Two; NASA is not a real space program. NASA is part of Washington D.C. and Washington D.C. would at times seem to be a region of altered space and time that was dropped out of an alternate universe. This must be true because the laws of space and time are often severely distorted in Washington D.C., and the common sense rules of real economics do not even apply. A real space program would of course involve real people, people who are not government employees, and who do not have a distorted view of reality. If we continue to support NASA as America's future in Space, we support a space program which is not based in reality.
If on the other hand, NASA has given up on the idea that humanity will ever move into Space in large numbers, then there really is no need for further space exploration and only minimal need for space science. We wouldn't need any more useless facts about Space. We could slowly reduce NASA by attrition and retirement until the space age can be brought to a permanent close. Without plans for space colonies, we don't need NASA.
NASA is a research and development organization, everything they do has to push the edge of the technology, regardless of cost.
NASA decisions are based on political and technological issues, not economics.
A cheaper way to get into space means less money for NASA. Doing more in space is an issue of national will, not more money.
NASA is a budget driven organization. Spend less - you get less next year. Spend more and you are rewarded with a bigger budget next year.
NASA is funded one year at a time. You can't build a civilization in space in one year.
A government bureaucracy doesn't like competition, it might make them look like a bureaucracy.
If state industries worked, the Soviet Union would have been a workers paradise.
NASA has a limited budget. NASA will always have a limited budget. NASA will never have a budget large enough to explore or develop the infinity of space. Free enterprise has unlimited growth potential.
NASA is spending somebody else's money, they really don't care how much they spend.
NASA always looks back to the Apollo glory days of unlimited budgets.
NASA contractors always sell NASA the most expensive option, after all, that's how they make the most money.
NASA will always seek the most expensive option, because it increases the budget.
A NASA monopoly means one employer. Space workers do whatever NASA tells them to or they can forget about their future in space. They have been and will be abused by NASA.
A State monopoly stifles innovation. Only one solution to a problem will be funded. There are no alternatives.
A State monopoly stifles the growth of free enterprise. No private firm can compete with government.
NASA programs become institutions, resisting change and progress.
Window glass. Breaking windows creates jobs. Any pointless government program can deteriorate into a jobs program.
Government agencies really don't like people. NASA really doesn't want a bunch of civilians messing up "their space".
NASA will never commercially develop space. NASA sees space as reserved for science only.
Without an established commercial industry, any new technology that NASA discovers will be developed by another country's commercial organizations. Example, Arianespace launches most communication satellites, a technology developed by NASA.
We need to apply more of the vast space operations knowledge base that NASA has accumulated. NASA is only interested in science not applications.
Space has got to start making profits. You cannot build a civilization in space on high minded ideals. We have to start making money IN space. NASA cannot make a profit.
Congress never gives NASA enough money. Congress will never give NASA enough money.
Congress will only invest enough money to barely get a program started. Free enterprise invests enough in a new product to dominate the market, a much larger amount.
NASA spin-offs are from past investment, not future funding. Congress can cut NASA's budget and still take credit for spin-offs.
Any research program will generate spin-offs, space is a particularly expensive place to seek spin-offs.
Spin-offs occur when you do something NEW. NASA hasn't done anything new in years.
With NASA space transportation, military payloads get priority, then NASA program payloads, then NASA science payloads, and lastly and leastly, commercial payloads.
The commercial product cycle is about 6 months. NASA can't do anything in under 10 years.
NASA cannot oversee it's own safety, a fact pointed out by the Challenger investigation. Private enterprise sees good safety standards as a marketing tool, and they push the regulatory agencies for a high but level playing field.
NASA prefers sole source suppliers, the highest cost approach.
NASA sole source suppliers are not interested in commercial applications of space technology. A private purchaser demands a lower price, the NASA contractor cannot lower their price to the private purchaser because they would be required to lower their price to NASA, their primary source of profit.
Since NASA contractors know that NASA will never allow a private space transportation industry to develop, They see no future in marketing to the free market.
If NASA makes a mistake, we pay for it, and the people who made the mistake get more money to correct the mistake, and then promotions. If a private operator makes a mistake, they go broke and someone with a better idea takes their place.
NASA sees the military space program as a market for it's transportation services, competing with free enterprise.
All NASA projects must support military research or military production. If the military can't use it, NASA won't develop it.
Congress could cut NASA off completely next week and put the space shuttles in museums. Government funded programs have no guaranteed future. A free enterprise industry is dependent only on continued profits, it is not dependent on government for it's existence.
The government uses thirty year old computers and software. They are so out of date that an archeologist is needed to convert the code to a modern computing platform.
I ordered two small pamphlets, one from the government, the other from the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scout pamphlet arrived in one week. The government pamphlet arrived postage due in eight weeks. The obvious difference between the Boy Scouts and the federal government, Adult Supervision.
NASA has told everyone that space transportation is dangerous, difficult, and expensive, and that is what people expect. NASA has with great effort proven that space travel is dangerous, difficult, and expensive. Therefore, NASA must be good. Private industry tries to make everything look easy because investors and customers want to avoid risk. This makes private enterprise space efforts look bad because they make space travel look too easy. Private enterprise has to make space transportation appear dangerous, difficult, and expensive, while actually making it safe, easy, and cheap.
So here's where we are, the public generally supports space, but isn't sure about the return and has given up on the future, congress reflects that dwindling support with dwindling appropriations, and NASA is content to waste that money on the pretext of waving the flag in orbit. The challenge is to change this deteriorating situation while making the people who count happy. After figuring all this out, the step to a competitive, drop them like a rock if they don't produce, free enterprise space transportation industry as the solution was easy. The public gets real jobs, a growing competitive industry, and a future in space. Congress gets an industry to tax. NASA looses their monopoly, but must do more research and push farther into space to support private industry. Thus, privatization became my strategy.
For tactics, I stole a card from NASA's deck, use rockets to attract attention and get the message out. Following the adage "walk a mile in someone else's shoes", launching rockets is first hand experience in how bad things really are in private space transportation.
The Government has a monopsony, a monopoly of demand, because nearly all payloads are financed by the government. Even the so called commercial scientific payloads carried on the Space Shuttles are almost always financed by NASA grants. That gives the government tremendous control over the market. Anyone who builds a rocket and wants to offer launch services must seek the government as a customer.
Even though President Reagan kicked NASA out of the unmanned launch vehicle industry, NASA is still operating unmanned launch vehicles. The best way to break into the launch vehicle business is to start with sounding rockets, small rockets that fly high into the upper atmosphere. NASA owns and launches nearly all sounding rockets in the United States, ignoring the prohibition on owning unmanned launch vehicles. Anyone who builds a rocket and wants to offer launch services must consider the government as the competitor.
Of course NASA retains a monopoly on manned spaceflight with the Space Shuttles, and will not even discuss the possibility of private manned launch vehicles. More importantly from NASA's monopoly on manned spaceflight, it is continually threatening to recapture the remainder of the private unmanned market.
With this much control over the Space market, the governments role in regulating the industry must be called into question. As the major customer of any space contractor, the government can deny contracts to any launch vehicle manufacturer or launch service provider that is foolish enough to compete with the government provided vehicles. As the major supplier of launch services in the United States the government sees any launch vehicle manufacturer or launch service provider as a competitor. Governments regulations can function as an attack on those competitors Private companies are squeezed from both ends. Until the government gets out of the business of space transportation, it cannot legitimately regulate the industry. Government must be outside of any industry it regulates, otherwise it is serving it's own self interest.
The NASA contractors will jump into the space transportation business as soon as NASA creates cheap space transportation. - Even if NASA were to create a cheap launch vehicle, the contractors know that NASA will never give up it's dream of being America's State Airline for Space. Any contractor who tries to compete with NASA (i.e.; McDonnell Douglas - DC- X)will loose their NASA contracts and then be under bid by NASA.
NASA technology will support the development of new launch vehicles. - NASA contractors do not want to sell to commercial vehicle developers because it would lower the price of their product, and their revenue from NASA. NASA will not help a commercial vehicle developer because they see commercial operators as competitors as competition to their dream of being America's State Airline for Space.
Space research produces valuable spin-offs. - Any research project produces spin-offs, Space is a particularly expensive place to look for spin-offs, we get much better results from Earth bound projects. You also only get spin-offs when you do something new, and NASA hasn't done anything new in twenty years. There is one spin-off from space that would be worth while, a private commercial free enterprise space transportation industry, but NASA doesn't want that.
Real access to Space involves more than just getting into orbit, you must have a "home" for yourself and your family, a community, and jobs, jobs that produce real products, profitable products. Real access to Space is about creating a civilization in Space. Governments cannot create civilizations.
Notice that I have only mentioned price, not cost. For NASA, the higher the cost the better. High cost systems like the Space Shuttles, the International Space Station, and the proposed Single Stage to Orbit vehicles increase NASA's budget, which to a bureaucrat is a good thing. The huge investment in these systems also means that they function as "funding continuity vehicles". It is politically impossible to turn them off. This means that NASA has a guaranteed thirty years of secure budgets. NASA bureaucrats do not have to have another original thought for the next thirty years. While NASA bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for providing low price services to the nation, NASA's high costs are a burden to the taxpayer, and a disservice to humanity's expansion into Space.
NASA is a government bureaucracy, NASA is not a profit seeking organization, NASA is budget driven organization. NASA wouldn't recognize a profitable commercial opportunity if it bite them in the tail. NASA has probably had thousands of highly profitable commercial space opportunities in their hands, they let them slip through their fingers because they simply were not looking for profitable commercial opportunities. The NASA claim that the Space Shuttles and the International Space Station will develop commercial products simply doesn't work. NASA is not the type of beast that can find a commercial product, and we need commercial products to open the Space frontier.
The type of people who can find commercial opportunities are largely excluded from the NASA view of Space. The type of people who can find commercial opportunities in Space are the wolves of capitalism, who can recognize a juicy roast chicken as food. NASA doesn't like capitalist entrepreneurs, they're too much like contractors, always thinking of money instead of the loftier goals of science and exploration. Private companies and private citizens cannot simply purchase NASA services. It is in fact illegal for NASA to provide services to or aid to any private individual or private company. That would be favoritism. For a private company to use NASA services to investigate possible commercial products, they must first sign over the technology to NASA and it then becomes a NASA project with NASA funding. NASA of course can then give the technology to anyone it wishes to, which is not a good idea in a free market. So if you have a good idea, the one thing you don't want to do is involve NASA.
We go into Space because we are human. The question is; are we socialists who believe that Government should take us there, hold our hands, and wipe our noses; or are we free enterprise capitalists who believe that Government should show us the path to Space, but then move aside that we can step into the future.
*****
NASA should not be building a space station. NASA should be building a lunar base. Space station, been there done that. Lunar base, that's new, that's the future, that's where NASA should be.