If the future of human space flight, at least to low Earth orbit, is commercial, why does the government have to pay billions of dollars in subsidies to develop "commercial" space craft? MSNBC's Alan Boyle put that question to Boeing's John Elbon.
Elbon is the manager in charge of Boeing's human space craft project, the CST-100, which, along with the Dragon, is in the running for contracts to resupply and take crews to and from the International Space Station. While Boeing, a huge, aerospace firm that builds space launchers, civilian airliners, and military aircraft, would seem to have the deep pockets to build a space taxi on its own dime, Elbon explains why this is not the case.
"There's a lot of debate over this definition of "commercial." I can explain, from Boeing's perspective, what the market is like and what the business case needs to be. From our perspective, there's not a very definite market at this point beyond flying NASA astronauts to the space station. We think that clearly there is a market. I'll give you two examples: Space Adventures, who we're teamed with, has proven there's a market by flying seven people to space station on Soyuz craft, one of them twice. Clearly there are some numbers of folks who are willing to pay for that transportation."
Elbon went on to discuss the proposed private space station being developed by Bigelow Aerospace and how that might become a market for private space flight. But then he discussed the problem with private markets, from his company's perspective.
"Those markets are there, but to define how deep those markets are and put a business case together that warrants the investment it takes to develop a transportation capability ... from our perspective, that business case doesn't close. So because this is a new market, it's important that there is government funding to assist developers in producing this capability, and then that there is a government use of this system to be the foundation of the market. In fact, we can close our business case around that NASA business, and then look at the commercial market beyond that as a significant potential upside.
"It's a model similar to the way airmail delivery was used as a government effort to help fund the early endeavors in the commercial airplane arena."
Roughly translated, Elbon is saying that Boeing thinks that there is a potential market for commercial space travel beyond servicing NASA contracts at the International Space Station. But he is also saying that Boeing is unwilling to take the risk that those markets will pan out by developing the CST-100 on its own. The government subsidies involve risk sharing. That means while the American tax payer is shelling out money to help NASA take astronauts into space in a cheaper, more reliable way, he is also spending money to possibly help companies like Boeing develop a private business. This will include taking the well heeled and adventurous on joy rides into low Earth orbit as well as researchers from a number of countries to Bigelow's private space station, should that facility materialize.
Elbon is touching upon a problem facing the development of commercial space flight. Big companies like Boeing do not need to take risks to develop new markets like taking people into outer space. Boeing can make money in less risky ways forever. Entrepreneurial companies like SpaceX may be willing to take risks, but lack the deep pockets that a Boeing has. Hence, there is a perceived need for government subsidies to get commercial space off the ground.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and The Weekly Standard.
There are no comments yet