NASA use more public private partnerships

[DarkenedOne]

One of the things that I really admire about the Russian and European space programs is that they make great use of public private partnerships. They do this

Take the EADS Astrium for example. Their Ariane rocket were developed largely for the ESA from what I understand, but it is also sold and marketed for commercial uses. As a result both the public and private sector invest into the project and get use out of the rockets. It also makes their system very efficient since there is higher launch rate of their vehicles. Russia has the same arrangement with their vehicles. They are used for space exploration, but they are also put on the market and used for commercial purposes. That includes their manned rockets which the US has made use of on several occasions.

Here in the US the military, which has as big or even bigger space budget as NASA btw, has struck a deal with two rocket companies to develop the EELVs. Two very successful rockets the Atlas V and the DeltaIV were both developed with public and private funds for use of both sectors.

What bothers me is how NASA spends a huge chunk of their budget to develop vehicles like the Ares 1, Ares V, and Orion, for their own sole use. It is simple economically inefficient. What I believe NASA should do is do what Russia, the Europeans, and the military has done and that is contract a company to develop the space craft to your needs, then allow them to market it.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I was very disheartened when NASA chose not to use the Atlas V and Delta IV heavy for LEO works. What I read at the time was that due to NASA's strict "human rating standard", these two rockets were rejected... I find that hard to believe personally, but I think the "human rating standard" was really a top down decision from the Congress and not NASA. At the time NASA had been slapped around quite a bit in Congress due to the loss of the shuttles. The problem in this country versus Europe or Russia is that our congress feels compelled to make grand standing speeches about dead astronauts. What I’m trying to say is that this was a political decision, not a technical one.

It’s the old saying… Damned if you do, and doubly damned if you don’t. I like the idea of going back to the Moon and scrapping the ISS, but I still won’t blame NASA. NASA is an agency and needs better leadership in a President or a Congress, the Apollo program proved that.

However, the reason why I still do support the Ares program (should read Ares V), is because Atlas V and Delta IV are really not suited for exploring "the Moon and beyond", that’s not really what they were designed for.

I’m guessing here, but this was probably the rational in NASA. Since Atlas V and Delta IV are not suited for the “Moon and beyond” program, then let’s design a Moon rocket (Ares V) and since we are designing a Moon rocket anyway, let’s make a “light”, or the “passenger” version (Ares I) for LEO. They probably should have human rated Atlas and Delta for LEO work to as you say engaged the private sector and just designed Ares V for the Moon, but they tried to combine them.