Features editor
The launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, carrying a Dragon capsule loaded with supplies for the International Space Station, marks the first time a private company has sent a craft to the ISS. It’s the beginning of a bold new chapter in space exploration, opening the field up to private enterprise and away from the hand of government funding.
Or is it?
It’s possible that we’re missing something here, but from what we’re told about SpaceX, calling it ‘privately funded’ is a bit of a long shot. Yes, it was founded by an entrepreneur, Elon Musk, who had previously started up the online payment service PayPal. But $400m seed capital came from NASA — government money. SpaceX’s most important customer is NASA, which will confirm a $1.6bn contract with the company to supply the ISS if the current mission is successful. That’s $1.6bn of, yes, government money. And the current mission — taking off from Cape Canaveral, taking cargo to a government-funded mission at a government-funded space station — is clearly a NASA mission, however you portray it.
So, how much of a leap is SpaceX, really? What exactly is the difference between this and, for example, ESA telling the private company Astrium that it needs an unmanned space truck that will be able to dock autonomously with the ISS and launch from an Ariane rocket, and Astrium building it with the funding from the government-backed agency?
As I said, it’s possible that there’s an important nuance that we’re missing here. Maybe it’s that Astrium is part of the formerly government-owned EADS conglomerate. But it seems that, without taking anything away from SpaceX’s achievement, that it doesn’t represent a bold new step in space exploration as much as it does the Americans taking a slightly different approach to how they use government money to develop spacecraft and missions.
It’s hard to imagine how real ‘private enterprise’ might get involved in space exploration; the recent announcement of the ‘space mining’ operation Planetary Resources is the closest to the way most people would probably imagine it, with its targeted R&D programme aimed at finding valuable minerals on asteroids and working out how to bring them back to Earth. It’s easy to see how this qualifies as private enterprise — it has a clear revenue stream from selling its minerals and so on. I’ve written before about how this type of enterprise could push technology forward.
The way that NASA is hoping to contract out supplying the ISS is somewhat different, and might fit into the slightly murky category of public-private partnerships. SpaceX would be in a similar position to, say, defence contractors: private companies, in that they are quoted on stock exchanges, but almost entirely dependent on tax-funded contracts for their revenues.
America is the land of opportunity and of private enterprise, of course, and they wouldn’t dream of saying that they’d decided to copy a European model. Perish the thought! But looking at SpaceX and Falcon from this side of the Atlantic, it certainly seems like it’s taking a leaf from the ESA/Astrium book. Not boldly going, maybe. More like a small step.
America may be the land of opportunity, but Britain has shown itself as the engine room of space when technology matters. How about Skylon, a British company developing the combined jet/rocket engine and plane which will replace America’s current system of space transport. Basically a plane capable of being launched into space which can be reused 200 times. In reality this is a great step forwards as it combines new technology in a reusable craft with a cost of around 10% of anything current.
What it shows is that when it comes to innovation its Britain which leads the way, and without Government money.
Yes Skylon – surely this indicates the total lack of ambition of both UK public AND private enterprise – that it is not being backed to any significant level.
And yes reducing the cost of getting a kg into space by a (forecast) factor of 10 IS a real Leap in ‘productivity’ for that industry. Can The Engineer get the government and the CBI to explain?
I will never understand why journalists, even engineering ones, have to put a negative spin on everything.
However you look at it, this is a great step forward and should be applauded, not criticised “becaue we may be missing an important nuance” – baloney.
It’s a private enterprise doing an excellent job and YES, being paid for its services … what a strange concept. Do you think Private Enterprise means they do it all themsleves and then provide the service for free.
Get a life and stop being so negative.
And I thought the space race ended with the Soviet Union collapse.
This side of the pond I believe we see this as a step towards a new operating model. NASA is still defining the mission, but the private sector now has the opportunity to show how private enterprise can accomplish the mission goals more efficiently and effectively. The bill will still be paid by the government as it fulfills the desires of the people it serves to advance our knowledge and experience of the universe off the surface of the earth. (I’m expecting we share that desire with the people in Europe?) The expectation here is that the science and engineering of the transportation to near space has been done to the point that the efficiencies inherent in a privately run organization, driven to generate a profit can be realized. This would free up funds for further advancements in the science and technologies that the NASA community and their counterparts throughout the world are so good at, and will promote incremental advancements in our (that’s all of us) exploration of the universe.
Am I off base in this concept from the Euro perspective?
@John Moran:
Your question is well justified, especially wrt engineering journos; normal reporters usually behave as complete idiots, but I sort of excuse them, saying that they may be interpreting the opinion of their public. But here? Does Mr Nathan hold the intelligence of his readers in so low an esteem?
—-
The attempted parallel with Astrium doesn’t hold water, btw. Although EADS may formally be privately held, its connections with the state are too strong to be swept away as a “nuance” of different polarity. Also, its “system relevance” makes it immortal (at least as long as some states can hide their own bankruptcy).
Nor is ATV an Astrium project, but a classical ESA-led development.
OTOH, Musk invested his own money to establish SpaceX (ca 2003), and the company defined designed and developed its own products. The COTS funding was surely welcome, but it came later. As for the launch services contract — surely nobody’s suggesting that SpaceX provide it for free? An the initial customers for Falcon flights were non-NASA, IIRC.
Switching perspective, the Skylon story looks like an exemplary case of the entrenchment of the state mechanisms on the European side. That Reaction Engines has managed to come this far is indeed the merit of the extraordinary quality of Alan Bond and his colleagues.
That technology could make me optimistic again about our common future!
The typically sneering tone of this article exemplifies why I upped sticks and left for the US over twenty years ago. There’s no acknowledgement of Musk’s achievement, let alone the extraordinary risk taking with his own money, long before the NASA contract. As they say in the States, “Get a life”.
There are more than enough commentators on financials, let the guy from Bloomberg do the “economic analysis” (if like me, you watched, every NASA -SpaceX press briefing you will identify him for asking constantly about failures, poor guy, he thinks he is talking about banks!).
I also expect an engineering magazine, which I like, to write extensively and with great enthusiasm about the extraordinary technological achievement of this new partnership, about Elon Musk’s dedication to space technology and the work of all SpaceX people.
Back to financials and contracts, you can check the launch manifest, NASA is one of many customers. Or do not waste your time and watch today’s ISS fly-buy, a beautiful moment in engineering and collaboration.
Stuart – I think it would be better to admit you made a mistake, rather than trying to point out you were ‘technically correct’ … that’s just as bad as trying to be politically corrct.
At least two other respondents have pointed out that it is the tone of the article they are not happy with, and the sideways insinuations trying to undermine a fantastic achievement.
MC Bernasconi corrected your comparisons with EADS – which, however funded, is another fantastic achievement.
As Silvia says – we expect engineering magazines to fight our side, not cast aspersions just for the sake of journalistic copy.
I think the arrangement where the government makes an effort to not gold plate its
requirements and leaves the entire responsibility for design in private hands
is what is worth cheering here. I don’t know what the philosophy is but perhaps
something like “design to cost” or something similar.
Otherwise it doesn’t seem private in the sense that tea clippers were or oil tankers are today.
As an engineer working for Astrium I found this article very irritating.
What about company’s like Roll Royce and BAE, just because they get work from the government doesn’t mean they arn’t private.
Astrium works on many different projects not just one’s from ESA or ENS. This is only a percentage of the work load they receive.
God you people love to have a good whine at the Journo. He’s allowed an opinion, stop being so petty.