I had the opportunity yesterday, though, to sit down with some friends who have a little more insight into what’s really been going on up in DC.  Plain and simple, Senators Hutchison and Nelson quietly formed an alliance in the Senate and even more quietly pre-coordinated with the White House to come up with something that everyone can live with.

For all the suggestions of his inability to lead, it was NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden who made the case for a heavy-lift vehicle and that was the carrot Hutchison and Nelson used to get the support from expected intransigents like Sen. Shelby, who just earned a rather ignominious distinction from Citizens Against Government Waste.

There is an important clause in the language on heavy lift that leaves NASA an escape if it finds shuttle-derived components are impracticable.  Thus, the staffers that helped put this bill together say that NASA is not technically constrained by the Senate language.  The authorization committee also accepted amendments to provide more funding for tech R&D and robotic precursor missions.

At this point, it’s a matter of making the trades in the budget lines to come to an amicable conclusion that funds one more Shuttle flight, ISS continuation, exploration and space technology research, and a human exploration program beyond Earth orbit.  While commercial crew development is constrained in FY2011, I hear that was intended to actually provide commercial developers cover for moving out strong in FY2012 and beyond.

In any event, the Senate appropriations committee just approved the full $19 billion the President and the Senate authorization committee asked for.  This is a bonafide example of how the system really is supposed to work.  Senators, staffers, and the White House set aside partisan politics to develop a plan that we can move forward on, even while acknowledging that it isn’t perfect.

By contrast, the House legislation is a scattershot proposal, with its only clear goal being the restoration of the status quo.  Forty-three – yes, 43 – amendments were submitted against it, even as the House committee meeting was ongoing.

Our own Rep. Pete Olson filed an “emergency” amendment intended to short-circuit their own priority queue to immediately fund the Constellation spacesuit project.  Other Representatives squabbled over the $15 million CRuSR program to sponsor suborbital science research and whether NASA should foster the growth of commercial space industry at all.  (Note: The Space Act explicitly directs NASA to help grow American industry in space.  It doesn’t actually say anything about flying people in space.)  Towards the end of the day, it was silly season on display.

Senator Hutchison is showing some real leadership here and has done good work for our state and our space program.  I hope Rep. Olson and his colleagues in the House will learn from her example and stop tilting at windmills.  Rep. Kosmas from Florida submitted an amendment calling on the House to follow the Senate’s approach, so at least one person in that chamber gets it.

If the Senate’s strategy is adopted by the House and emerges from conference committee intact, we could have a bill that he will sign on the President’s desk before October and avoid a continuing resolution – which would keep NASA in limbo perhaps as long as another year.

This would be a more evolutionary change for NASA, as opposed to the revolutionary approach outlined in the President’s FY2011 budget.  Even so, NASA still gets an overall increase in its budget and breathing room for needed investments in commercial space services and technology R&D.  JSC, in particular, will have plenty of work to do.

As long as NASA retains the freedom to make appropriate technical decisions within the budget and schedule provided, I think we can make this work.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

Under President Obama’s Open Government Initiative, NASA is exploring new ways to share with the public the exciting science we take part in every day. NASA has a long history of sharing its discoveries with the public, but figuring out how to present it in a way that is both easy to understand and simple to use frequently poses a challenge. By partnering with private industry, NASA has the opportunity to take advantage of existing technology innovations that can deliver science data in a format that is more publically consumable.

Yesterday, NASA and Microsoft unveiled the latest version of WorldWide Telescope, featuring the highest resolution and most complete map of Mars images ever released. Over 13,000 images from NASA’s HiRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, each with a resolution of about 100 times that of a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot camera, have been mapped onto a 3D globe of the Martian surface. They offer unparalleled views of spectacular surface features, including imagery of the Mars Phoenix Lander site and Olympus Mons – the highest peak in our solar system.

Soaring above Mars in WorldWide Telescope

Bringing all of these incredible images to user’s desktop computers is not an easy feat. With hundreds of terabytes of data available, the images must be made available “on demand” as users fly across the Martian surface, only loading terrain data when necessary. To accomplish this, the intelligent robotics group at Ames Research Center turned to NASA’s Nebula cloud computing platform. Nebula provides flexible and efficient science-class compute and storage services that easily scale to meet the needs of NASA scientists and researchers. Nebula was one of three Flagship Initiatives in NASA’s Open Government Plan and is one of the primary tools that is enabling NASA to more easily collaborate with private industry, academia and engage with the public in ways never before possible.

Nebula turned the 13,000 images from HiRISE into half a billion smaller images that can be served in real-time to a broadband connection. Creating this huge mosaic took two weeks of number crunching on 114 of Nebula’s central processing units. The project demonstrated the powerful capabilities of Nebula, which has been utilized in situations as diverse as hosting federal spending data on USAspending.gov to providing a mechanism for amateur astronomers across the globe to upload their images of the LCROSS impact on the lunar south pole.

Technology innovations like Nebula are integral in NASA’s efforts to partner with industry to create products and services that make NASA’s data more easily consumable to public audiences. As we move forward in creating an environment of even greater transparency and participation at NASA, we hope to deliver even more engaging experiences that provide the American public with better insight into the cosmos, planet earth, and the work going on at NASA.

Thanks to Gretchen Curtis for providing input on this post!

The National Space Policy is an outline for the goals, objectives, and guiding principles of all US government activity in space.  It is a high-level executive document that is intended to bring together the various disparate elements under a single framework that generally explains the Administration’s thought process.  Nothing more, nothing less.

As the newspapers and many other bloggers have already reported, the Obama Administration’s document largely returns to the language of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton with its focus on collaboration and eschews the “no one else can tell us what to do” language of Bush II.  Instead of rehashing the boilerplate verbiage, I’d instead like to examine the various elements of the National Space Policy that stand out to me.

First, the very Introduction gives attention to the increasingly inter-related nature of space activities.  In particular, the problem of space debris is mentioned.  I find this interesting in light of recent articles that suggest the Kessler Syndrome may be closer than we realize and, especially after the Iridium-Cosmos collision, the powers-that-be are taking the issue much more seriously.  By putting this topic front-and-center, the Administration seems to be telling the space community that we have to recognize the impact of our activities and shape the way we work to be more conscientious and sustainable.

The section on Intersector Guidelines reads pretty blandly, at first.  At least, it did until I got to the part on “International Cooperation.” It lists “space nuclear power to support space science and exploration” as a potential area for international cooperation.  That caught my attention given our country’s tenuous relationship with nuclear power.  We haven’t really embraced it like some other industrialized countries, but I think it’s increasingly being seen as an alternative in an era where we’re trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

“Preserving the Space Environment” directs NASA, the Department of Defense, and other related agencies to work together to prevent conjunction events, minimize the creation of debris, and devise measures to “mitigate and remove” the orbital debris that’s already there.  I think this is likely to be a significant growth opportunity for entrepreneurs and innovators.  It’s going to take some very creative thinking to tackle the problem of orbital debris in a cost-effective manner.  Sadly, there’s plenty of work to be done on the problem, too.

“Space Nuclear Power” does, in fact, get its own section.  The direction is reasonably unambiguous, too.  “The United States shall develop and use space nuclear power systems where such systems safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities.”  This is a serious commitment at the policy level, as lightweight nuclear reactors developed for space exploration could be just as useful for helping address America’s concerns about meeting base power load needs while reducing fossil fuel emissions.

I think it’s encouraging that the Department of Energy is specifically directed to “Maintain the capability and infrastructure to develop and furnish nuclear power systems for use in United States Government space systems.”  For the time being, I’m sure most of that effort will be focused on maintaining our radioisotope thermoelectric generator capabilities, but this also means DoE has an explicit directive to work with NASA if the agency determines space nuclear power systems are a key element for Beyond Earth Orbit exploration.

As we move into the Sector Guidelines, the first section is on “Commercial Space Guidelines”.  More or less, it says that the US Government should develop its own space systems only when there is overriding national interest and there is no existing or adaptable commercial service that is suitable.  This is very much consistent with the Space Act that governs NASA, but now a standing policy directive across the Executive Branch.  Unlike what was suggested in the rumor mill, the policy encourages prizes, competitions, and innovative, nontraditional methods of acquiring services.

The “Civil Space Guidelines” largely cover NASA’s area of responsibility. NASA is chartered to set the exploration milestones, with direction to begin crewed exploration of asteroids by 2025 and to Mars and back by the mid-2030s.  The blogosphere is largely reading what they want to in this statement, but I find it interesting more in what it doesn’t say.  It doesn’t say NASA can’t do these things sooner.  To me, they read more like “No Later Than” dates than “No Earlier Than” dates.

The subsection on Near-Earth Objects also catches my attention because it doesn’t just address the issue of hazard mitigation.  I think that’s important in and of itself, but the National Space Policy takes this a step further and recognizes the potential for asteroid mining.  Some studies have shown that a single metallic asteroid could have more recoverable rare earth metals, nickel, and iron than have been mined in the history of all civilization.  Given growing concerns over China’s dominant market position with the rare earth metals that are essential to modern technology, this could become an increasingly attractive prospect.

The National Security Space Guidelines are fairly boilerplate. I suspect the really interesting bits are in the classified annex that most of us will never see.

While the National Space Policy is neither the blueprint that some were hoping for or the travesty that some expected, I do think there are nuggets in there that suggest we have an opportunity to make American activity in space more sustainable, more widespread, and more relevant to national interests.  The question before us is whether we are willing to take advantage of this opportunity or not.  We now have the policy directives to do it.

Given the shock that has accompanied the pending Shuttle retirement, the continuation of a Space Station that I doubt most Americans know exists, and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program (that I think even fewer Americans really knew about), I think it’s clear that we haven’t done that.  Instead, we have people arguing back and forth over what largely amount to platitudes.  I hear friends and colleagues, who are understandably disenchanted with the political process, wishing aloud that the government would just give us the money to go do what we want and leave us alone.

That’s never going to happen, of course.  Whether civil servant or contractor, all of us involved in NASA’s human space flight endeavors are stewards of the taxpayers’ money.  Members of Congress and the President are the duly elected representatives of those same taxpayers.  Between the Executive and Legislative branches of our political triad, policy is crafted, funded, and executed.  Human space flight is inherently tied to the political process and we fail to bridge the technical and policy worlds at our own peril.

There have been many strategies put forth to try to help NASA better navigate the winds of political change.  Most that I’ve seen propose some mechanism to make it more difficult for politicians to change course mid-stream.  The politicians control the purse strings, so that’s never going to happen, either.

I think the most effective strategy for NASA exists at a much more basic level.  It’s something I always kinda knew in the back of my head, but I didn’t really learn how to start explaining it better until I had the opportunity to serve on the Barrier Analysis Team for JSC’s Inclusion and Innovation Council.  Mark Craig, a NASA veteran and senior executive at SAIC, was one of the mentors for our team and I think I learned more from him than anyone else over that period.

If you keep up with OpenNASA, you’ll know that this isn’t the first time I’ve broached the subject.  I think NASA’s best defense is to design and pursue programs and strategies that are relevant because they contribute to solving America’s strategic problems.

On May 5th, I had the opportunity to listen to Mark discuss this topic in more detail.  He was gracious enough to let me share here on OpenNASA what I took away from his talk.

Since it was presented under the auspices of the JSC Storytelling program, Mark opened up by defining what a “story” is, according to his friend and colleague, Bob Rogers.  A story is ” a deeper level of truth by which we explain the world and our place in it to ourselves.”  (Note: Ask yourself how you explain, honestly, the world and your place in it.  How do you relate that story to other people? We’ll come back to that.)

Mark also explained that he sees relevance as having two parts.  There is the “why” and the “value.”  “Why Relevance” explains our reason for being.  It tells us where we go and what we do.  Mark offered the statements of the Augustine Committee and John Marburger, OSTP Director under President Bush, as examples.  The Augustine Committee said we go into space to expand the human presence in the Solar System, while Marburger stated that our goal was “to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”

These statements aren’t necessarily contradictory, but they illustrate different perspectives on the “why” that must be taken into account.

“Value relevance” is defined by Mark as a “critical mass” of benefit delivered to a “critical mass” of stakeholders.  This recognizes that you probably can’t please everyone, but you can and should satisfy enough of your stakeholders to press on.  This form of relevance must actually be experienced by the stakeholders, though.  We can’t just go do something that we think is great and, then, try to sell it to everyone else. Value relevance is fostered through a continual process of research (identify what is important to your stakeholders), creation (make something that meets their needs), delivery (make sure they get it), and self-improvement (evaluate how well you did the last iteration).

This is not just a communications problem.  We’ve labored under the assumption for far too long that we don’t do a good enough job “selling” the space program to the public.  Mark rightly points out that this process of creating value relevance must be built into architectures and designs early on.  The research part is key because we have to meet other people where they are to effectively engage them, both on a technical and emotional level.  One commenter in the audience noted that, in the business world she came from, you have to know your audience or you will fail.

Mark also had a few recommendations and “Red Flags” for us to consider.  First, he advocates the creation of an external guidance and accountability function, similar to the Decadal Survey process, for human space flight.  Having an external group of “thought leaders” in science, industry, art, and culture would provide the outside perspective that we in the human space flight community lack.  This would help keep us from drinking our own bathwater.

NASA would also need its own value management system to engage external marketing experts, employ industry best practices in value management, and document the structure in NASA processes.  This gets back to the point about needing to build value relevance into our system early on.

From his experience as a NASA veteran and consultant to museums, Mark also suggested some areas where we could make a real impact.  For example, the movie Apollo 13 was compelling because it showed, in detail, what the people went through.  NASA TV’s view of Mission Control, by comparison, looks like a security camera.  We have experiences and emotions to share with the public.  Why don’t we?

Mark also believes that we could be doing more in the area of medical research for the benefit of people here on Earth.  My personal opinion is that we have a similar opportunity in the area of energy.  American-owned and operated powersats and miniaturized, passively-safe nuclear power could revolutionize both industry and space exploration while giving us avenues to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Changing our approach to how we build and conduct the space program doesn’t just involve top-down management, though.  Mark also identified what he called “red flags” for us to push back against when we see them.

1. Don’t just assume change is happening.  Ask how programs are being shaped to bring it about.  Who is in charge? What is the funding and where does it come from?
2. Ask how something improves sustainability. Changing a vehicle, destination, or program isn’t enough.
3. In regards to outreach, are we just showing up? Or are we deliberate and thoughtful in our approach so that we listen to what the people we are reaching out to are saying?
4. “We just need to explain it better.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to convince ourselves our original idea is right.
5. “Congress is our customer.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to blame our missteps on politics.
6. “The public is our customer.” Be careful.  It’s a trap to abrogate accountability because it’s too nebulous.
7. “Marketing is illegal.” No, it isn’t. Lobbying and advertising are, but those aren’t all there is to marketing.

I agree with Mark’s argument that we can build human space flight into the fabric of society, if we can build relevance and accountability into the human space flight program.  We just have to remember that this is relevance that is researched, understood, and delivered; not just assumed.

So, with that in mind, I ask you to consider the following questions.

What is the compelling story for the human space program?

How can we make it relevant to America’s needs and values?

How you can be a part of changing the narrative?

Innovator Stephen Kennedy Smith: Verticrop. “Large-Scale Vertical Hydroponic Ag System”

Innovator Shahram Javey: Aquacue. “Water: Tapped and Untapped”

Innovator Dr. Marc van Iersel: “Affordable Soil Moisture Sensors”

Innovator Dr. Julien J. Harou: “HydroPlatform”

Astronaut Ron Garan: “Manna Energy Projects in Rwanda” — on his own time, not as an official NASA rep.

Innovator “Speed Dating” Impact Rotations:

Before heading off to the reception and dinner at the Kennedy Space Center Rocket Garden, the amazing Dr. Anil Gupta spoke on “Water, Wisdom and Well Being: Learning from Grassroots.” He told a wonderful story about the need to empty ourselves before we can be filled. Great advice for our innovators as they met with thought leaders in the impact rotations. We realized, after the fact, that he should have been our kick-off speaker to inspire us with humility and the possibilities of the smallest kernal of innovation at the grassroots level. I had the great fortune to sit with him at dinner. Now I can’t wait to travel to India to “walk” with him through the villages and honor the small innovations he finds among the people.

NASA’s Mr. Space Station, Mark Uhran, spoke to us at dinner on the topic of “Water Far and Near.” I’ll post a link as soon as we get his remarks up on theLaunch.org website. I was inspired and awed by his remarks on the importance of water in the universe and why it’s important for NASA to follow the “water of life.”

“Water lies at the very foundation of NASA’s reason for being. The search for life in the universe is a search for water, becase life, at least as we know it, cannot exist without water.” NASA’s Mark Uhran.

Thanks Mark! Wow!

We capped off the evening (and Mark’s talk) with a toast to water — with shot glasses of recycled waste water from NASA trials at the Johnson Space Center. NASA’s Marybeth Edeen brought the water with her from Houston. Marybeth, you ROCKet!

Here’s to WATER — on and OFF the planet!

Crosspost on BethBeck’s blog.

We started the day with Lori Garver, NASA’s Deputy Administrator and LAUNCH Water Host.

Majora Carter: Welcome

Peter Gleick, President and Co-Founder Pacific Institute, “21st Century Water: The Role of Technology and Innovation”

Innovator Mark Tonkin, DTI-r: “Subsurface Vapor Transfer Irrigation”

Innovator Andrew Tinka, UC Berkeley: “Floating Sensor Network”

Innovator Ashok Gadgil, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab: “ElectroChemical Arsenic Remediation”

Innovator Mark Sobsey, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill: “Low Cost Bacterial Water Test”

Lili Anna Peresa, “The Comprehensive Approach of ONE DROP: Water for All, All for Water”

Each of the innovators rotated through focused discussion sessions to help shape their success strategy. I like to call it: Innovator Speed Dating.

So many incredible stories to share. Stay tuned.

Crosspost on BethBeck’s Blog.

Accelerating Innovation for a Sustainable Future.

We’ve been working on this project for some time — an innovative collaborative process to “launch” ideas, or disruptive green technologies, that address some of this planet’s growing pains.

All props to NASA’s Robbie Schingler, who envisioned a barcamp-type atmosphere to discuss sustainability challenges. We’d been looking for ways to tell our Space Station green story, and this concept fit the bill. We pulled together a team of creative folks, all bringing together different strengths, to birth theLAUNCH:Water incubator we’ll debut next week.

We wanted a TED-style event but with teeth, where we can chomp into issues and mash-up new approaches and solutions.

We created LAUNCH as a global initiative to identify and support the innovative work that is poised to contribute to a sustainable future. We want this process to accelerate solutions to meet urgent challenges facing our society. That’s the goal: to make a difference, leave this world better tomorrow than it is today.

We chose water as a logical starting point because it’s an issue we deal with on Space Station every day in orbit. Not only is water a critical commodity for our orbiting pioneers, but for so many living on our home planet.

Scarcity within a hostile environment is something we Earthlings and space travelers share.

So what is LAUNCH:Water? We are working with our founding partners, USAID,State Department, and NIKE, to allow 10 water-related emerging technologyinnovators the opportunity to present their ideas to a small group of thought-leadersfrom varied disciplines for a two and a half day conversation about possibilities. We break into small impact rotations to discuss content-focused issues/opportunities that affect each innovator individually. We have a team working with the innovators to develop how we shape these impact sessions for maximum benefit. Our hope is to use these structured conversations to leap-frog these ten innovators further down the path toward success in solving water issues facing our planet.

Why NASA? Because we’re problem-solvers — against all odds.

We solve problems. That’s what we do. I like to call it our brand reduction sauce– after all the ingredients are thrown into the pot and cooked and the essence is left behind. So why not convene a group of expert problem-solvers in various disciplines to address issues we face both on Earth and in the heavens above? LAUNCH is a gathering of problem-solvers to solve one MAJOR problem:

how to sustain life ON and OFF Earth.

We’ll live-stream the innovators’ presentations on Tuesday March 16th and Wednesday March 17th, so you can be part of this glorious experiment with us. We have a LAUNCHorg twitter account that we’ll keep updated, as well.

I’m looking forward to meeting all the innovators in person next week. I’m particularly excited about one of the innovations that bubbled up in the process: Manna Energy, run in his spare time by astronaut Ron Garan or @astro_ron on Twitter. You can go to their website or @MannaEnergy twitter feed to learn how they’re deploying water filtration devices in more than 400 schools in Rwanda, along with biogas generators and high efficiency cookstoves at 300 locations. Gives me goosebumps.

We’ll have so much to share as we move toward our inaugural event next week. We plan to serve “recycled water” just like our astronauts drink on Station, BTW. I guess we can’t serve it in paper cups or plastic bottles — neither are friends of the environment. Yet, if we serve in glass cups, we’ll have to wash them with water and detergent — not nice to the our planet either. Our most sustainable option will be to squirt “reformed urine” directly into the mouths of our guests. Now that will be a sight to see, won’t it? Good thing we’re live-streaming the event.

Stay tuned for frequent updates from the field.

Crosspost on BethBeck’s Blog and GovLoop.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has repeatedly reiterated that he believes there will continue to be a role for a professional NASA astronaut corps.  Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said at last week’s Commercial Space Transportation Conference that the “wonderful people working Constellation did not fail,” but that they were not given the resources they needed and that it did not make sense to continue developing a system that would not even be ready to arrive at the ISS until after its planned de-orbit.  There will still be a need for specially-trained scientists and engineers for on-orbit operations, probably even more so as the number of “spaceflight participants” increases.

With regards to the commercial launchers themselves, SpaceX has launched a paying customer on their Falcon 1 (after sorting out their initial test issues) and will begin testing Falcon 9 in the spring.  Their Dragon vehicle is on schedule to begin deliveries to the station next year. Orbital has launched a multitude of vehicles from Wallops and for the Air Force and has partnered with the Italians to base their cargo module off the MPLM, a proven flight technology.  I’ll also note that both companies have former astronauts, Ken Bowersox and Frank Culberston, respectively, as senior company officials responsible for safety and mission assurance.

Boeing is leading one of the CCDev proposals – in a partnership with Bigelow Aerospace – for a new crew vehicle capable of being launched on either a Delta IV, Atlas V, or Falcon 9 rocket.  One can hardly say that the prime contractor for the ISS and half-owner of both United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance isn’t capable of sending crew to the Station.

Mark Geyer himself said at the Orion all-hands last week that there is nothing in the new proposal that precludes Lockheed or Boeing from being commercial crew providers. I also heard the commanding general of the US Air Force Space Command say last week that they already depend on commercial providers for small and medium launch vehicles and that he sees commercial space development as essential to national security.  To achieve their goal of Operationally Responsive Space access, they need higher flight rates and lower costs than can be accomplished with monolithic, centrally-planned programs.

Also, no one is proposing a wholesale privatization of NASA.  The commercial space industry fully expects NASA to take the lead on manned and unmanned solar system exploration beyond LEO.  They are committed to enabling that by providing as many services as they can to LEO – and safety is as much a priority for them as it is for the rest of us.  DARPA, Space Command, the National Space Security Office, and the FAA all expressed their support for these ventures last week.

We must also consider that the passback on the budget was only given to NASA two days before its release.  For whatever reason that happened, the agency simply hasn’t had time yet to turn the broad policy outlines in the budget proposal into actionable program plans.  If we trusted our NASA leadership to make Constellation work, despite the tens of billions of unallocated dollars it would need, then we should at least give them the time they need to get this initial planning done.

That way, we can make informed decisions  and conduct a fair debate.  I think those us that are professionals in this field have an obligation to be honest about whatever personal biases we may have, but to also render objective analysis to our stakeholders and provide benefit to our profession, as a whole.

Call me a utilitarian, if you will, but this is what it comes down to for me.  Our focus should be on doing the right things to move the space program forward, honestly and with integrity.  Even when it hurts in the interim.  If we don’t work together to make our profession more inclusive and innovative and to support American industry, we will fall behind.  Everyone I talked to at the AIAA/FAA conference last week said that their foreign counterparts aren’t afraid of NASA continuing to do business as usual.  It’s how far we’ll leap ahead, if we unleash American industry, that concerns them.

I have no doubt that our future is in space and I am more certain of that now than ever before.  I agree with Alan Stern; who said over telecon that this is the best chance we’ve seen yet to build something more like what we all dreamed of when we watched 2001: A Space Odyssey.  There is opportunity in uncertainty, if we are willing to embrace it.

DoD is looking to them to help usher in an era of operationally responsive space access.

FAA and NASA are working to safely build a suborbital and LEO industry, and, thus, enable NASA to focus on exploration.

I honestly think that anyone who says the United States is surrendering its leadership is either completely unaware of what’s really going on or simply reacting out of fear.  This is not just the work of a few ideologues, as I’ve heard some people suggest.

DOT and FAA are 100% behind this.  Every one of the DoD folks that presented today and that I talked to says this is the future.  NASA is giving the new Chief Technologist a portfolio with real funding authority that includes innovative partnerships with commercial space.

This is a broad-based shift from building centrally-planned programs to fostering a sustainable industry that is responsive to the operational needs of its customers.  Boeing already seems to be positioning itself to thrive in the new environment with their announcement of their own commercial capsule design being developed in partnership with Bigelow Aerospace.  I think this kind of partnership between the “New Space” companies with experienced system integrators is likely to be common.

Alan Stern said today that he thinks human space flight will be healthier under the new plan, but that NASA still needs to set clear exploration goals.  I agree, which is why I’m glad to hear that Administrator Bolden has a vision for building a pathway to Mars.

The details executing on all this are still to come and there’s a whole second day of this conference tomorrow, but I am genuinely excited for the future of the space program.  We need more ideas, more options, and more innovation.  It looks like we’re going to get it.

Have we got a job for you!

Get your creative juices flowing. Capture all your ideas. We’re listening. You have until March 19, 2010 to share your ideas with us about how NASA can be more:

1. Transparent,
2. Participatory,
3. Collaborative, and
4. Innovative.

We’ve deployed a cool idea-sharing tool to let you give input, comment on input of others, and vote ideas up or down. Your ideas will feed into NASA’s Open Government Plan. You need an account first, but that’s as simple as adding your e-mail and a password.

Go ahead. Give it a try.

And if you find any ideas by me in the system, feel free to give them a generous thumbs up!  (I’m just getting started….)

“We are continually faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems.” – John Gardner 1965

Let’s tackle those opportunities!

Crosspost on GovLoop and BethBeck’s Blog.