1. What statement best describes your interest in space? Please mark (or highlite with red font) all that apply to you
a. Supplier of space launch services or hardware/software
b. Supplier of ground processing or support services or hardware
c. Supplier of space based assets or services
d. Buyer/user of space services (e.g., biotech, material science, earth science)
e. Financier (Angel, VC, investment banking, etc.)
f. Media/entertainment representative
g. Other – Conceptual level design of space transportation and in-space elements, performance and financial disciplinary engineering services
2. Do you know about the NASA COTS program? (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services)
a. No or not much (if no skip to #7)
b. Have heard about it
c. Some knowledge
d. Very familiar
3. Did you or your organization apply for a NASA COTS award?
a. Yes
b. No
4. Do you think NASA should offer other COTS type programs?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don’t know
5. Do you have any ideas for future NASA COTS type programs? If yes please briefly describe.
A sustainable space economy will require a reliable supply chain of several complementary goods/services. Other COTS-like programs that could engender links in the space economy supply chain include:
Propellant depots
Advanced space propulsion (methane and other chemical, electrical, etc.)
Ground support equipment / operations streamlining
Power generation and transmission components (solar panels, laser)
On-orbit refueling, space tug
Modular spacecraft components
6. Do you think the NASA COTS program could be improved? If so how?
Space Act Agreements should be contractual with well-defined milestones and rewards for those milestones. A commercial company must have guaranteed (contractual) demand from the government if NASA is expected to be its primary customer in order to justify its business case. At the same time, a contract establishes clear reasons for termination should the company fail to meet contractual milestones thereby eliminating ambiguity about NASA obligations.
7. What do you see as the biggest barrier/obstacle to commercial space?
High cost of capital combined with undefined/unproven market demand is the biggest obstacle, and with good reason. It is difficult to justify multi-million dollar investments in a venture when the rewards are extremely uncertain. A burdensome regulatory structure and societal risk intolerance also play a role.
8. What do you think is the most important thing that NASA could do to support and promote commercial space?
Include available and emerging commercial products in early phases of architecture designs (e.g. baseline Bigelow habitats for lunar campaign). Follow through on stated intention to purchase commercial services to fulfill critical NASA functions when these services are proven and available (e.g. manifest payloads on prime contractor EELVs and/or vehicles developed by emerging entrepreneurial companies if they are successfully demonstrated).
9 Any other comments or suggestions regarding commercial space?
This comment applies both to NASA’s strategy for promotion of commercial space in general and to this particular survey. It would be useful to define “commercial space.” What exactly is NASA trying to promote and what are the success criteria?
How does NASA envision its role in “commercial space?” An economy is at its heart a matter of supply and demand. If a demand exists and the environment is favorable, suppliers will emerge to fulfill that demand. Is NASA interested in “commercial space” for its own benefit (e.g. it wants to conduct exploration missions at lower cost), or are the intentions more broad (i.e. economic security and growth for the U.S.)? If NASA is interested in commercial space for its own benefit, then it should become the demand and guarantee to commercial companies that this demand exists. If NASA is interested in a commercial economy consisting of commercial companies conducting business with other commercial companies or individuals, then it need do nothing but try to create a favorable environment. Market forces will then either result in a commercial space economy or not depending on whether real demand exists.
Does “commercial space” really mean entrepreneurial space? The community and especially media tend to think of “commercial space” as entrepreneurial companies like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, and Rocketplane-Kistler. Large traditional aerospace companies, which are by definition commercial, tend to get left out of the “commercial space” equation. The traditional companies receive a good deal of business from NASA of course, but the nature of this business seems to neglect the establishment of a space economy. To encourage entrepreneurship, NASA should sponsor more prizes, offer more COTS-like programs, and expand SBIR awards. To ensure support of NASA programs while encouraging development of a space economy, NASA should establish clear top-level requirements, leave the designing to commercial companies, and make decisions for contract awards on a truly competitive basis. NASA should select architectures and strategy that are favorable to a sustainable space economy, and should shift its focus to be more on conducting basic research that can be transferred to the commercial marketplace.
10. Name and contact information for follow-up (optional):
Name: Dominic DePasquale
Organization: SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)