Change in space for NASA: Renting the Right Stuff

January 31, 2010 By SETH BORENSTEIN AND ALICIA CHANG , AP Science Writers
This undated handout photo provided by SpaceX shows the liftoff of the Falcon 1. In its new budget to be released Monday, Feb. 1, 2010, the Obama administration proposes spending billions of dollars to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate spacecraft for NASA and others. NASA already started an early version of this last year with $50 million in stimulus money. (AP Photo/SpaceX)

(AP) -- Getting to space is about to be outsourced. The Obama administration on Monday will propose in its new budget spending billions of dollars to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate spacecraft for NASA and others. Uncle Sam would buy its astronauts a ride into space just like hopping in a taxi.

The idea is that getting astronauts into orbit, which has been doing for 49 years, is getting to be so old hat that someone other than the government can do it. It's no longer really the Right Stuff. Going private would free the space agency to do other things, such as explore beyond Earth's orbit, do more research and study the Earth with better satellites. And it would spur a new generation of private companies - even some with Internet roots - to innovate.

But there's some concern about that - from former NASA officials worried about safety and from congressional leaders worried about lost jobs. Some believe space is still a tough, dangerous enterprise not to be left to private companies out for a buck. Government would lose vital knowledge and control, critics fear.

Proponents of private space, an idea that has been kicking around for nearly 20 years, point to the airline industry in its infancy. Initially the Army flew most planes. But private companies eventually started building and operating aircraft, especially when they got a guaranteed customer in the U.S. government to deliver air mail.

That's what NASA would be: a guaranteed customer to ferry astronauts to the through 2020. It would be similar to the few years that NASA paid Russia to fly astronauts on its Soyuz after the Columbia accident in 2003.

"With a $6 billion program you can have multiple winners. You'll literally have your Blackberry, your iPhone and your Android phone all competing for customers in the marketplace," said John Gedmark, executive director of the Commercial Federation. The White House has said it will be adding $5.9 billion to the overall NASA budget over five years; Gedmark believes most or all will go to commercial space.

Mike Gold, corporate counsel at Bigelow Aerospace, which is building the first commercial space station and is a potential spacecraft provider, believes the government should have privatized astronaut launchings decades ago.

"It will force the aerospace world to become competitive again and restore us to our glory days," Gold said.

Last year as part of the stimulus package, NASA said it would give out $50 million in seed and planning money for the idea of a commercial spaceship. Several firms expressed interest and NASA will soon pick a winner or winners.

American University public policy professor and space expert Howard McCurdy said this is not as radical as it seems. The shuttle was built not by government workers but by Rockwell International, a private company. Then in 1996 the Clinton administration outsourced the shuttle's day-to-day launch and other operations to a private company.

"This is something that NASA has been drifting toward in the last 25 years," McCurdy said.

But the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, created after NASA's first fatal accident, warned that the existing private rockets are not rated by the government as safe for people to fly on. That has to be addressed with testing and study before jumping into commercial space, the panel said.

It's not that it is impossible to certify these rockets as safe enough for astronauts but it is a long process that is not spelled out, said former NASA associate administrator Scott Pace, now a space policy professor at George Washington University.

Peter Diamandis, founder of the X Prize Foundation, which sponsored a competition in suborbital spaceflight, dismissed safety worries: "We don't fly on U.S. Air Government. We fly on Southwest and JetBlue."

The Federal Aviation Administration, which has a commercial space division, would regulate private space safety and other issues.

Pace cautioned that Clinton era efforts to privatize parts of the National Reconnaissance Organization, which builds and operates U.S. spy satellites, as a failure and this could be similar. He added that there's such strong support in Congress for the current space program a change may be difficult to get through Capitol Hill.

New York University government professor Paul Light said: "My general caution is be careful about what you give away. It's awful expensive to get it back."

But there should be a lot of interest in giving astronauts the ride if the price is right, Gedmark said.

The leading contenders - most are mum at this point - to build private spaceships include established aerospace giants, such as Boeing Co. of Chicago and Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md., which built most of America's rockets and capsules. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have existing rocket families in Delta and Atlas, which launch commercial and government satellites regularly and reliably, but for the moment aren't rated by the government to be safe enough for humans. That may change.

But it's the newer space guard that brings some excitement to the field. PayPal founder Elon Musk may be ahead of most. His SpaceX already has a Falcon rocket and Dragon capsule. Other companies being mentioned include Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va., Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas and Sierra Nevada Corp. of Sparks, Nev.

In the 1980s, Tiffany Montague grew up wanting to get into space and figured she had to work for the government to do that. She joined the Air Force and was a high-altitude pilot. But now she works for Google, running a $30 million prize to encourage private companies to build a rover that can run around the moon.

"We're broadly interested in opening up space to everyone," Montague said in a phone interview Friday. She said Google is "supportive of commercial spaceflight, we're enthusiasts. But we're not entrepreneurs - at least not yet. Who knows what we might do in the future."

Explore further: Space commercialization contract signed

More information: NASA:

Commercial Spaceflight Federation:

Bigelow Aerospace:

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel:

X Prize Foundation:

Google Lunar X Prize:



Related Stories

Space commercialization contract signed

February 1, 2007

NASA says it has signed a space commercialization contract with PlanetSpace Inc. of Chicago and the Transformational Space Corp. of Reston, Va.

NASA to get more money, but must scratch moon plan

January 28, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is essentially grounding efforts to return astronauts to the moon and instead is sending NASA in new directions with roughly $6 billion more, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Senator may have won fight over private rocket manufacturing

July 3, 2009

For months, a powerful Republican senator from Alabama has fought the Obama administration to block $150 million that the White House wanted to spend to help private companies build rockets capable of reaching the international ...

NASA opens new seed money COTS competition

October 22, 2007

The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched a new funding competition for its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Project.

Recommended for you

Major space mystery solved using data from student satellite

December 13, 2017

A 60-year-old mystery regarding the source of some energetic and potentially damaging particles in Earth's radiation belts is now solved using data from a shoebox-sized satellite built and operated by University of Colorado ...

Spanning disciplines in the search for life beyond Earth

December 13, 2017

The search for life beyond Earth is riding a surge of creativity and innovation. Following a gold rush of exoplanet discovery over the past two decades, it is time to tackle the next step: determining which of the known exoplanets ...

Bright areas on Ceres suggest geologic activity

December 13, 2017

If you could fly aboard NASA's Dawn spacecraft, the surface of dwarf planet Ceres would generally look quite dark, but with notable exceptions. These exceptions are the hundreds of bright areas that stand out in images Dawn ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Jan 31, 2010
NASA could licence its Orion capsule and escape tower design to the 'commercials'. That should make the insurers a lot happier...
not rated yet Jan 31, 2010
I like it. Some of these private contractors already have their greedy, but capable hands all over our top secret technology, and are already settled on our highly secured bases. Who better to do the work?
All I have to say is that NASA should have them keep it simple. The Saturn VI was an outstanding platform, and as long as we are using traditional liquids or solids, that design needs little improvement besides some material upgrades. I say keep it cheap and simple as possible until we come out with the "good stuff".
2 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2010
The Obama administration and Congress have already overseen the loss and outsourcing of well over 7 millions of jobs just last year. What are a few more?

On the other hand, getting commercial interests involved may be a good idea to promote competition and development of technologies. Competition and free enterprise tends to spur things into motion much like a space race.
not rated yet Feb 01, 2010
I'd still like to see a serious attempt to build a space elevator. The idea is not as absurd as it first may sound.
not rated yet Feb 01, 2010
Getting NASA deeply involved in COTS is probably the worst thing that could happen. I worked on the Space Station project back when the price tag was only $10B. The private companies developing new launch capabilities do not use NASA "top secret" technologies. They use modern materials and methods, not grossly overpriced 1960s tech.
not rated yet Feb 01, 2010
How is using COTS a bad thing? It should bring more business to the private sector. I mean, I can see if they go with the "lowest bid" option like they do on a lot of things, it'd be a possible issue.

Having NASA rely on US companies to do the launch vehicles and such is better in my opinion than relying on foreign gov'ts.
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2010
I'd still like to see a serious attempt to build a space elevator. The idea is not as absurd as it first may sound.

You gotta admit though, it is a pretty crazy idea. I think someday it could work, but now we just dont have a way to pull it off. could you imagine though? the sheer sight of such a thing would be stupefying.
4 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2010
The tech to build one is not quite there yet. A few more years--maybe.
not rated yet Feb 02, 2010
Yeah, I mean, the pure technical difficulty of the task would be a source of pride for anyone who was able to accomplish it.

Of course, then it would be a big target for terrorists. And then there is the natural disasters and human-caused accidents.

Lots of things to figure out. Insurmountable challenge? Maybe. I think even trying to build one would have value in advancement of engineering practices.
not rated yet Feb 07, 2010
Guys...on the subject of a space elevator...

until you do away with "designed to fail" capitalist mentality on everything, a space elevator will never be practical or affordable, even if the materials technology was there to make it.

After all, due to "designed to fail" we can't even maintain our own roads, bridges, dams, and electric grid, because everything is designed to last one day past warranty, and repairs are, as they say, "patch and pray".

And would we really want someone as dumb as NASA or the U.S. government in charge of a space elevator anyway? They are planning on INTENTIONALLY DESTROYING a >$100billion dollar space station in just a few years...yet they keep sending up more and more components to it...

I don't know what else to say about it...our government is consistently and habitually retarded.
not rated yet Feb 09, 2010
They have to destroy it when finished with it. If they do not it will end up coming down in someone's back yard.
not rated yet Feb 12, 2010
After thinking about it for a while I would say that I would prefer the station either to be recycled or to be purchased by private corporations who will then service the station for their use in scientific studies.

Unfortunately, a recycling option looks bleak due to the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle program. So, they will still have to destroy it unless they decide to sell it off to the corporate world.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.