The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements
In 2011, NASA released a report assessing the market for commercial crew and cargo services to low Earth orbit (LEO). The report stated that NASA had spent a few hundred million dollars in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program on the portion related to the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Yet a NASA cost model predicted the cost would have been significantly more with a non-commercial cost-plus contracting approach. By 2016 a NASA request for information stated it must "maximize the efficiency and sustainability of the Exploration Systems development programs", as "critical to free resources for reinvestment...such as other required deep space exploration capabilities." This work joins the previous two events, showing the potential for commercial, public private partnerships, modeled on programs like COTS, to reduce the cost to NASA significantly for "...other required deep space exploration capabilities." These other capabilities include landers, stages and more. We mature the concept of "costed baseball cards", adding cost estimates to NASA's space systems "baseball cards." We show some potential costs, including analysis, the basis of estimates, data sources and caveats to address a critical question - based on initial assessment, are significant agency resources justified for more detailed analysis and due diligence to understand and invest in public private partnerships for human deep space exploration systems? The cost analysis spans commercial to cost-plus contracting approaches, for smaller elements vs. larger, with some variation for lunar or Mars. By extension, we delve briefly into the potentially much broader significance of the individual cost estimates if taken together as a NASA investment portfolio where public private partnership are stitched together for deep space exploration. How might multiple improvements in individual systems add up to NASA human deep space exploration achievements, realistically, affordably, sustainably, in a relevant timeframe?