(Note: This is part of a two-part series recapping my trip to Colorado last week. I hope to post the second part this afternoon.)

I took a Sunday night flight out to Colorado Springs last week so that I could attend the "Commercial Space Entrepreneurial Reusable Launch Vehicle Summit" (now there's a name!) jointly offered by the US Air Force [1] and the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation [2]. It was a half-day, closed door session wherein the Air Force brass and some of the leaders of the entrepreneurial space community got to know each other a little better, and then talked about how they could better work together. Preceding the National Space Symposium [3] by a day, the session was well attended--though small in size, it was a gathering of good and important people.

The initial sessions were a little bland--simple recitations of what people are working on in various branches of the Air Force, and what capabilities they would like to have. But the discussion at the end made it all worthwhile. Entrepreneurial space CEOs and high ranking Air Force brass (3- and 4-star generals included) had an honest and frank discussion, moderated by Acting Associate Administrator George Nield [4] and other FAA/AST personnel, about how entrepreneurial space can work with the US military and how the military can make sure the community is there to do so. I'm sure I'm not allowed to quote anyone directly, so I'll summarize what I thought were the key points here in my own words:

• Adopt your needs to the available solutions, rather than the other way around. In the past, it seems that many government customers have come to entrepreneurial community and said something to the effect of "Do you have a 6-person orbital vehicle that can launch within 10 hours of an initial request? No? Well, come back to us when you do." In an ideal world, of course, the answer to that question would be yes. But in the real world, especially when the government customer can't fund the development of such a vehicle, that's not going to happen. Instead, the government customer might be better off figuring out what the community can offer, then figuring out how that can be useful. A vehicle like XCOR's Lynx [5], for example, might be pretty far off from that initial request, but it still has substantial value--say, for example, as a first stage for a limited capacity orbital launch system. Government customers should think about if and how they can take advantage of what is available now, simultaneously gaining a benefit for themselves and stimulating the private companies to develop bigger and better things.
• Adjust contractual mechanisms to reflect entrepreneurial realities. Sure, contractual mechanisms may not be the world's sexiest conversation topic. But they sure are important. Many standard governmental contracts come with a lot of strings attached--things like cumbersome accounting procedures that require a standing army of personnel to observe. Those strings are no big deal for the larger aerospace companies, which are well accustomed to meeting them. But for smaller companies, the cost of implementing those procedures can make the contract not worth having. If the US Air Force or other customers want to get the smaller companies interested in their smaller contracts, they have to work out a way to lose this baggage. NASA's Space Act Agreements [6] are a great example.
• Be aware of the importance of timing. For the smaller, newer companies that make up the entrepreneurial space community, the success of the company depends not only on the number of dollars they bring in from big contracts but also on the timing with which it comes in. As a small company tries to transition an idea from paper concept to demonstration to manufacturing to implementation, there may be some key "valleys" where the money is not flowing in. To best take advantage of these technologies--including ones that the Air Force has helped fund through SBIRs [7], et cetera, they should be cognizant of this fact, and think about how it can be avoided.
• Clue the community in to your future needs. This is fundamentally linked to the first point, I think. When the government isn't paying for the development of a vehicle, it is unreasonable to expect the community to make it to order. The entrepreneurial community will always design the vehicle it thinks will best serve the market--and the government is only one portion of the market. That said, if government customers can clearly project what their future needs will be, the good entrepreneurs out there will diligently look at what it will cost to implement design changes to help meet those needs. Right now is the time to do so--so many different entrepreneurial companies in the design phase of various vehicles. In the future, making changes to accommodate USAF needs will be more expensive than it is now, when designs are still flexible.

Looking back over my list, it almost seems a bit petulant--like a list of demands. But following along in real time, that wasn't the sense I got at all. Indeed, it was clear to me that the commercial space representatives were as patriotic as they were entrepreneurial, and were certainly interested in seeing the USAF succeed in all aspects of its mission. For their part, the Air Force personnel were extremely receptive--and in some cases, were already working on these types of things. I'd be remiss to not mention some Broad Area Announcements that already went out that will surely help matters, such as BAA-ORS-08-01 [8].

So, all in all, I found it to be very productive. Hopefully, the USAF leadership learned a little bit more about both what the alt.space community has to offer, and how to take advantage of it. Kudos to Dr. Nield, FAA/AST's Brooke Owens, and all of the rest of the FAA/AST and USAF staff for putting together a great summit!