By now, many of you have learned just how geeked out I can become when it comes to talking all things NASA, human space flight, rockets, etc. I’m not alone in my fandom by any means, and there is no shortage of great content producers out there talking about these topics. One of my favorites is a young guy named Tim Dodd (twitter: @erdayastronaut) who produces deep dive videos, written content, and much more on his site: everydayastronaut.com.
I personally find Tim’s enthusiasm infectious and applaud him for working with so many others to make these topics more accessible to the general public. Much of what he explores can easily go over the heads of casual observers, but Tim puts in significant effort to bring the subject matter into laymen’s terms.
I had some time to read through some of his past posts again this morning as my daughter kept me awake from 3AM on and I stumbled upon a line that reminded me of one of my favorite short pieces of writing. In sharing his comparisons of SpaceX and NASA, Tim wrote the following:
“At one point building super advanced rockets was something too risky, too out there and too audacious for anyone but a massively funded government program could do. But now, rockets are becoming relatively easy to build, well understood and most importantly profitable. So my personal belief is I think it’s time NASA stops building rockets.”
– Tim Dodd, SpaceX vs NASA, Is that Even a Fair Question?, April 29, 2018
Two years removed from his post on the topic, Tim’s personal belief still rings true to a lot of folks interested in human space flight. NASA continues to experience development delays in their Space Launch System (SLS). As a result, NASA has gradually moved further along the use of commercial systems to support the next phases of human spaceflight, namely the Artemis program.
Artemis, if continued by the next administration, will propel us toward establishing a permanent human presence on and around the moon through several phases. First up, we’ll establish Gateway which would serve as a lunar space station, smaller in scale than the current International Space Station, but sufficient to allow long duration flights around the moon. Additionally, it will serve as a staging point for lunar surface missions, extending the amount of time we can spend with boots on the ground and laying the necessary infrastructure for a future lunar settlement. All exciting stuff, right?
Well, it would be if NASA accelerated it’s adoption of the basic economic principal of specialization. And this is where Tim’s quote hit me today. In my view, what Tim pointed out in 2018 falls right in line with a favorite essay of mine: I, Pencil by Leonard Read. This essay is an incredibly quick read that demonstrates the role specialization and the division of labor plays in modern economics.
If you’ve never read it, you should take the quick detour today and dive in. It’s really quite enjoyable. But after you finish, ask yourself if NASA needs to continue down the path they’ve been pursuing with the Space Launch System.
So far, the SLS is firmly entrenched as NASA’s future heavy lift system that will serve as the backbone of Artemis and future deep space missions. Politically speaking, that’s a smart move for NASA budget proposals because the SLS will require inputs from facilities and contractors spread across the union and in some of the most politically influential congressional delegations. Economically, it’s a different story.
Cost overruns, production schedule slips and test delays are garnering the type of attention NASA can’t afford, especially when juxtaposed with the real-time excitement of the commercial crew program fresh in the minds of so many. To many (and I’m not saying this is “right”), SpaceX is carrying NASA on its back – literally and from a marketing standpoint – and NASA is not advocating from its strongest position when perceived as riding coattails.
As NASA moves into a new era in mission development, they are also moving into a new administration, one whose broader goals may struggle to align with Artemis or the SLS. But struggling for alignment doesn’t mean their program agendas are dead on arrival.
NASA, over the past decade and likely well into the next, has an opportunity to reimagine itself. Commercial Crew has been a tremendous success and a meaningful demonstration of the future of cooperation between private industry and government in the pursuit of innovation. By settling into the idea of specialization, NASA can allow others to focus on the costly aspects of vehicle development while they continue to do what they do best: guide national space and aeronautics research policy, train astronauts, create and manage payloads, and most importantly: setting the truly inspirational and audacious goals that captivate us all.
NASA is one of the few government entities that enjoys broad based public support. When we look to the heavens, our nation comes together. You see it in the reels of footage from the Mercury & Gemini programs, through Apollo and the Space Shuttle. Even today, audiences are captivated by Americans returning to the ISS on American built rockets launched from American soil. Even in the midst of a global pandemic, a private company partnered with NASA to give us a bit of our national swagger back.
If NASA goes all in on specialization, it will mean changes to their national structure – and probably some reductions in scope and facilities. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. By letting rocket builders build rockets, NASA can focus on the bigger picture and deliver it to taxpayers at a better rate. That’s a win-win in my book.
Part of the Possible 