|
|
|
CATS Symposium Report
by Jeff Foust, SpaceViews |
Finding the right balance between government and commercial space interests in the development, regulation, and marketing of a new generation of launch vehicles that promise radically cheaper access to space is critical, officials from industry and government said at a Washington symposium in July.
The Cheap Access to Space Symposium, sponsored by the Space Frontier Foundation and NASA, was held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, a few blocks from Capitol Hill, on July 21-22 as an open discussion of the roles of industry, including both the established major companies and the new start-ups, and government agencies in improving space access.
The sessions focused on key areas that needed to be addressed for new commercial launch activities to succeed. These areas included free and competitive markets, regulatory issues, and the eventual transition from the shuttle to future launch systems. Notably absent were extended discussions and debates on technology – evidence that the technical concerns with developing reusable one- or two-stage vehicles are less important than concerns about operating them legally and successfully.
Free and Competitive Markets
A key area of concern of conference attendees, including a panel of industry leaders and government officials, was how to make the commercial marketplace for launch vehicles free and competitive while determining the role, if any, the government should play in the marketplace.
Most saw a role for government in research and development of new launch technologies. "It's hard to be against R&D," said Rick Fleeter, president of AeroAstro. However, he thought the government had not done a good job stimulating commercial enterprises to develop new vehicles, and thought an incentive like the X-Prize was a much better stimulus.
Panels were divided, though, on whether government should protect domestic launch companies though the use of quotas on international launchers, such as Russia's Proton. Fleeter thought the way to get launch costs was to eliminate quotas, to get "a lot of people doing a lot of stuff as cheaply as possible."
Mark Bitterman, vice president for government relations at Orbital Sciences Corporation, offered a somewhat different view. He said his company was against "protectionism", but thought a level playing field was necessary for American companies to compete. He called on the government to be "a little tougher" with non-market economies.
There was also a discussion on just how elastic the market must be to permit decreases in launch costs. Pete Conrad, former astronaut and current chairman of Universal Space Lines, said in a separate talk, "The market is certainly there," adding that he expected a "fantastically larger market when we start getting cheaper access to space."
That position was questioned by William Claybaugh, business advisor for NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle program. He questioned the elasticity of the market, noting that the demand for low-cost "Get-Away Special" payloads on the shuttle, available for only thousands of dollars, was far less than planned.
Claybaugh says the current market is "clearly" not free and competitive, and called the current situation of high launch costs and low demand a good example of a "failed market." He believed that launch costs have to go down to $600/pound or less before there will be a great growth in demand.
Improving the Regulatory Environment
An issue that looms larger than technical issues, and perhaps even more than the marketplace for new launch vehicles, is the regulatory environment. Technology for commercial launch vehicle is moving faster than the Federal Aviation Administration's ability to provide regulations for it, although both industry and government officials agreed that the FAA was doing its best to work with the launch services industry to draft new regulations.
Patricia Grace Smith, Associate Administrator of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation office, said that the development of RLVs posed "the most challenges" to the FAA. Smith said the FAA currently has the power to license launch vehicle, but has no authority over landings; making it impossible for the agency to regulate and approve for use commercial RLVs.
Smith said legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives, with a similar version currently being drafted in the Senate, with give the FAA the authority it needs to handle reentry and reuse issues.
Manuel Vega, chief of regulations of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation office, said 16 pages of regulations currently exist for commercial space launch vehicles, with new regulations under development. Two new regulations, which call for updated licensing rules and financial responsibility by launch companies, are currently open for comments, while two more which would cover private and state-owned launch sites are under development.
Vega listed several criteria which he considered essential to a favorable regulatory environment. Such an environment, Vega maintained, protects the public, is cost effective, enables technology development, complements market forces, involves industry and the public, and more.
Members of the launch industry on the regulatory panel agreed that the FAA was doing a good job to date, but had concerns. Gary Hudson, president of Rotary Rocket Company, said he thought the agency was doing a fine job, but was concerned about the future since "regulation can be used as a barrier to entry."
Still, there was concern that an unfavorable regulatory environment might push launch companies to offshore launch sites. Kistler Aerospace, for example, is considering launch sites in Nevada and Woomera, Australia for its reusable launch vehicle. One Kistler official said the company had "a fiduciary duty to its investors to act to protect their investments and maximize return."
Other companies maintained that moving their launch operations outside the U.S. to escape the regulatory environment would be unnecessary. Hudson said that the country would suffer "a big hit in prestige" if companies were forced offshore, which would likely ensure changes to regulations.
Making the Transition from Shuttle
One of the liveliest debates of the symposium was the question of when and how NASA would make the transition from the current fleet of Space Shuttles to a new fleet of reusable launch vehicles, likely operated by a private company.
Stephen Oswald, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for the Space Shuttle, said shuttle flights would continue to 2012, the end of the planned operational life of the International Space Station. Until then the shuttle would undergo a number of performance and safety upgrades, including perhaps the introduction of liquid flyback boosters next decade, study contracts for which were released earlier this year.
Robert Crippen, former astronaut and KSC director and current president of the Thiokol Propulsion Group, suggested private funding may be used for shuttle upgrades, perhaps by United Space Alliance, which takes over all funding for shuttle operations later this year.
Not all members of the panel were happy with continuing shuttle operations well into the next century. Rick Tumlinson, president of the Space Frontier Foundation, said the current fleet of shuttles was getting old and called on NASA to make a "real commitment" to making a transition from the shuttle to one or more vehicles.
However, Alan Ladwig, NASA's Associate Administrator for policy and plans, called any thoughts that the Shuttle would end soon "pathetic."
The Role of X-Vehicles
The purpose of X-vehicles – government-funded programs to develop advanced launch technologies – also came under the scrutiny of symposium attendees, but found wide support in its current role among industry and government officials.
NASA's Stephen Cook described the two tiers of NASA's efforts to develop new launch technologies. "Trailblazer" programs will be fully integrated flight demonstrators, while "Pathfinder" programs will have a narrow focus, demonstrating just "1 or 2 big items" for less than $100 million and in under two years.
The Air Force is also interested in testing new technologies for a military spaceplane, which according to Lt. Col. Jess Sponable of the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory, is "synergistic" with commercial launch vehicle development. He said the Air Force needs to "blacken the skies with X-vehicles" to improve space access, just as it did in the 1940s through the early 1960s to improve aircraft.
Current X-vehicle development is going "pretty well" so far said Henry Vanderbilt, executive director of the Space Access Society. He urged the government to keep the distinction between X-vehicle and flight prototypes very separate, to prevent problems that have happened in the past as X-vehicle got less experimental.
However, Air Force Col. Pete Worden thought that operations were as big a consideration as the technology, and urged that X-vehicles be able "to do something", to test their operational capabilities.
All agreed, though, that not all X-vehicles will work, and the government and the public need to be aware that failures are an important part of the process. "What doesn't work is valuable," Vanderbilt said.
David Swain, Vice President and general manager of McDonnell Douglas's "Phantom Works", summed it up by saying, "X-vehicles are about learning."
|
|
|
.