-1
Fred Willett· 4 days ago
The real problem is that the game has changed.
Looking for a value proposition assumed that the US still has a national space capability, but a string of NASA failures dating back 20 years shows that NASA simplly doesn't have what it takes to develop a space transport system any more.
So NASA has had to turn to commercial. COTS was an under-funded sop to the principle of commercialization. The total ammount allocated was just $500M. And for this commercial was supposed to develop 2 launch vehicles and two space craft. Frankly COTS was never expected, or even designed, to succeed. Why else pick two half baked startups (Kistler and SpaceX) that had never launched anything?
The expected result of COTS was to be the failure of commercial efforts.
The outcome NASA was looking for was to be able to say "Well we tried. Commercial can't cut it. Space needs to be a government program." A confirmation that NASA needed to design everything in house.
But Constellation failed. The post shuttle HSF gap kept growing, and suddenly COTS was not just a commercial program. It was the only program.
And if NASA wants to have their own HSF capability it will have to be commercial crew. They have no alternative.
SLS seems fated to fail as budgets tighten. And commercial has picked up the batton and is running with it. NASA and governments may continue to think of space in terms of VPs but commercial?
A VP for commercial is defined in dollars.
The game has changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment