NASA sure seems to be asking an awful lot of private space stations
NASA sure seems to be asking an awful lot of private space stations
美国国家航空航天局（NASA）似乎对私营空间站提出了过高的要求
NASA this week released a much-anticipated document, known as a “draft Request for Proposals,” that provides some clarity about what it expects from US companies attempting to build privately operated space stations in low-Earth orbit. The stakes are high with this document, known as a draft RFP. The space agency, publicly, has set an end date for the International Space Station of 2030. Although there is likely to be a two-year extension, time is still running short to build, test, and fly a vehicle as complex as a space station.
本周，NASA 发布了一份备受期待的文件，即“提案征求草案”（draft Request for Proposals），该文件明确了 NASA 对那些试图在近地轨道建造私营空间站的美国公司的期望。这份被称为 RFP 草案的文件至关重要。NASA 已公开宣布国际空间站将于 2030 年退役。尽管可能会有两年的延期，但要建造、测试并运行像空间站这样复杂的航天器，时间依然紧迫。
NASA officials and the US Congress have both said they want to avoid a gap in having a human presence in orbit, and this has created considerable urgency about what comes next. Nearly five years ago the space agency took a concrete step toward filling this gap, awarding funding to three companies to develop space station concepts. Previously, NASA had also provided $140 million to another space station company, Axiom Space. These Space Act Agreements were intended as a prelude to a second phase of the program, which would award substantially more funding to one or two more companies to proceed into the construction and launch of their space stations.
NASA 官员和美国国会均表示，希望避免轨道上人类存在出现“断档”，这使得后续计划的制定变得十分紧迫。近五年前，NASA 为填补这一空白迈出了实质性的一步，向三家公司提供了资金以开发空间站概念。此前，NASA 还曾向另一家空间站公司 Axiom Space 提供了 1.4 亿美元的资金。这些《太空法案协议》（Space Act Agreements）旨在为该计划的第二阶段做铺垫，即向一到两家公司提供更多的资金，以推进其空间站的建造和发射。
But phase two of the program kept getting delayed, in part because Congress dithered on funding. Then, about a year ago, the interim administrator of NASA, Sean Duffy, issued a “directive” that indicated to the private companies that the rules of the game were going to be changed due to a budget shortfall. Only months later, however, it became clear this directive would not stick. In January, a key Senate staffer resorted to “begging” NASA to release the draft RFP. Then, in March, NASA suggested it may reshuffle the rules again by building a “core module” for the private space stations to dock to. No one liked that because most of the competitors are seeking to build “free flying” stations, independent of the International Space Station. So NASA discarded the core module idea and released the draft RFP this week.
但该计划的第二阶段一再推迟，部分原因是国会在资金问题上犹豫不决。大约一年前，NASA 临时局长肖恩·达菲（Sean Duffy）发布了一项“指令”，向私营公司暗示由于预算不足，游戏规则将发生改变。然而，仅仅几个月后，这项指令就被证明无法执行。今年 1 月，一位关键的参议院工作人员甚至不得不“恳求”NASA 发布 RFP 草案。随后在 3 月，NASA 提出可能再次调整规则，即建造一个供私营空间站对接的“核心舱”。这一提议遭到了各方反对，因为大多数竞争者都希望建造独立于国际空间站的“自由飞行”空间站。因此，NASA 放弃了核心舱的想法，并于本周发布了 RFP 草案。
“NASA’s review reflects what we’ve been hearing from industry throughout this process. Industry believes it can meet the timelines and that a viable commercial marketplace exists where NASA is one customer among many,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said in a news release. “We’re focused on supporting those efforts, enabling the capabilities that make this transition possible, and doing all we can to ensure the United States maintains a continuous human presence in low Earth orbit.”
“NASA 的审查反映了我们在整个过程中从行业听到的反馈。业界认为他们能够满足时间表，并且存在一个可行的商业市场，NASA 只是其中的客户之一，”NASA 局长贾里德·艾萨克曼（Jared Isaacman）在新闻发布会上表示。“我们专注于支持这些努力，实现使这种过渡成为可能的各项能力，并尽我们所能确保美国在近地轨道上保持持续的人类存在。”
So what do the private companies—the key players are Axiom Space, Vast Space, Voyager, Blue Origin, and possibly SpaceX—think about the new document? This week Ars spoke on background with half a dozen officials from these firms to get a clear sense of how they are reacting. There are two main feelings: relief and concern. The relief is easy to explain. A government-sponsored core module was widely disliked and seen as an effort by NASA’s Johnson Space Center, which operates the International Space Station, to remain in the business of operating a space station. Now that worry is gone.
那么，私营公司（主要参与者包括 Axiom Space、Vast Space、Voyager、蓝色起源，可能还有 SpaceX）对这份新文件有何看法？本周，Ars 采访了这些公司的六位官员，以了解他们的反应。主要有两种情绪：宽慰和担忧。宽慰的原因很容易解释：政府资助的核心舱方案广受诟病，被视为负责运营国际空间站的 NASA 约翰逊航天中心试图继续垄断空间站运营业务的手段。现在，这种担忧消除了。
But there are multiple reasons for concern. One is lost time. The private companies expected phase two to begin at least a year or two ago, and they are struggling to raise funding and support growing workforces in the interim. NASA is just one customer for a US-built private space station, but it is the most important customer. Its rules for human safety in orbit will drive the designs the private companies ultimately build. So companies really need to know exactly what NASA wants, and how much it is willing to pay to move forward. And in this document, NASA has provided guidance. Quite a lot of it.
但担忧的原因有很多。首先是时间的流逝。私营公司原本预计第二阶段在一两年前就应开始，在此期间，他们一直在努力筹集资金并维持不断扩大的员工队伍。对于美国建造的私营空间站而言，NASA 只是客户之一，但却是最重要的客户。其轨道人类安全规则将决定私营公司最终的设计方案。因此，公司确实需要确切地知道 NASA 的需求，以及它愿意支付多少费用来推进项目。在这份文件中，NASA 提供了指导，而且内容相当详尽。
Requirements are the key element of a NASA planning document like this, the bureaucratic currency by which NASA buys off on the safety of a spacecraft, such as the amount of habitable volume the agency requires. Generally, companies prefer fewer requirements as it allows them more freedom for design and innovation. More requirements give NASA engineers more control over the design of vehicles. Several of the companies were shocked by the number of requirements levied in the NASA documents. One participant estimated there are more than 3,000 requirements. The companies were hoping for hundreds. Some of the requirements do seem fairly harsh. For example, on page 50 of the 246-page “contract data requirements list,” it appears as though NASA’s chief information officer must approve all software purchases a company makes.
需求是此类 NASA 规划文件的核心要素，也是 NASA 评估航天器安全性的“官僚货币”，例如该机构要求的宜居空间大小。通常，公司更倾向于较少的需求，因为这能给予他们更多的设计和创新自由。需求越多，NASA 工程师对航天器设计的控制权就越大。几家公司对 NASA 文件中提出的需求数量感到震惊。一位参与者估计需求超过 3000 项，而公司原本希望只有几百项。其中一些要求确实显得相当苛刻。例如，在 246 页的“合同数据需求清单”第 50 页中，似乎要求公司所有的软件采购都必须经过 NASA 首席信息官的批准。
“It’s got all the requirements, deliverables, and clauses of a cost-plus contract, but they are stuffed into a firm fixed-price bag,” said Phil McAlister, NASA’s former chief of commercial spaceflight, who originally created NASA’s private space station program. “That would be OK if NASA were willing to pay for all that.” But NASA does not appear to be willing to do that, McAlister added. The document leaves companies with some key questions, including just how much funding is available—it could be as much as $1.5 billion over five years, or substantially less—and how many companies will be dividing that funding up. If there are two winners, the funding is probably enough. If there are three or more, it could be stretched too thin.
“它具备了成本加成合同（cost-plus contract）的所有要求、交付物和条款，但却被塞进了一个固定总价合同（firm fixed-price）的袋子里，”NASA 前商业航天飞行主管、最初创建 NASA 私营空间站计划的菲尔·麦卡利斯特（Phil McAlister）表示。“如果 NASA 愿意为此买单，那倒还可以。”但麦卡利斯特补充说，NASA 似乎并不愿意这样做。该文件给公司留下了一些关键问题，包括到底有多少资金可用（五年内可能高达 15 亿美元，也可能远低于此），以及有多少家公司将瓜分这些资金。如果有两家获胜者，资金可能足够；如果有三家或更多，资金可能会被稀释得太薄。
“At least the draft RFP is out now, so industry finally knows what NASA is asking of them,” McAlister said. “But the budget and lack of a long-term contract shows that NASA is still not fully committed to this program.” It is important to note that this is just a draft of the RFP document. The agency will now accept, and certainly receive, feedback from the US space industry about all of this. A final RFP could come in September, which would then allow companies to bid for contracts.
“至少 RFP 草案现在发布了，业界终于知道 NASA 对他们的要求了，”麦卡利斯特说。“但预算和长期合同的缺失表明，NASA 仍然没有完全致力于该计划。”需要注意的是，这仅仅是 RFP 文件的草案。该机构现在将接受（也肯定会收到）美国航天业对此的反馈。最终的 RFP 可能会在 9 月发布，届时公司将可以进行合同竞标。