That’s a fair point, Jim—and I don’t disagree that cheaper access opens up interesting possibilities for Europe and others.
What worries me—and what I think Phil was calling out—is the disconnect between how NASA framed these partnerships and how they’ve actually played out. But hey, that’s what happens when a new Buzz Word stamp shows up. Suddenly you want to use it on everything.
It’s been 22 years since STS-107 set all this in motion, starting with a budget sand chart built on the faith that outyear shortfalls would sort themselves out. Instead, they compounded. And now we’re in the Constellation/Artemis close-out and liquidation phase, counting on Starship to do it all.
While Jim Muncy is correct in the things our International Partners could do, the major issue is more important: Gateway is the main nexus now for the US Artemis’ international participation. It would be strategically stupid to just wave our hands, cancel it, and assume it will all work out with what were our Partners. Particularly with the poor way this particular Administration is treating many of these same allies in all other endeavors- trade, defense, etc. And particularly with entities like China on the sidelines ready and willing to try to peel off and entice our former partners into joining a more stable partnership in going to the moon. There’s a real danger here, people; we can’t just wave our hands and assume things will be taken care of. We need more than ever an activist, in place, National Space Council Executive Secretary and NASA Administrator/Deputy Administrator ASAP to not only minimize damage, but to see that intelligent policy options are developed, WITH OUR PARTNERS, ASAP.
Thanks, Charles. Hearing that from someone with your NASA background means a lot. Hope it added a wrinkle or two to the commercialization conversation.
Public-private partnerships are an interesting curiosity, often messaged with outsized importance when they are occasionally successful. They are fine on the margins, but overemphasis on these relationships detracts attention from value exchange between the public sector ("the entrepreneurial state") and the private sector for more than a century, often in post-hoc collaboration between these sectors.
The public sector can and should pursue R&D that is outside the risk appetite and decision horizons of the private sector. Private sector entrepreneurs then can benefit from both the successes and failures of this early-stage R&D in the public sector--that is, they benefit from the investments of taxpayers to reduce risk in more mature R&D.
Yes, it is a waste of money to cancel public sector programs on the verge of successful demonstrations, but the private sector will benefit from the lessons learned from the science done, the technology developed and tested, and the talent developed in these programs just as they always have.
The old deal of Orion SMs and Gateway elements for Surface rides may go away.
But cheaper direct access to the Moon will allow Europeans to build useful surface
infrastructure for their part of the Lunar Village and give NASA a LOT more surface
visits it can share with Europe.
That’s a fair point, Jim—and I don’t disagree that cheaper access opens up interesting possibilities for Europe and others.
What worries me—and what I think Phil was calling out—is the disconnect between how NASA framed these partnerships and how they’ve actually played out. But hey, that’s what happens when a new Buzz Word stamp shows up. Suddenly you want to use it on everything.
It’s been 22 years since STS-107 set all this in motion, starting with a budget sand chart built on the faith that outyear shortfalls would sort themselves out. Instead, they compounded. And now we’re in the Constellation/Artemis close-out and liquidation phase, counting on Starship to do it all.
Brian, very much enjoyed. - Charles Miller
While Jim Muncy is correct in the things our International Partners could do, the major issue is more important: Gateway is the main nexus now for the US Artemis’ international participation. It would be strategically stupid to just wave our hands, cancel it, and assume it will all work out with what were our Partners. Particularly with the poor way this particular Administration is treating many of these same allies in all other endeavors- trade, defense, etc. And particularly with entities like China on the sidelines ready and willing to try to peel off and entice our former partners into joining a more stable partnership in going to the moon. There’s a real danger here, people; we can’t just wave our hands and assume things will be taken care of. We need more than ever an activist, in place, National Space Council Executive Secretary and NASA Administrator/Deputy Administrator ASAP to not only minimize damage, but to see that intelligent policy options are developed, WITH OUR PARTNERS, ASAP.
Great story
Thanks, Charles. Hearing that from someone with your NASA background means a lot. Hope it added a wrinkle or two to the commercialization conversation.
Public-private partnerships are an interesting curiosity, often messaged with outsized importance when they are occasionally successful. They are fine on the margins, but overemphasis on these relationships detracts attention from value exchange between the public sector ("the entrepreneurial state") and the private sector for more than a century, often in post-hoc collaboration between these sectors.
The public sector can and should pursue R&D that is outside the risk appetite and decision horizons of the private sector. Private sector entrepreneurs then can benefit from both the successes and failures of this early-stage R&D in the public sector--that is, they benefit from the investments of taxpayers to reduce risk in more mature R&D.
Yes, it is a waste of money to cancel public sector programs on the verge of successful demonstrations, but the private sector will benefit from the lessons learned from the science done, the technology developed and tested, and the talent developed in these programs just as they always have.