Next Steps and the Implications for U.S. Aerospace Firms
Since the dawn of time, man has looked to the stars and wondered, but by 1957 technology had matured to the point that the Soviets were able to launch Sputnik into orbit, breaking the barrier between man and space. Because the U.S. and the USSR were locked in a cold war battle at the time, the U.S. was primed to make the next move. Winning the race to the moon and being the first country to plant a flag would be a symbolic battle victory for the United States. This set the stage for President Kennedy’s call for the U.S. to go the Moon.
By focusing on a manned-mission to the moon, President Kennedy unleashed a contagious energy that swept the country. Between 1962 and 1969 technological innovation and rapid scientific advancements were spurred forth by the cooperative work of universities, businesses and government agencies. Besides the obvious success of the Apollo missions, 40 years later many of the technological developments for Apollo are still useful in a variety of industries and economic sectors.
As the cold war ended and the world order shifted, NASA became more collaboratively focused with the space shuttle and the international space station. Then in 2004, more than three decades following Neil Armstrong’s small step, President George W. Bush announced another shift in the long-term focus for NASA. The focus was turned back to sending humans to the Moon, and eventually to Mars.
Unlike Kennedy in the ‘60s, Bush’s choice to go to the Moon and to Mars was not for a "victory" but rather a mission to promote cooperation amongst nations. In the speech announcing the new focus for NASA, he said, "We’ll invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of this new era of discovery … The vision I’ve outlined today is a journey, not a race, and I call on other nations to join us on this journey, in the spirit of cooperation and friendship."
While cooperation may have been President Bush’s initial goal, it seems as though the more recent developments within the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Russian space programs indicate a new competition heating up, with the Moon as the near-term playing field. Though it is not charged with the geopolitical angst of the ‘60s, a new space race appears to be underway, with the first round of probes and orbiters wrapping up and the second round – manned missions – in the initial planning stages.
Japan, China and India all successfully launched orbiters and probes to the moon between September 2007 and October 2008. The U.S. followed suit in June 2009, with the launch of the LRO/LCROSS payloads, which impacted the lunar surface on Oct. 9. This was followed by the Nov. 13th announcement that preliminary data detected the presence of water on the moon, information critical to further missions.
Based on a 2008 article from Popular Science, Russia, China and the U.S. had plans to return man to the moon no more than five years apart from each other – the U.S. in 2020, China in 2021 and Russia in 2025. But with the retirement of the Space Shuttle scheduled for 2010, what was NASA’s plan for getting the U.S. to the moon? What would be the "dart" of choice that would allow the U.S. to compete in the second round of competition? The answer was in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 which gave genesis to the Constellation Program, a human spaceflight program designed to replace the Space Shuttle and return to the moon no later than 2020. This program planned for manned lunar missions that would allow humans to stay and build a lunar outpost, eventually enabling people to live and work on the moon’s surface. The more long-term goal saw the lunar mission as a stepping-stone to Mars and beyond.
Through NASA’s efforts, a mere four years later, in August 2009, the final segments of the Ares I-X rocket were stacked on a mobile launcher platform, completing the 327-foot launch vehicle. The Ares I-X completed its first test launch on Oct. 28, reaching a suborbital altitude of 150,000 feet.
Unfortunately for NASA, the current economic crisis has prompted major shifts in federal budget priorities. It was reported in an Aug. 13, 2009 edition of the Orlando Sentinel that a recent presidential panel, called the Augustine Panel, believed that NASA’s annual budget of about $18 billion would pay to keep astronauts flying – albeit aboard Russian rockets – to the space station through 2020. However, there would be no money for travel to the Moon, Mars or for exploring other parts of the solar system for at least twenty years. "We haven’t found a scenario that includes exploration that’s viable," said former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the Augustine Panel.
With the Shuttle retirement quickly approaching and the Ares I rocket with a questionable 2015 launch date, what will the U.S. do in the meantime? Interestingly enough, in the same Orlando Sentinel article referenced earlier, Ride said, "If there was one winner [from the meeting on] Wednesday, it was commercial space companies, which the panel said should take cargo, crew and possibly rocket fuel and fuel tanks into orbit." Ride urged $200 million more to further develop fledgling cargo capabilities and $2.5 billion for competitive programs that would help private companies develop capsules to ferry astronauts to the space station.
The initial Augustine Panel findings contained five manned options for ferrying astronauts and cargo once the space shuttle retires. One option was that commercial services could deliver crew to low-Earth orbit (LEO). The panel wrote, "While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and lifecycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with adequate incentives should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft."
Leading aerospace companies seem to agree. An Aug. 28 Wall Street Journal article reported that the "scale and nature of sending this type of work to private contractors, unheard of in the history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, could help the administration cope with an increasingly dire budget situation and fill crucial gaps in its program." In the article, Lawrence H. Williams, vice president for strategic relations for Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), discussed the potential for their company and other commercial aerospace entities going forward. "At the end of the day," said Williams, "a commercial approach requires industry to share the development investment risk, but also permits greater rewards by selling the technology to other customers. It’s a much more free-market approach."
Williams, whose company is planning for a 2010 launch of its Falcon 9 heavy-lift rocket, has also said that he believes NASA’s acquisition of U.S. commercial crew and cargo services will lead to expansive new opportunities in space, likely leading to the creation of an entirely new industry in LEO. "It’s difficult to know at this stage, but low-Earth orbit could turn out to be the next Internet in terms of opening up opportunities for commerce that previously never existed." His vision of the future carries the endorsement of Sally Ride who recently said, "We’d like to get NASA out of the business of flying people to and from LEO."
What this will mean for smaller players and start-ups in the aerospace industry, time will tell. It does appear though that small firms will have some opportunity to compete for the new business. According to the previously referenced Wall Street Journal article, smaller firms that are, "contract winners would use corporate funds to build and test rockets, provide compatible space capsules and then try to recoup those investments by offering commercial-style transportation services to the agency. Essentially, NASA would be paying a set fee for every pound or person transported to orbit. As to how commercial aerospace can impact the bottom line, SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk, has said that, "Within a few years we could send astronauts to space for about $20 million a person, less than the $50 million Russia is charging."
LRO/LCROSS Launches on an Atlas V rocket, June 18, 2009. (NASA/Tom Farrar, Kevin O’Connell)
Commercial companies are also primed to provide the required support services such as training. For instance, an Environmental Tectonics Corporation subsidiary, the National Aerospace Training and Research (NASTAR) Center of Southampton, PA provides comprehensive training and research support for government and commercial space programs, as well as military and civilian aircrews. Companies such as NASTAR provide critical support services. So far nearly 200 people, including Sir Richard Branson, have completed space training at the NASTAR Center. As limited knowledge exists on how the ‘general public’ will fare at 6 G’s of force (6 times your body weight), research has also been collected on space flight participants.
From the perspective of William F. Mitchell, president and CEO of Environmental Tectonics Corporation, the U.S. Government has been contracting launch services from private industry since the late 1970s. "So far, launches have been unmanned. Now, we are on the brink of a revolution in human space flight. When one thinks of the term ‘commercial space flight,’ it often conjures up images of scheduled passenger service to space and back. However, the commercial space arena encompasses satellite launches, payload fabrication and pre-launch processing, tracking, and space crew training. Small businesses can fulfill many of these industry needs and are particularly well suited to finding innovative solutions to space flight challenges. The private sector, if given the appropriate tools and regulatory framework, can respond quickly and efficiently to emerging markets. A little over 80 years ago, the airlines started as small, speculative ventures with just a few routes. I would expect that 80 years from now, we will be able to look back on the commercial space flight industry and see the same sort of growth."
So, what now? The Augustine Panel delivered its final report to the President on Oct. 22 and until decisions are made NASA is in limbo, with the worst-case scenario being that lunar missions are scrapped for decades. One alternative proposed is canceling the Ares I rocket and its LEO missions in favor of more challenging missions.
What is known is that in America’s latest space race, a new breed of scrappy entrepreneurs could have the opportunity to mold the future of the aerospace industry.
