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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenneth Schweitzer is the author of MADE IN SPACE, now available through 1stBooks.com

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
Space Analysis and Space OpEds

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News