NASA May Outsource Amid Budget Woes

[Fredfredson]

This is a good move I think.
The more systems being developed the better.
F


* AUGUST 22, 2009

NASA May Outsource Amid Budget Woes

By ANDY PASZTOR

NASA May Outsource Amid Budget Woes - WSJ.com

For the first time since the advent of manned space exploration, the U.S. appears ready to outsource to private companies everything from transporting astronauts to ferrying cargo into orbit.

Proposals gaining momentum in Washington call for contractors to build and run competing systems under commercial contracts, according to federal officials, aerospace-industry officials and others familiar with the discussions.

While the Obama administration is still mulling options and hasn't made any final decisions, such a move would represent a major policy shift away from decades of government-run rocket and astronaut-transportation programs such as the current space-shuttle fleet. By some estimates, the Administration's current spending blueprint for manned space exploration over the next decade is between $30 billion and $50 billon less than federal officials first projected when President George W. Bush unveiled a plan to return astronauts to the moon.

Responding to questions, on Saturday the White House press office said the President "has confirmed his commitment to human space exploration" and is reviewing various options. "But at the end of the day, the President will make the decision, not a committee."

In the face of severe federal budget constraints and a burgeoning commercial-space industry eager to play a larger role in exploring the solar system and perhaps beyond, these people said, a consensus for the new approach seems to be building inside the White House as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Under this scenario, a new breed of contractors would take over many of NASA's current responsibilities, freeing the agency to pursue longer-term, more ambitious goals such as new rocket-propulsion technology and manned missions to Mars. Ranging from conventional start-ups to firms created by wealthy entrepreneurs, these contractors would take the lead in servicing the International Space Station from the shuttle's planned retirement around 2011 through at least the end of that decade.

As part of the overall concept, NASA and White House officials are expected to extend U.S. funding for the International Space Station through at least 2020, these people said.

A presidentially appointed commission on the future of U.S. manned space efforts is wrapping up a study urging the White House to rely on commercial transportation of both cargo and crew to the space station. The commission, which presented its initial findings to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and senior White House science aides earlier this month, wants President Barack Obama to revitalize NASA by getting it out of the routine business of shuttle operations: launching to and returning from low-Earth orbit.

Instead, the commission recommends NASA rely on a combination of commercial and government-developed technologies to explore deeper into space. The study group, for example, wants NASA to start working on ways to combat the rigors of cosmic radiation, lengthy travel times and other challenges presented by possible manned missions to nearby planets and outside the solar system.

In the shorter term, companies expected to benefit from the heightened commercial focus include Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp., both already working on cargo-delivery systems for NASA. Proponents of the new approach are betting that more competition will emerge as companies see more focus on outsourcing certain missions.

Proponents of the commercial approach also say it would save the government money because companies would use their own funds to develop innovative new technologies and recoup their investments over a longer period by providing services. Such programs also are intended to be faster, more nimble and less bureaucratic than traditional NASA acquisition procedures.

With less than $10 billion annually earmarked for manned space exploration, commission members concluded NASA can't afford to embark on sweeping new initiatives at the same time it is pursuing plans to return astronauts to the moon, most likely after 2025. One of the biggest decisions facing the White House is whether it is willing to shelve those moon ambitions, at least temporarily, even if that results in industry disruptions and job losses. That would entail ending development of an expensive new crew capsule, dubbed Orion, along with work on certain rocket and lunar-lander projects.

It isn't clear what types of rockets NASA and the White House eventually will choose, particularly for more difficult missions beyond the space station. The choices range from upgrading current military rockets to developing a new generation of advanced heavy-lift boosters to relying on derivatives of solid rockets used to launch the space shuttle. The decision will have a major impact on NASA's budget and several large aerospace contractors, which are competing for the anticipated rocket contracts.

At this point, the agency's Ares I rocket program intended to blast astronauts to the space station -- and championed by Alliant Techsystems Inc. -- appears likely to be shelved, according to industry and government officials. Despite an important Ares I test slated for the coming week, neither the Presidential study group nor a part of NASA's leadership appears to stand behind the rocket's current cost and schedule. The White House could opt to shift some Ares I work already underway to develop a new family of larger, more powerful rockets dubbed the Ares V.

The commission, headed by Norman Augustine, former chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp., concluded that current budget constraints confronting NASA make it virtually impossible to sustain a steady pace of manned missions in coming decades. The group said existing NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon within two decades are "not executable" in light of current budget guidance from the White House. The commission members laid out an array of manned exploration programs they consider more viable, including creating fuel depots in space, but aren't expected to make overall year-by-year budget recommendations for NASA.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com

[R Lance]

If it had been outsourced yrs ago we would have the space station already in full operation with tourist travel

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by R Lance

If it had been outsourced yrs ago we would have the space station already in full operation with tourist travel

Oh, I'm sure we'd already have faster than light travel and we would also probably have conquered the known universe.

[Sir Digalot]

we have conquored the earth, that is the center of the known universe and since there is no life on any other planet, then we already have conquored the known universe...

all in 6,000 years too!

[Volker]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

we have conquored the earth, that is the center of the known universe and since there is no life on any other planet, then we already have conquored the known universe...

all in 6,000 years too!

There is no life on any other planet? And who is 6.000 years old, the US, Britons, mankind, the Earth?

[Fredfredson]

We are past the time when Space exploration should be the province of the state.

Just like the exploration and exploitation of the so called "New World", which was first found by government sponsored explorers but developed by private enterprises.

I agree with R Lance here. if we had jumped on the space development bandwagon back in the Sky Lab days instead of wasting so much effort on the Shuttle Program we would be at Mars already.

Any Government run program is exquisitely sensitive to public opinion.

The Challenger disaster is a good example, we stopped doing anything for years afterwards!

Contrast that with a major air disaster, the next flights take off over the still smoking wreckage.

F