending in length. Many argue that spacefaring development work must be done in part on the ISS and then the Moon to make the costs and risks even close to being acceptable. There is an emerging view that considering the significant climate, energy, resource and Near-Earth Object (NEO) threats to our planet, the future of the human race may mandate off-Earth settlements. These might function as an alternate artificial ecosystem for humans and hopefully, also as a resource “base” for Earth-focused research, energy production, rare mineral extraction, and more. Along with potential commercial profits from development, this is the basic rationale for spacefaring, and Stephen Hawing and many of the NewSpace entrepreneurs are strong advocates for this view.

While attending the recent NewSpace 2009 Conference sponsored by the Space Frontier Foundation, I experienced a real surprise during a presentation focused on our readiness for human spacefaring.. It was as if a fresh breeze blew away the chronic fog and exposed a hidden reality. The clearer view was represented by James S. Logan, MD, currently an Aerospace & Occupational Medical Officer, at NASA JSC. Reality emerged with his frank assessment of the accumulated biomedical evidence associated with the health risks of long-duration human exposure to spaceflight the space environment on other planets, but his focus was the Moon.

The evidence presented (link is to a very similar presentation by Logan) was not new to me since I’ve been involved in space life sciences research and reporting of mission results for many years. What was truly new for me however, was that this highly-experienced NASA flight surgeon, currently employed by NASA, and a strong advocate for the value of human spaceflight, told the story about what he called, “The Elephant in the Room”. In this case the “elephant” was the infrequently discussed integrated biomedical evidence indicating that the combined dangers of microgravity (or perhaps 1/6th lunar gravity) and radiation exposure during long-duration habitation on a planet like the Moon or Mars, is so dangerous that it would be unethical to expose people to it with our current systems.

In talking with Logan after his presentation he reiterated that he was not speaking for NASA or the government, but only himself as a long-term specialist in this area (Board Certified in Aerospace Medicine, former Chief of Flight Medicine and Crew Surgeon at JSC for many Space Shuttle missions). His motivation is to put the evidence on the table so it can be better understood, discussed, and shared more openly in a constructive manner. He is clearly not trying to cause problems but does feel strongly that these major challenges need to be dealt with effectively. Indeed, for several years he has had a consulting company on the side, Space Medicine Associates, Inc. staffed by a team with human biomedical and healthcare backgrounds. Their current tagline is “ Dedicated to the Health and Safety of the Personal Space Traveler”, so apparently they are also focused on commercial human spaceflight safety.

The obvious question, of course, is why isn’t this story being told by other NASA experts in this field too? After all, “spacefaring” leading to long-term human habitation on other worlds, is the implied, if not often-stated rationale for NASA’s human spaceflight program - is it not?. I expect we can all appreciate that Logan’s frank and open biomedical risk assessment and sharing of that story publically might be discouraged by some in NASA upper-level management. A few might even consider it “career limiting”. It’s my view that NASA can no longer avoid such discussions and expect to maintain its credibility with the space biomedical research community and the informed public. Whatever the astronaut opinions are on this issue they must be highly-constrained since they are in a classic conflict of interest situation. But they surely expect NASA to conttinue focusing on their long-term health and well-being. Logan is an excellent spokesperson and good “bridge-builder” advocating responsible human spacefaring combined with more focus on the research, technical development, and collaborative action that needs to be done.

Logan was asked what he thought was a great question by a listener, during a July 15, 2008 David Livingston interview on “The Space Show”. The listener wanted to know about what enthusiasts for spacefaring could do that would be both responsible and helpful to their cause. Logan indicated that they should face the reality of the large body of biomedical evidence to date and encourage others to become informed too. He thinks that is the first step toward then encouraging NASA to develop appropriate space exploration and development strategies based on what we know. He suggested that it is essential to conduct ongoing biomedical research with animals, plants and humans to better understand countermeasures such as the use of artificial gravity and water and/or lunar regolith shielding from radiation hazards.

A recent article by Jeff Foust on The Space Review with the choice title, “Found Art” highlights the tendency of some spacefaring enthusiasts to blithely ignore these issues to the detriment of all. After the Mars Society recently testified to the Augustine Committee about the importance to the future of spacefaring of sending humans to Mars, one of several signs saying “Mars Direct: Cowards Return to the Moon” was found in a nearby restroom, presumably left behind by an advocate. An equally choice comment on this story was provided by one Malcolm Peterson…"Perhaps the advocates for human trips to Mars should afix an asterisk to their statements such as,...the Surgeon General has determined that human travelers to Mars should assume that they will not survive to return to Earth." Logan is not alone.

The prospects for true spacefaring do not look good right now, but fortunately we have several R&D paths opening up that may help improve them. A new capability to conduct microgravity and/or radiation-related research is emerging on suborbital space planes (4 min micro-g duration), low-cost microsats such as TubeSats, CubeSats, GeneSats are available (weeks in duration), a large free-flyer like the SpaceX Dragon Lab is being developed (controlled variable duration and return of payloads), and the ISS National Lab is receiving much-needed attention from White House and NASA review teams (weeks in duration with access to international research facilities and sufficient crew to do more research). Opportunities for helping humans to eventually live off-Earth are increasing and we need to use them wisely if we hope to truly become more spacefaring.

"Unpopular Science": Will it Impact Space Commerce?

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:34:49 GMT

"Cargo & Human Spaceships" Source: SpaceX

A fascinating but somewhat ominous article titled “Unpopular Science” has just been published. It includes an overview of the reasons for the ongoing decline of professional science journalism in the U.S. This is an important topic, but what relevance does it have to space commerce?

One answer to this question, according to the authors, is that the origins of the space enterprise played a significant role in the expansion of science journalism. Another answer in my view is that space commerce will increasingly involve support for the space research and development infrastructure that is driven by seeking answers to high-priority science questions. Space infrastructure elements that can support science include; launch systems, satellites, robotic systems, telecommunication systems, space data systems, GPS, and ground support systems. In the near-future space commerce will likely support top-level science milestones utilizing these elements to accomplish; research payload transport and orbital insertion, robotic rover transport to planets, satellite monitoring of the environment, planets, moons and asteroids, science data capture and distribution to ground systems and more.

If major science-related challenges associated with space (Earth climate changes, discovery of off-Earth resources and perhaps life, disaster mitigation, development of space-based solar power systems, etc.) are not widely understood, their relevance will be questioned and that can negatively impact space commerce markets, among others. High-quality but accessible science journalism is an important element for the future growth of commercial space for global survival and overall sustainability.

Full disclosure: my background is in space life sciences research and for several years I have been a science and technology writer. I am therefore naturally concerned about this topic but after reading “Unpopular Science” I was struck by the degree to which our space enterprise appears as an undercurrent in the story. The authors note that “science journalism began as a specialized beat in the early twentieth century…[and] the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik was an especially galvanizing event”. “US newspapers ramped up their science content and a generation of writers cut their teeth covering the ‘space race’.” "Another boom came in the late 1970s and early ‘80s when Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series reached 500 million people globally, and fifteen new science magazines, eighteen new newspaper science sections, and seventeen new science TV shows were launched in the fUnited States.”

The beginning of the collapse of science journalism is apparently linked to the deregulation of the media industry that resulted in its mass consolidation. Serious science journalism was produced mainly by well-trained professionals who made good salaries, and the cost-cutting associated with media consolidation eventually began to impact staffing in that area. The deregulation of the broadcast networks was accompanied by a proliferation of cable TV stations and an expansion of channels that were increasingly politicized and much less focused on broad national stories that profiled the relevance of science to our society. Now due to the loss of advertising and younger readers, newspapers are collapsing and their science journalists are being laid off in droves.

Many of the remaining science outlets, including the expanding online news sources, increasingly focus on “hot” topics written by people with minimal science training. Much of this writing and TV coverage now tends to focus on battles between competing viewpoints, not what has been demonstrated to be sound and useful. Several good science-related blogs have arisen, one of special note being ScienceBlogs.com, but they tend to be frequented by those for whom science is a necessary ingredient in their lives, not the broad public that needs to be better informed and from whom space commerce needs support and advocacy.

The departure of journalists like Mark Carreau, the former space reporter of the Houston Chronicle is mentioned. He covered the Johnson Space Center activity for 20 years. Also, a few months ago, CNN cut its entire science, space and technology unit. A prominent member was Miles O’Brien who covered the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster for CNN.

The authors conjecture that production of high-quality science journalism may shift to more nonprofit and university-based entities. They feel that individual scientists may need to become more involved too. One prominent example of this from government is Dr. James Hansen, one of the world experts in climate change within NASA, who speaks and writes often on the topic.

I anticipate that the Commercial Space Gateway and its user community can also help keep science journalism alive, especially as it relates to the future of space commerce, so please send us or point to any of your good finds. The increasing potential importance of microgravity science on the International Space Station and on future commercial suborbital science space plane flights requires general understanding of the associated benefits to companies and society. All the big national questions that relate to space require a basic public understanding of the science issues, and so we must care.

From Apollo To The Space Shuttle... Does NASA Inspire?

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:35:34 GMT

"Space Station Transit of Sun", Source: NASAwatch

Original written, Friday, 17 July 2009

Two events are bringing NASA a great deal of attention, with the added dimension that one looks back to a time of certainty and accomplishment while the other looks forward during a time of uncertainty and delays. The former event is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, and the latter is the Senate confirmation of Charles Bolden as the new NASA Administrator and Lori Garver as his deputy. Both events have led to a great deal of commentary, and is frequently the case when discussing the real and perceived value of NASA, supporters proclaim that NASA must be given the resources it needs because one of its missions is to inspire students to become scientists and engineers.

Here are just two examples of the "inspire" mantra:

1. In a June 22nd Op-ed in Space News entitled, "End of Shuttle Era Creates an 'Inspiration Gap'," Challenger Center President Daniel Barstow concludes, "... we can keep alive the spirit of exploration that drives our nation's soul and inspires our young people to dream big dreams,..."

2. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Charles Bolden described one of NASA's four challenges as "Inspire a rising generation... committed to increasing knowledge in the fields of science, technology engineering and math by making NASA and its programs relevant to the American public."

I think "inspire" is as abused as "new and improved" and "easy to use." Here's why:

There is no "I" in NASA; it is not the National Inspiration and Space Administration. In other words, is it really necessary for NASA to formally declare that one of its missions is to inspire? Every time I hear this, I think that if NASA's programs were inspirational in and of themselves then there would be no need to state that one of its missions is to inspire. It would just happen by default, it would be obvious, and you wouldn't need to talk about it as one of your missions. It's like a company's marketing department needing to convince consumers that Product Z cures the common cold and puts that luster back in your hair when it really doesn't do anything of the sort.

During the last few years I've lectured to classes of engineering students at several universities, and very few of them are inspired by NASA or want to work at NASA. What really puts the fire in their eyes are the accomplishments and promise of the NewSpace companies; the successful launches of SpaceX Corp., the two habitat modules placed in orbit by Bigelow Aerospace, the Virgin Galactic test flights, the XCOR Aerospace development of The Lynx, and so forth.

There is no doubt that the Apollo program was inspirational. Can the same claim be made for the space shuttle program after the avoidable loss of two vehicles and the failure to meet the promised flight rate of 55 launches per year and radically lower launch costs? The main inspiration I've seen is the motivation for entrepreneurs to create the companies mentioned above. In other words, the inspiration to do what NASA has not and will never accomplish; regular, cost-effective, and efficient space transportation. If NASA isn't very, very careful, this is the kind of inspiration it will continue to create.

Space Policy Updates?: Let's Build On Our Infrastructure!

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:33:41 GMT

"White House" Source: Gov

It’s space policy review season and time for the new Obama administration and brand new NASA leadership to get aligned and focused on goals, means and methods in order to proceed. The space policy waters are still very choppy and filled with vessels from many government and civil organizations going in all directions without a good map. NASA’s vessel looks particularly precarious since there are some fights underway on deck, and some others are lobbing shells at it.

I can't list the many space policy study group activities. However, I will provide some highlights especially relevant to commercial space, and argue that the updated policy must include clear goals, existing and developing space infrastructure needs, related resource requirements, and anticipated benefits for all stakeholders, especially the public. The Obama administration is understandably urging NASA to provide more “inspiration”, but it’s my view (I’m not alone here) that this can only emerge from the pursuit of challenging goals that directly support high-priority national needs. The Apollo 11 lunar landing, for example, was driven by perceived security threats from the Soviet Union, and the national will to demonstrate our capabilities to tackle tough problems with no known solutions. We landed on the Moon, planted the flag, and soon after shut down Apollo.

Now we need space policies that support major national objectives with success measured by achieving milestones that move us toward sustainable infrastructure capabilities and related benefits. It’s a long-overdue game plan with space commerce as a key element, and it can inspire us all. By building on our "infrastructure" I mean adding to and upgrading all the systems, facilities, tools and resources that are in place such as the Space Shuttle, International Space Station, launch, transport and recovery systems, satellite communication systems, GPS, and ground tracking systems. I also envision that via the emerging entrepreneurial infrastructure we will have access to new systems such as suborbital space planes, free-flyers, and cargo and human transport systems. To pursue any national space vision, we need to be able to depend on and utilize these resources effectively and innovatively.

A new government-wide space policy review has just been initiated at President Obama’s request by Security Adviser James Jones. He is to "review our present policy and decide whether it is in keeping with our vision of the 21st century and where we want to go, and…come up with a coherent space policy into which NASA and our plans fit…”. Again, I vote for aligning our vision and policies with our evolving space infrastructure, not the other way around.

Fortunately, the National Research Council (NRC) just completed their national space policy study and have published “America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs” so Jones will have a good head start on his task. The NRC study indicates that it is imperative that the U.S. civil space program be aligned with widely acknowledged national challenges - environmental, economic, and strategic - and if so, will grow in importance. “Coordination across federal agencies, combined with a competent technical work force, effective infrastructure, and investment in technology and innovation, will lay the foundation for a purposeful, strategic U.S. space program that would serve national interests." "The report also recommends revitalizing NASA's advanced technology development program by establishing a DARPA-like organization within NASA to support priority civil and commercial space programs, and development of "dual-use" space technologies, with both civil and defense applications."

Also, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine is heading into the final set of public hearings for the independent review he is leading of human spaceflight options as mandated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA. Augustine's Committee is assessing ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight - one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. Specific objectives include: a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS); b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO); c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities. Those are great objectives because they are based on intelligently using our current and evolving infrastructure. But, good luck Norm, trying to squeeze that into current budgets.

Dennis Wingo, has recently addressed this issue from the global needs perspective in his article, “Why Space? Why Now? That is the Question." He notes that “recently the World Wildlife Federation proclaimed that it would take the equivalent of two more earth's to provide for the nine billion people that will live on the earth by 2050. Fortunately, with the dozens of Moons, millions of asteroids, and the inexhaustible energy from the Sun, we have more than enough for all.” That's the "long view" of a compelling need that should increasingly be discussed as part of international space collaboration.

In order for U.S. civil space to be supported by the public, from the kids to the greybeards, the alignment of our space infrastructure utilization with national goals is essential. I’m defining “space infrastructure” here in a broad sense and including space commerce as an essential element. The profit motive that drives private sector investment is essential to leverage our highly-constrained government funding. Also, effective collaboration at many levels with our global partners should be standard procedure. The faster we move in this direction, the faster will our economy recover and the more inspired will we all be. I say “three cheers” for these policy reviews! Do you agree?

Big Bet Made on Space Commerce in Vegas

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:06:37 GMT

"Sundancer Cluster" Source: Bigelow Aerospace

Bob Bigelow, a Las Vegas native originally portrayed by the media as someone who shuns interviews, has armed guards throughout his Bigelow Aerospace (BA) facilities, and wants the government to stay out of his business, now seems to have opened up a bit. He has done several interviews and presented his plans publically on how he intends to build and launch inflatable space habitats. His candor in suggesting that his chances of eventually making money in space remain about 50-50 and his humility in claiming that he hasn’t done much yet, is refreshing.

Bigelow is one of the genuine mavericks operating in the world of entrepreneurial space commerce. However, the fact that he knows how to run a profitable business provides him significant credibility. Bigelow’s initial claim to fame was development of the highly successful Budget Suites of America Hotel chain the profits from which in 1999 funded the launch and ongoing development of BA that will be up to the $500M level. This can seem like an odd shift in direction until you understand more of his story.

After first investing in other commercial space ventures that eventually looked weak from a business case standpoint, he thought he could do better. He saw a report on NASA's technology development of a large, inflatable space habitat, called “Transhab” and guessed that the concept could work as a commercial venture. Perhaps for a real estate developer like Bigelow, a habitat is a habitat whether it’s at Earth gravity or inflated in microgravity. In any case, when NASA was directed to halt further development due in part to resource limitations, he was able to license the technology. After further development and making significant improvements, BA built and paid the Russians to launch two currently orbiting prototype spacecraft (Genesis I & II) and now has a third larger module (Sundancer) for human habitation under construction.

The Transhab team had demonstrated the feasibility of creating an inflatable habitat that could meet the vacuum, temperature, durability, radiation, safety, habitability, and useability requirements for the space environment. Their goal was to produce a lightweight, small, collapsible package that’s much cheaper to build and transport but that when pressurized internally for life support in a vacuum environment, would provide a strong, stable, large living and work space that could be attached to the International Space Station (ISS). Some space architects working on the team saw Transhab technology as the basis for the first human habitat designed for long-duration occupancy in space, with options for use on planetary surfaces like the Moon.

BA has a full-time Washington DC-based presence in Mike Gold, who doubles as its space savvy corporate counsel. Bigelow still shuns government funding and continues to place his big bets back home in Las Vegas. He makes periodic small “side bets” in DC trying to hopefully both ease and meet highly restrictive government export control (ITAR) regulations that apply to his technology. By necessity, Bigelow and Gold have become savvy about working the government bureaucracy for purposes of small business survival and interestingly this includes developing good relations with NASA. The question I asked myself, is “why NASA"?

Bigelow and Gold recognize NASA’s recent funding of the public-private Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) project with space businesses as a significant potential benefit to BA. Bigelow, who will soon need low-cost, reliable transport of people and cargo to his on-orbit habitats, can benefit from development of those capabilities by U.S. firms partly funded by COTS.

In a recent ABC News article Bigelow states, “I think NASA is on the verge of being irrelevant, except for deep space exploration”. Making provocative statements is a Bigelow hallmark, but I think he means that NASA should leave support of human space exploration as much as possible to industry and instead focus on robotic spacecraft and exploration systems. Elon Musk’s company SpaceX, one of the COTS partners, is developing a low-cost Falcon 9 rocket and space capsule named Dragon that is on the path to eventual rating for support of human transport. Also the Lockheed Atlas V rocket might be adapted for support of humans and serve Bigelow's purpose. This is the big bet that Bigelow has made on services to be provided by other companies and he knows it may be a long-shot but remains optimistic.

Bigelow’s inflatable habitat concepts have evolved along with the space entrepreneurial market and his current objective is to develop “an office building in space” where “other countries or corporations would be our tenants”. He doesn’t consider space tourists or NASA as his customer targets. He needs a low-cost, reliable way to get passengers and cargo to/from his habitats and considers the future SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon and Boeing’s Atlas V as good options. Keep your eye on Bigelow too because he’s good at grabbing opportunities and developing relationships with entities that allow him maximum leverage. If NASA can be a reliable customer along the way, I won’t be surprised to see Bigelow there with the right product. It’s easy to picture a large, inflatable docked to the ISS for long-duration human habitat studies, including novel exercises that were developed on the SkyLab space station. Small easy-to-transport packages that can be inflated in a vacuum to make really big habitats can provide new commercial space applications that are driven by innovative visions. Bigelow knows.

July 20, 1969: What Does it All Mean?

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:40:38 GMT

"Earthrise on Moon" Source: NASA

The media is awash in a small tidal wave of Apollo 11 mission analysis and nostalgia for that time, 40 years ago, when an earthling first set foot on the Moon. I watched the Lunar landing on an old black and white TV in a low-budget Berkeley rental with my young family. My teeth were clenched when Neil Armstrong manually took over the controls due to a large field of boulders suddenly appearing in the field of view at the landing site. He veered away from it and finally landed the "Eagle" on a smoother surface with only 17 seconds of fuel left. After the landing I remember comments from Mission Control at Johnson Space Center indicating that many of those sitting at the consoles still looked quite blue, but were slowly recovering. It reminds us of the value of being prepared for most anything, as were the astronauts and mission control operators, and the role of good luck. It seemed so impossible, so surreal, and very hard to grasp even though it was on live TV. Only after some deep breathing could we appreciate the fact that Armstrong, the first to place a foot on the surface, was "our" earthling. It was truly a step for all humankind even though the U.S. budgetary driver was in large part a big bet against the Soviets in the "Space Race". The fact that the Russians never tried to land people there after that is a testament to the race. Nixon's cancellation of the last several Apollo missions is also a clear message that winning the race was the overriding goal.

Color images called "Earthrise" taken from the earlier Apollo 8 mission during lunar orbit and the iconic images of the "pale blue marble" we know as Earth taken enroute to the Moon, had an impact that persists to the present. The contrast of the cratered, dry, grey Moon with the water and cloud-covered Earth clearly showed that we live on a planet that is our global "spacecraft" and provides us critical life support as we move continuously through space. To me that is still a profound realization even though it's now old news. One benefit of having lived for several years pre-Apollo on Earth's surface was that our first "off-Earth" view back home could be so profound.

John Noble Wilford, the renowned NY Times science writer, was at the "Cape" in Florida for several Apollo missions including Apollo 11 when astronauts first landed and he claims it was the biggest story he ever covered. He has now provided us with a special gift by rethinking and retelling his story and assessing the Apollo legacy. He figures he'll never have such a story again unless life is discovered on another planet and he lives to tell about it.

I can't help thinking about our current place in space. We've had twin rovers tooling around Mars for years that continually send images back and get themselves unstuck, when necessary. We've just completed another brain transplant on the Hubble telescope that has allowed us to "see" back to the beginning of the universe and better understand our place in the evolving cosmos. Missions are underway to search for other "Earths" around far-away planets and to monitor Earth's ongoing adaptation to human habitation and climate change. The International Space Station, occupied now for a decade, is nearing completion and hopefully we will be wise and resourceful enough to use it effectively to discover more about living, working and researching while "off-Earth". We need to understand how more of us might do that someday, if/when it's needed because of threats to Earth and our need to access more resources. Our view from space and our foothold there provides us with options for conducting research and feasibility studies that could open the door globally to unlimited, clean space-based solar power. The ISS can provide opportunities for the industrialized and emerging nations to collaborate and participate in the benefits that can accrue from space research and development. This includes significant new opportunities for space commerce and related Earth commerce that the world needs now to help spur a global economic recovery. "Spaceship Earth" needs its human inhabitants to learn how to be better stewards of the life support system since we and all life depend on it. Apollo opened the door to many of these possibilities to utilize space wisely for the benefit of all. Perhaps that's really the answer to what Apollo means - the gateway to a better, more sustainable future.

Why Everyone's Talking Commercial Space

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:15:44 GMT

"Dragon Cargo Capsule" Source: SpaceX

Rarely have I seen NASA, especially its human spaceflight program, in such a difficult and conflicted state and I’ve been involved for 30 years. The two Space Shuttle disasters were shocking and tragic, and after each many thought the Agency might not recover. But after making some technical and procedural changes, the Shuttle returned each time to operational status. Now, our space-related challenges seem more infrastructure and resource-related, and the fixes less obvious. However, it seems increasingly likely that commercial space will have an important role.

NASA is at a major strategic crossroads, and many think it’s in a quagmire of insufficient resources and overwhelming requirements. This is made worse by observing new competitors and several of our traditional international partners pursuing collaborative space development among themselves. To me the most critical needs are 1) for strong Congressional and NASA leadership willing to openly assess our choices and their consequences, and then advocate for and implement difficult resource-related decisions, and 2) for cost-effective improvements in our inadequate space infrastructure. The latter especially relates to the importance of the emerging entrepreneurial commercial space market, the focus of this story.

NASA’s human spaceflight problems have been lining up, ominously like dominos. The short list now includes:
- Budget cuts, cost overruns, schedule delays and technical concerns with the Constellation Program’s development of new crew and cargo transport systems to Low Earth Orbit and “beyond”
- Need to closeout the 30 year old Space Shuttle by 2010 in part because NASA can’t afford to keep the Program going while new transport systems are being developed
- A projected NASA space transport (cargo and crew) gap between 2010 and 2015 (Constellation launcher not yet available) since we will have no way with the Shuttle gone to access Low Earth Orbit except via Russian and/or U.S. commercial spacecraft
- “Reorientation” of most of the microgravity research and development budget from the ISS to Constellation development has reduced the potential science value of the ISS National Lab and our ability to effectively share use of international partner research facilities, thus shrinking the public's return on their major investment

How did this all come about? NASA has been working for years with a relatively fixed budget (about 0.5% of the Federal total), declining purchasing power, an aging workforce, and lessening public support especially from the younger generation who grew up watching Shuttle disasters, not Apollo successes. Having reached its 50th anniversary, NASA is often taken for granted and its ongoing infrastructure maintenance and operations costs are steadily increasing in part because of Agency accomplishments (the unstoppable Mars Rovers, Hubble’s latest new “brain”) and some costly program stretch-outs. Another growing problem is that the traditional NASA way of doing business, with strong dependence on large aerospace companies, has become more costly. One view is that the “space age” has been replaced by the “information age” which is now becoming the “IT/social networking” age and NASA and traditional aerospace are struggling to adapt to the pace. Innovation, collaboration and development of products are now driven by smaller entrepreneurial sci-tech entities of a wide variety that are increasingly important for our global, national, and regional economic vitality and sustainability.

It’s not like NASA hasn’t had many glorious, world-changing successes – it truly has and that will surely continue, if more slowly. Just consider Apollo, the Deep Space Network supporting global satellite communications, Mars Rover Explorations, the Hubble Telescope and its rebirths, the Space Shuttle with about 125 successful missions, planetary exploration across our solar system, and the nearly-completed International Space Station (ISS), continuously occupied and increasingly operational since 2000.   And these are just the most visible peaks on the mountain.

Fortunately, there is also some near-term good news. Beginning around year 2000, a small business space movement of sorts was initiated by several IT billionaires and some others who decided to utilize their resources and business experience in IT and software development to develop more efficient space transportation, a StarTrek-fueled childhood dream for several. They teamed up with some adventuresome innovative space professionals from the space industry, NASA specialists, non-space technology experts and some “fresh-out” engineers to establish what is often collectively called "NewSpace" reflecting an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to providing much lower-cost, predictable and flexible access to space. These companies are focused primarily on providing suborbital access services to new space customers mainly in the public sphere, but some, especially high risk-takers like SpaceX who want to provide orbital access services, see the government as a key customer and partner to help them make that giant technology leap. Complementary collaboration is their goal.

The U.S. government, especially NASA, eventually saw this as an opportunity to collaborate with entrepreneurial commercial space entities via public-private partnerships wherein technical and financial risks are shared. This evolved into one of NASA’s most courageous and savvy accomplishments, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. As Dr. Pete Worden, the Director of NASA Ames Research Center and a long-time advocate for increased industry collaboration with government, puts it, the Agency is now “enabling the private sector to help get us into space by mid-wifing this new approach”.

The emerging entrepreneurial space businesses are mostly small-to-medium size, and include some non-space entities developing products for multiple markets, a smart, perhaps essential business strategy. Several traditional aerospace companies are involved since they can provide deep and broad technical expertise to support these growing small companies and are interested in future merger and acquisition opportunities and marketing their existing and emerging commercial products more broadly. Most of these company leaders, many in Congress, and the space advocacy groups believe, as I do, that lower-cost, reliable access to space will open the door to new space investments, many new space-related products and services, new global business collaborations, and increased public involvement in space, and help provide a “space workforce magnet” via hands-on student participation opportunities.

The projected commercial space-related products and services are too many to list but are envisioned to be within areas such as: satellite servicing/refueling; satellite communications, networking and data delivery; global navigation system applications; transport of human/research payloads to suborbital and human/cargo to orbital destinations; research & manufacturing, and potential space-based solar power systems with 24/7 energy transport to Earth.

We who believe in the value of international collaboration for space development, the utilization of space for monitoring Earth’s environmental health and producing global benefits have an opportunity and responsibility to promote the broad benefits that can accrue from the expansion of the space commerce market. By partnering with NASA the entrepreneurial space community can help solve some of NASA’s problems, capture some government seed funds, and increasingly obtain private sector resources for entrepreneurial space development. This will stimulate entrepreneurial space market development and complement the inevitably constrained NASA budgets. So, keep talking up commercial space!

Branding of Space Commerce is Overdue

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:12:21 GMT

While researching, capturing and developing content as Editor of the Commercial Space Gateway, I try to more clearly define and communicate the “brand” associated with the emerging space commerce market. One definition of a good brand is a memorable image, name or phrase that “promises the value that can be delivered”. A brand thus gains power in proportion to the realization of that promise. Unfortunately, many conclude now that most of the public and the Congress don’t see the value that’s being “delivered” by the overall space enterprise, inevitably including the commercial space subset. Considering that “NASA” is one of most famous brands in the world and the biggest organization operating in space, there must be something going on that's not so obvious.

A professional analysis of this issue titled the “American Perception of Space Exploration” suggests that “NASA does not have a branding problem; it has a communications problem, in that people do not understand the connection between the brand and its current activities”.   The report identifies a disconnect between the public’s perception of the “promised value” and what is “delivered”. Based on my recent experience, commercial space has both a branding and a related communications challenge. But, let’s dig into this a bit further.

In our media-dominated world, many think that branding is essential, for the success of people, products, organizations and yes, even markets. A good brand helps create committed customers who understand and share a sense of the value in making an investment in developing, producing, or buying something. This is a significant issue since defining what’s meant by “space commerce” is not easy in an environment where the standard industry codes still barely recognize “aerospace” as a category. We need to develop branding that promises clear value and ensures, that as the value emerges, it gets delivered and the benefits are communicated effectively to the customer-stakeholders.

For example, commercial human suborbital spaceflights on space planes (initially “space tourism”, then “personal spaceflight”) promise to dramatically lower the cost of access to the edge of space. This will provide value to adventurers who are willing to pay relatively big ticket prices at the emergence of this market. However, as the demand expands the flight rate will increase and the cost/flight will be driven down - competition will ensure that. This price shift can open the door to new customers with fewer resources including researchers who want to accompany their small experiment payloads for 3-4 minute duration multiple exposures to microgravity. This can be provided at a much lower cost than traveling to orbit on the Shuttle or to the International Space Station, sites that should be reserved for research that is sufficiently proven to warrant the larger investment. Thus the market will evolve and lead to another one, and the value proposition will expand, as well.   This is the power of lower-cost space access – it is seen as a primary new market catalyst.

The overall emerging space commerce market needs access to significant business investments for new space infrastructure development, new space applications, and commercialization of many products and services. How can we effectively communicate the projected value of these investments? What would be a powerful brand definition sufficient to clarify the value to stakeholders and get them excited about this industry’s potential?

As we ponder this, we should ask ourselves some questions. Do we agree that it's an appropriate strategy for space commerce to pursue both government and private sector R&D seed money while working to create a new space transportation market? How should our space commerce brand relate to more traditional space business, such as communication, navigation and positioning satellite applications?   The increasingly-used brand name “NewSpace” tends to be applied to the suborbital commercial human spaceflight market. Should it be broadened to apply to entrepreneurial commercial space enterprises of any kind? If so, how can that be accomplished?

We need a memorable brand that recognizes government funding limitations as a customer, opportunities for new private sector investments and innovations, and the prime value of generating business profits and public benefits. Could we use “Bringing it Home: Commercial Benefits from Space”? What about “Space Commerce: Reaping Benefits from Space”? Or maybe “Down-To-Earth: Commercial Benefits from Space”? My last idea is “Real Space Access: Down-To-Earth Benefits”. What do you think of this branding and communications issue and these branding ideas? We need your creative input and we need it now!

Excitement Reigns at Spaceport America

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:22:48 GMT

Reports about the recent groundbreaking at Spaceport America (SA) have understandably focused on the story behind its coming into being and the who, what, and when of the event as it unfolded. As one who was there, I can say all aspects were well handled which made the trip to the remote site near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, well worth the trek.

What doesn’t come through in most of the news reporting is the extraordinary public excitement and support for this event. For me, the action kicked off when charter buses in Las Cruces began filling with a mixture of residents, press, and dignitaries at 6:15 a.m. Several hundred people, from the same area of New Mexico and who actually knew each other, boarded buses while buzzing with stories of their families, lives, and, of course, their high expectations for the Spaceport. After traveling to Truth or Consequences, they picked up additional passengers, but only after attending an early morning rally there featuring Governor Richardson, among others. He spoke to a large crowd that combined both groundbreaking attendees and those who would remain in “T or C” (as they say) for the day. The applause was loud and heartfelt.

The attendees from Dona Ana County, where the SA offices are located, and Sierra County, where the SA site is located, are the same people who voted to pass a gross receipts tax in order to help fund construction of the Spaceport. And how often do we see that kind of commitment these days? It is truly awesome to realize that you are changing the course of history for future generations in your state, and on June 19th the excitement was humming like a generator from the wee hours of the morning until long after the event ended.

What non-local groundbreaking visitors might not have realized is that, in addition to the support of the superb New Mexico SA staff, many community volunteers pitched in to make sure that plenty of water and refreshments were available for guests. Some may recall the barn-raising scene from the Harrison Ford movie “Witness,” and the tingle they felt at seeing neighbors come together for a common purpose. It was a lot like that: a contagious sense of community engagement and shared pride.

And it is not the first time this has happened, as I can verify. At the May 2, 2009 Educational Launch event, organized by the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium, about 250 people showed up at the high school gymnasium in T or C at 6:00 a.m. to register for bus passes to SA. Many had driven up from Las Cruces, which means they had to arise about 4:30 a.m. to make it. Kids as young as 5 years were jumping up and down with anticipation, asking over and over again when they could board the bus. You had to raise your voice to a person three feet away from you in order to be heard!

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “There is nothing possible or impossible but thinking makes it so.” It is quite clear from the groundbreaking excitement that New Mexico is truly focused on the possible.

A Brief History Review for Sen. Richard Shelby

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:23:36 GMT

Original written, 09 June 2009

Sen. Richard Shelby (R. - Ala.) is unhappy because NASA Administrator Christopher Scolese intends to use $150 million of the $400 million NASA received as part of the stimulus package to support the development of commercial space transportation for delivering cargo and personnel to the space station.

His rationale reveals an astounding lack of historical perspective.

During a May 21st hearing of the Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee hearing, the Senator stated, "I believe that manned spaceflight is something that is still in the realm of government, because despite their best efforts, some truly private enterprises have not been able to deliver on plans of launching vehicles."

I guess he missed the successful launch of Space Exploration Technologies' (SpaceX) Falcon 1 rocket on Sept. 28, 2008.

And that's just recent history. Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to 1960:

"On 28 July 1960, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced a new manned spaceflight program. Called Apollo, its aim was to put three astronauts into sustained earth orbit, or into a flight around the moon. The timing of the announcement was not auspicious. The next day, NASA's first Mercury-Atlas (MA-1) disintegrated and fell into the ocean 58 seconds after takeoff from Cape Canaveral. This disaster ushered in a bleak four months during which the test rocket Little Joe 5 joined the MA-1 in the ocean, and the first Mercury-Redstone lifted a fraction fo an inch and settled back on its launch pad." (Source: "Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations," NASA SP-4204, p. xv)

I understand the Senator's need and desire to to protect the jobs of his constituents at NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center, but attempting to force an either/or choice between Federal and commercial space transportation is not the answer. That's as false a choice as Moon vs. Mars and manned vs. robotic space exploration. Both NASA and NewSpace have valid and valuable roles to play, so let's please not waste time and energy creating a schism where one need not exist.

Lessons from Turkey for Global Commercial Space

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:27:02 GMT

I was recently invited to be a presenter/panelist at the 5th annual Turkish-American Business Conference (TABCON) in San Francisco, organized by TABC, the Turkish-American Business Connection. This event brings the U.S. and Turkey closer together by promoting business cooperation and knowledge sharing in areas of mutual benefit. I looked forward to gaining a better understanding of current and future areas for cooperation, including commercial space.

I’ve had a personal interest in Turkish-American relations since my neighbor, a classics professor at UC Berkeley and member of an annual American archeological expedition to Turkey for 50 summers, shared his adventures with me. My family and I subsequently vacationed in Turkey and also toured the excavation and restoration with him as guide. Reading “Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds”, a book he recommended, helped me see Turkey as the multi-factored “bridge” between East and West that’s often noted, and is of increasing importance to global commerce and sustainability.

President Obama’s recent trip to Turkey, the first nation abroad he chose to visit after being elected, was reportedly highly successful. His meetings with government officials and university students and staff in an informal setting did much to create new possibilities for honest discussion and increasing collaboration. That he was able to do this with the country that has given the U.S. the very lowest rating when compared to any EU nation, for the last several years, is to the credit of all who participated.

Our TABCON panel was focused on Information & Communication Technology (ICT) applications to national security and aerospace – hot topics within Turkey and the U.S.. I was encouraged by the panel Chairman, Eric Brachhausen to bring a Silicon Valley entrepreneurial perspective to the topic along with my experience in fostering and supporting collaborations across the global space enterprise. I saw this as an opportunity to introduce the Commercial Space Gateway as an example of a science-technology information portal that can also support business development and collaboration formation. I suggested that a Turkish-American business “Gateway” could be developed to foster and support joint ICT projects and overall TABCON objectives by helping users share knowledge, identify joint opportunities, and establish new business connections between Turkey and the U.S..

While researching my presentation I learned that Turkey formally acknowledged, in year 2000, a strong interest in augmenting its traditional agricultural exports and defense-aerospace product production (mostly based on international contracts for building sub-systems) with future high-tech products.   Their goal to develop increased science, technology and innovation capabilities and resulting integrated commercial products, is called “Vision 2023”. Because of this I introduced a topic from the Commercial Space Gateway called “CubeSats” that helps develop these capabilities especially at the university level.   CubeSats also have good ICT-relevant product application potential to several areas in defense (in-space systems testing, ground station monitoring/coordination, reconnaissance) and to commerce (CubeSat-related businesses have recently formed in the Netherlands and the U.S.).

CubeSats are very small, low-cost, multi-application satellites whose development was initiated by Bob Twiggs and his colleagues at Stanford and CalyPoly Universities. Their motivation was to provide a standardized mini-payload model for hands-on design, development, test and flight in space by students, all within their 4-year education timeframe.   CubeSats are now being developed globally and flown by collaborative teams of universities, government entities (including national security) and increasingly involve commercial development and services.   I was pleased to report that the Istanbul Technical University has developed a Turkish CubeSat scheduled to fly very soon, with the help of the Stanford/CalPoly team and that potential national security CubeSat applications are being assessed by other Turkish university investigators.

I learned from my reading and at TABCON that Turkey’s formation from elements of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 and its subsequent rapid evolution toward democracy under its national leader Kemal Ataturk, resulted in establishment of largely imported infrastructure systems such as government bureaucracy, legal and education systems, and especially industry. The latter tended to be established by outside entities who naturally optimized their own business profit advantage and some of this persists today bolstered by family dynasties. Turkey has over 100 universities graduating capable scientists and engineers, but minimal business opportunities for them to pursue their own sci-tech related careers and entrepreneurial entities. There are over 25,000 Turks just in the San Francisco Bay Area many of whom are actively involved in entrepreneurial and often ICT-related businesses. They came here to augment their education and stayed as employees and entrepreneurs who have done very well. Only a few have gone back to establish Turkish enterprises, since the resources and support for that in Turkey are just emerging. But, with increasing government support and TABCON facilitation these opportunities are coming to life in ICT, green energy technologies, and in my view, potentially in commercial space, as well.

Turkish-Americans from the U.S (and American-owned enterprises). and their science, technology and business counterparts in Turkey have opportunities to collaborate on the high-priority areas identified by “Vision 2023” and their commercialization. I see the current CubeSat collaboration as a great model to grow further stimulated by the demonstrated strong interest of university students to do hands-on R&D and product development in both countries, and beyond. Fortunately, a cutting-edge Spacecamp Turkey facility is available in the city of Izmir that can introduce space science and technology to younger students and adults. Also, the “Gateway” concept could help facilitate these entrepreneurial endeavors since it was developed in part to support sci-tech-innovation business development and collaboration where the interaction of key stakeholders in government, industry, academia and the informed public is essential for making real progress.

This collaborative and innovative process, after all, is the lesson of Silicon Valley, but it can emerge anywhere under proper conditions, certainly including Turkey. It’s a process we all need to learn to do more efficiently and effectively to support the return of a vibrant and sustainable global economy. This applies equally to the emerging space commerce market.

Commercial SubOrbital Science: A Game-Changer for Micro-g R&D

Mon, 04 May 2009 19:26:57 GMT

On May 3rd, I attended a fascinating “Emerging Commercial Suborbital Science Workshop” in Los Angeles. The “Commercial Suborbital” refers to the “personal spaceflight” companies that will soon be transporting paying customers to the edge of space and are very interested in supporting those who also want to do research. The broader the range of these space plane customers, including those traveling with science “cargo”, the greater the number of flights, and the lower the cost per flight. The more experience that can be gained by commercial entities from suborbital flights, the sooner they can consider developing capabilities for orbital flights and beyond. For those who want to understand the path that has led us to suborbital space, I recommend Clark Lindsey’s history on HobbySpace.com, his extraordinarily comprehensive site.

It’s important to recognize that other NewSpace companies, like SpaceX are heading directly for the commercial orbital launch market, and are also interested in flying automated payloads, especially bioscience, to gain similar experience. The SpaceX Dragon capsule will have pressurized environmental life support, and will fly as “DragonLab” with no crew, but with science payloads. Subsequently, a fully human-rated version will be developed to meet NASA standards. Flying biological payloads will help demonstrate systems readiness for the human-rated capsule and open the door to obtaining the full funding and investment capital to do so. NASA announced recently that it intends to contribute funds toward development of commercial human spaceflight capabilities – a truly major milestone.

This workshop was the second such event I’ve attended and I came away with a clearer appreciation of the potential science value of having relatively easy access to 3-4 minutes of microgravity (micro-g). Suborbital space planes could provide this access frequently, reliably, at much lower cost than orbital flight providers, and fly research payloads that are in the exploratory phase, with a “human-in-the-loop” option.

Workshop attendees represented NASA Headquarters and several field centers (Ames Research Center, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center) including the ARC Commercial Suborbital Research Program , The Personal Spaceflight Federation , various space plane companies, and the Universities Space Research Association . The workshop was held just prior to the 80th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association at the same facility, and focused on research of interest to the biological/biomedical/aeromedical community. Researchers and space experts from various universities, laboratories, government organizations, and the consultant community participated. A workshop report is planned.

What really makes suborbital spaceflight a potential game-changer for space research and why the micro-g focus? Micro-g research in life sciences and physical sciences has been a key element of NASA’s R&D efforts since the Agency’s inception, because only during orbital spaceflight (or an approximation) can the effective influence of gravity be removed. The International Space Station (ISS) was developed in large part to accommodate this kind of research over long-durations but unfortunately the costs to get there, transport experiment payload resources, and fully utilize the ISS National Laboratory, remain high.

NASA has several ongoing programs in suborbital science that provide microgravity including a Sounding Rocket Program and an Airborne Science Program . Sounding rockets can provide up to 20 minutes of micro-g and the parabolic flight element of the Airborne Science Program provides repeated 20-30 sec periods. A key research value of commercial suborbital space plane flights is that the few minutes of micro-g is sufficiently long to actually see significant changes during appropriately selected and designed experiments. Also key to their value is that they can provide the frequent, reliable, low-cost access to space for passengers, some of whom can be dedicated to conduct and/or participate as subjects in flight research.

If the relatively brief micro-g duration with suborbital flight is considered by some as a “con” there are several “pros” that can help to compensate. Many micro-g studies, especially bioscience, ideally require loading of the experiment within a few hours of launch, inflight handling and sampling, eventual exposure to micro-g of no more than a few days duration, access to the experiment payload shortly after landing, and the ability to make experiment adjustments based on the initial results, followed soon after by a reflight. This set of requirements has been difficult to meet using large, complex launchers that need to be fueled and “closed-out” many hours pre-launch, often have multiple launch aborts on the pad, may have little-to-no crew time available inflight, and may provide no access to payloads postflight for several hours. Thus the comparative flexibility of human-tended suborbital flight operations for prototype experiments that are still evolving, could be invaluable. This process can also ultimately produce more robust, streamlined and proven payloads that can be utilized in a more constrained environment like the ISS or fully automated on a DragonLab type platform.

Planning appears to be underway by some space plane companies (one being Masten Space Systems) to accommodate remote interaction with science payloads either from an onboard seat or from the ground during repeated experiment cycles. This flexibility can provide options for innovative R&D that can be conducted by researchers ranging from students and teachers to entrepreneurs and Nobel Prize winners. Commercially-provided suborbital micro-g R&D can be part of a renewed NASA commitment to advancing safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable micro-g research that also provides hands-on education and training for a new generation of students and space researchers.

The roughly ten-fold increase in micro-g duration provided by suborbital flights, compared to parabolic flights, makes a big difference to experiment accommodation. The ability to have the researcher accompany the payload, not possible on sounding rockets, can greatly reduce payload development costs and increase the data return – a major increased return on investment. This new brand of suborbital research can be a badly-needed bridge between the prototype bench-top experiment and the very costly, complex long-duration, flight-qualified payload. It opens the door to higher-risk, lower-cost, more innovative research to ensure that future more costly experiments have the best chance of success when they are conducted on-orbit or on another planet.

Why do the “NewSpace” companies now developing space planes for personal spaceflight, want to provide this related service for researchers and engineers to conduct experiments? Having automated payloads that don’t require human intervention can provide them funding to support their initial flights to prove space plane reliability. Science payloads that accompany passengers can help fill available space, increase income per flight, and drive the need for future flights for follow-on studies. In answer to my query, research payload flight costs were projected to be about $2000/kg.

Several researchers from NASA, academia and industry presented and brainstormed on research concepts, technology verification studies, and inflight process assessments that could be performed under these conditions. New opportunities were discussed on how to use the access to suborbital micro-g as a way to a) test experiment hypotheses, b) verify procedures, c) assess new technologies, d) educate and provide hands-on training of experimenters, astronauts and students, and e) develop new research payloads without many of the limitations and major costs that exist for longer-duration missions.

What generally needs to be done to develop these suborbital research capabilities and make progress towards their implementation? This was addressed at the workshop by informal sub-groups and results will be in the workshop report. One task was to list opportunities and capabilities offered by suborbital research, both with and without people onboard. Another task was to list barriers to be overcome, challenges to be met, and propose strategies for effectively pursuing new suborbital research opportunities. The interest by space plane companies in interacting directly with research payload developers will likely range from none to considerable. This should be anticipated and could be provided for by third-party entities, or NewSpace companies who want to support development of common standards, interfaces and procedures as part of their business. Funding for researchers would appropriately come from several government agencies, in addition to NÅSA, and could include international space research agencies. Commercially-driven research will likely be funded by company investors, or by the company itself.

It would be logical to review other suborbital research flight organizations to capture their lessons learned. Candidates might include; NASA JSC’s parabolic flight project, Zero G Corporation, ARC’s Airborne Science Platforms, and staff of the former ARC Space Life Sciences Payloads Office. They could all provide guidelines, procedures and suggestions for simplifying the process of payload development, aircraft integration, inflight operations and procedures and postflight data sharing and analysis.   The innovative, international CubeSat Project is a potential source for valuable common hardware, software and data solutions as well as potential low-cost payload developers and customers for testing flight prototypes.

These new options for lower-cost, automated or human-tended, reliable and flexible space research are arriving just in time for the minimally-funded micro-g research community. The commercial space community will be both a major provider of these new research opportunities and a beneficiary from this significantly increased access to space.

"Venturesome Consumption", Innovation & NewSpace

Sun, 03 May 2009 00:13:29 GMT

Original written, 04 June 2008

In a June 3rd article in The Economist entitled, "Can America keep its innovative edge? ," the magazine suggests that those who call for government-directed innovation are more likely to produce failures rather than successes. This sentence summarizes this view: "... think twice before creating a federal innovation agency, which would do more harm than good by backing technologies that consumers might not want. And as for funding research into the services sector, leave that to firms like IBM and EDS—American companies that practically created the market and now dominate it."

Remember Lockheed Martin's ill-fated VentureStar, cancelled in early 2001 after $1.5 Billion was spent over five years in a government-directed (rather than free-market) effort to build a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicle?

NewSpace has learned from that debacle. Can NewSpace lead America's innovative edge?

Two very important lessons came out of VentureStar, and the NewSpace industry has adopted these. SpaceX Corp., XCOR Aerospace, Armadillo Aerospace, Blue Origin, The Spaceship Company, Masten Space Systems, and other developers of sub-orbital and orbital launch vehicles have not proclaimed their allegiance to a single design or mission profile. Nor have they all jumped on the SSTO bandwagon. Why? Each is responding to their targeted markets and has chosen what they view as economically viable technology that will get the job done safely and earn a profit.

With sub-orbital space tourism flights likely to begin in a few years, many have derided this as nothing more than a plaything for the wealthy (conveniently forgetting that new products are usually affordable only by the wealthy until competition kicks in). This attitude also excludes the value of “venturesome consumption,” as described in the article:

... R&D is not the only driver of successful innovation. In a book to be published later this year Amarnath Bhidé, a professor at Columbia University, argues that what matters in today's global economy is not where an idea comes from, but how fast a country's firms and consumers are willing to try it out.

And America is outstanding at what Mr Bhidé has dubbed “venturesome consumption”. Many popular American gizmos, such as Apple's iPod and Dell's computers, are chock full of the latest technologies from overseas.

If competition is the engine of NewSpace, then surely "venturesome consumption" is its fuel.

Space-Based Solar Power: Hope Gets Hyped?

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:35:06 GMT

If you haven't heard about the agreement between the Solaren company to provide space-based solar power (SBSP) to Pacific Gas & Electric beginning about 2016, and the utility's guaranteed purchase of it for 15 years, you may have just returned from a trip deep into the Amazon. PG&E notes in a post on their Next100 blog titled "Solaren: The Media and Pundits Weigh In" , that within two weeks of the agreement it was "reported, analyzed, debated, praised and ridiculed on more than 26,000 web sites". Now, that's buzz!

The blog post profiles a sampling of links to this tidal wave including a good Scientific American article with SBSP background, current status and references to a Solaren patent that gives some clues as to how they expect to pull this off. Their short answer is to make the solar satellite smaller and lighter and as the Soleren CEO indicates, to attract “billions of dollars” in funding. Obviously, much more research, development and feasibility testing will be needed to open the door to such a cash flow. But hey, three cheers to Solaren and PG&E for their optimism, however, the utility is clear that they've assumed no risk.

As most agree, the "holy grail" for the emergence of many new space commerce market sectors, including SBSP, is cheaper, more reliable and predictable access to space. The “personal spaceflight” market whose customers will need to have deep pockets and be plentiful is seen as a critical near-term driver for this improved access. Hopefully, some of these adventuresome customers will have the vision to become future space entrepreneurs – if not part of their initial motivation, then after experiencing a new business development “Overview Effect”.

Let’s assume that space access of the kind that’s needed does evolve which benefits industry, space agencies, military surveillance applications, a wide range of Earth applications, and new public “space consumers” – all key stakeholders and sectors. And let’s assume that Solaren and many other space-based solar energy collaborators implement their near-limitless clean power dream for the world. What might result?

Would the energy benefits be able to flow beyond the developed world?

Would the concentration of SBSP resources make the world vulnerable to an accident-induced “mother” of all blackouts?

Would we still need the many alternative energy sources proposed for development on the ground including solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biofuel, and others?

I have a strong feeling that near and long-term global needs will require a range of alternative energy solutions based on factors that will also change over time. They will likely include investment and development costs, overall system operation costs, acceptable risks, regional and culture-specific requirements, and of course technical sustainability challenges. The complex global energy economy of today will need to be extended and adapted to the use of these new alternative technologies. The cultural and social adaptations required to do this will likely be as challenging as the technical ones. The classic issue of devising and applying “appropriate technology” regionally is still very real and one reason why we need to have teams of well-educated, innovative youth involved, across the globe. That said, I am greatly encouraged when I read about pilot studies in SBSP, both completed and proposed, since some (see the Editor's Pick) who've analyzed global energy needs, think it will be essential.

The Google Lunar X Prize...What is the Value, Besides Prestige for the Winner?

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:35:24 GMT

Original written 19 March 2008

The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the Moon, travel 500 meters, and transmit images and data back to Earth. Unlike previous decades where space activity was largely government-funded, companies and organizations are responding to challenges like this and demonstrating that space exploration is no longer limited to multi-billion dollar programs.

Other than the prestige of winning and the respect earned even if you place second (after all, it is a tremendous accomplishment), what other value can be gained from competing for this prize? As part of a committee evaluating the creation of a university-led team to compete for the prize, I've had some valuable insights.
How can students, companies, and organizations benefit from their participation, regardless of whether the team wins or loses? Consider the following challenges:

    * How should funds, people, and resources be split across research and development (R&D) for designing new technologies (certainly of interest to engineering students) vs. buying commercially available off-the-shelf components (more likely to reduce the time required to get to the launch date)?
    * In the context of the preceding bullet, should the effort be viewed primarily as an engineering education, a business decision-making education (how to be first to market, which is the launch in this case), or a combination of both?
    * With the potential for multiple companies, organizations and universities as sponsors and participants, how will diverse interests be accommodated? Imagine this real-world learning experience for tomorrow's engineers and business leaders.
    * What is the ultimate goal? Winning at all costs? Developing systems and components that can become commercially viable products, regardless of whether the team wins or loses? Visibility and prestige for the sponsors? Again we have potentially divisive goals... and a fabulous learning experience for students.

I'm sure you can think of many more challenges and the benefits thereof. When it's all said and done, when the winner's limelight fades as it eventually must, keep your eye on the teams that didn't win. The wiser teams will learn a great deal just by competing and will become players in the space economy. Talk about value.

Virgin Galactic vs. XCOR: Who Will Be First?

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:41:12 GMT

Five years ago, I had the privilege of witnessing a pivotal moment in space history. I was at the Mojave Air & Spaceport on June 21 to watch as Mike Melvill flew SpaceShipOne to an altitude of about 100 kilometers, achieving the first privately-funded suborbital spaceflight. It was an exciting moment as the spacecraft came down for a landing in front of us on that warm morning. A new era of spaceflight had opened up. Less than four months later, SpaceShipTwo captured the Ansari X PRIZE on the 47th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1.

At the time, optimism abounded that space tourism would the next big wave of adventure travel. SpaceShipOne’s builder, Scaled Composites, announced a deal with Richard Branson to bring space travel to the masses – or at least those with a few hundred thousand dollars to spare. Soon hundreds – and eventually thousands – of people would experience the joys once reserved for professional astronauts.

Today, those visions remain distant dreams. Commercial flights could be two years away. Branson’s Virgin Galactic – long the favorite to begin commercial service first – has experienced setbacks and tragedy along the way. And it is beginning to hear the footsteps of a rival company, XCOR.

Virgin Galactic

If Virgin had followed its original plan to use the small, three-seat SpaceShipOne for tourist flights, it would probably have been flying passengers by now. However, the company heeded calls from customers for a larger cabin that would allow them to float around, "virtually weightless", in the same way that tourists do on parabolic airplane flights.

Building the eight-seat SpaceShipTwo evidently proved to be more complicated than they thought. The effort suffered a serious setback in July 2007 when a rocket propulsion fuel explosion occurred at the Scaled Composites’ Mojave production facility, killing three workers and injuring three others. The investigation stopped work on the space plane for at least one year.

A year after the accident, Scaled brought in SpaceDev to assist with the engine development. The Powoy, Calif.-based company had built the propulsion system for SpaceShipOne, but Scaled subsequently decided to bring the engine development in-house. Bringing back SpaceDev was a tacit admission that this decision had not been a wise one.

Work on the WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft has progressed faster than for WhiteKnightOne. The vehicle made its first test flight on Dec. 21, 2008 and it has completed two additional flights since then. Once SpaceShipTwo is ready, there will be a series of flights with the spacecraft held captive, followed by flights including spacecraft release with glide and powered tests.

When commercial service will begin is anyone’s guess. The most recent estimate was late 2010; however, Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn is now avoiding any specifics in favor of “milestones.” About 300 people have put down deposits for the flights.

XCOR

Virgin Galactic’s Mojave-based rival is pursuing its much more modest Lynx vehicle, which will carry a pilot and one passenger to an altitude of 61 kilometers (38 miles). This is far below the 110 kilometers (68 miles) that SpaceShipTwo will reach which is close to the now formally-designated "edge of space" at 118 kilometers . Passengers aboard Lynx will experience about three minutes of virtual weightlessness, albeit in a small cabin where movement will be restricted.

Company officials say they hope to begin test flights in the latter half of next year, although that schedule could slip. They are not giving any estimates on the start of commercial service, except to note that test flight programs typically take 12-18 months.

Speaking earlier this month at the Space Access ’09 conference, CEO Jeff Greason said the company is making good progress on engine, aeronautical and structural design work. The company has booked more than 20 reservations for the $95,000 per person flights, a rate less than half the $200,000 fee that Virgin Galactic is charging. Greason said he is happy with the number of reservations, pointing out that it is early in the sales process.

XCOR plans to build a more powerful upgraded vehicle, the Lynx Mark 2, designed to fly to an altitude of 110 kilometers (68 miles). The schedule depends upon progress with the smaller spacecraft.

Different Approaches

XCOR’s gradual approach – flying a small vehicle commercially, then building something larger – is what Scaled Composites might have done absent the involvement of Virgin Galactic. Branson’s company brought the customer experience to the forefront, which led to the development of a much larger – and more complicated – space plane.

This is a big leap, maybe too big. SpaceShipOne flew only 17 times: four with the space plane captive with the carrier aircraft, seven unpowered glide tests, and six space plane powered flights. Only half of those powered flights went suborbital before the vehicle was retired upon winning the Ansari X PRIZE. That isn’t a lot of flights.

I’m sure that SpaceShipTwo will go through a rigorous flight testing program before commercial service begins. However, that process may be more complicated and longer due to the relatively small number of SpaceShipOne flights and the difference in scale between the two vehicles. At 8.5 meters (28 feet), SpaceShipOne was about the same size as the X-1 that Chuck Yeager flew in 1947. Its successor measures 18 meters (60 feet) long.

Who Will Be First?

Virgin Galactic has long been the odds-on favorite to begin commercial flights first. It started earlier, is backed by the Virgin Group, and has Branson as a human megaphone. However, given the delays in its program, it’s not inconceivable that XCOR might get there first.

There will likely be some argument as to whether the Lynx vehicle will actually be flying in "space" at 61 kilometers (38 miles). Technically speaking, it won't, but it may not matter much. The brilliant images of the curvature of the Earth set against the vast blackness of space will likely render such arguments moot to the general public.

XCOR officials would likely be very pleased to beat Virgin into space. However, Greason downplays any rivalry between his company and its more high-profile competitor. “I am not motivated by beating the other guy, I’m motivated by succeeding,” he said, adding that competition is healthy for the industry. “Whoever the players are, there is no way this market will mature with only one operator.”

As often observed, ultimate success in a new market does not necessarily go to the first company to deliver product. Many lessons become obvious only as the market develops and subsequent competitors can often avoid some of the pot-holes. Also, the impact of problems that can occur with a 8-passenger space plane can be quite different than for a 2-passenger version. Greason might be the tortoise that beats the Branson hare in this race, and the definition of market success could soon expand to include orbital spaceflight opportunities. The dream may be delayed, but the anticipation is building.