The Laughing Wolf

Space Commercialization: Loosing A Harmful Mindset

Recently, another blogger posted a comment in response to one of my posts, saying that it was obvious that I had been at NASA too long. Knowing that this person usually gives much more thought and is not subject to posting bigoted cheap shots, I sat back and thought a bit. Then, it occurred to me that we have volleyed things back and forth before, and that this was the perfect set-up to address two areas that have severely hurt space/commercial space enthusiasts.

Some of this was touched on yesterday, so bear with me if you see repetition. Then again, repetition is good since it takes a lot of pounding to get some ideas through thick skulls.

The first thing to address is NASA bashing, and the taking of cheap shots at people who dare disagree in any manner with some “True Believers.” Taking shots at NASA is easy, for there is much there to criticize. There are many things that need to be pointed out, for good or for ill, but there are a large number of people who simply appear to live to hate NASA.

Everyone needs a hobby, but it really should not be your life. I have attended events where the group I have come to call the “True Believers” took over and destroyed any chance at reasonable discussion. They hate NASA and feel that if NASA were not there all would be great and we would be out to the stars by now. The lack of any concrete proof for such is not a deterrent to them.

The fact is, there is good cause for space/commercial space enthusiasts to be less than enthusiastic with NASA. NASA has tried to control regulation of all commercial space activities to the detriment of same, acted as a barrier to a number of ventures, and jealously guards its prerogatives and its place as the launch center for the U.S. NASA is not friendly in the least to space entrepreneurs, and is about as speedy as a hibernating tortoise in getting any project done.

Yet, I have seen the “True Believers” take things to absurd lengths, such that I have thought that I was in a Monty Python sketch. NASA blocked this effort, NASA blocked that effort, NASA refused to pay for my commercial space idea, NASA should get out of propulsion/guidance/etc. and give all the that work to me and my company, NASA is responsible for the crops being moldy, NASA is responsible for my cousin’s ears looking funny. Got news for all of you, NASA is not responsible if your cousin’s mom had a fling with Prince Charles; NASA is not bloody likely to pay for all the development costs of your great commercial idea, especially if it doesn’t get anything back; and, NASA is not likely to support anything that cuts into its own power. That’s reality, deal with it.

If you want change, you have to do more than just complain. Anyone can complain, and politicians hear a lot of complaints. Most are “noted” and promptly File 13’d. If you provide a specific instance, specific people, and other documentation, you may get a congressional staffer to look into it a bit. If there is tangible evidence of a real problem, and not just someone not getting something they wanted exactly as they wanted it, then a real congresscritter will get involved and change sought.

If you want to get any attention paid to you, quit complaining. Or, rather, quit just complaining in a ludicrous manner. Offer a solution.

As I said before, politicians get lots of complaints. What they seldom get is someone or some group coming in and saying “We know there are problems, here is a documented (Note the word, documented) list of them, and here is a proposed solution. Here is how it should be done, here are the political necessities, here is the budget impact, and here is an implementation plan.” Best yet, the plan should show how the effort will save money, because in addition to complaints the other major communication politicians get is “Give me money for my pet project.” Avoid both those traps, and you will start to get serious staffer and congresscritter attention. Learn how the system really works, and play it.

This is why when I called for abolishing NASA, I also issued a call for ideas on what a space agency should do. I have some, but if this is to be serious in terms of both dialog/rational discourse and a call for action, it has to be more than the usual chorus of “NASA is evil and should be destroyed.” Your ideas will be combined with my ideas, and a serious proposal set forth for debate and discussion.

The fact is that the government is not going to get out of space, so how can we ensure that what is done truly helps. That is not a question, but a challenge. One way I see is to get true space commercialization out of NASA and into the Department of Commerce, where it might have a fighting chance to do some real good.

The second point that is going to give the pro-space taliban-types a real headache is to quit with the myopic focus. You can’t just sit there and scream that NASA is evil and bad. You can’t just look at it from a technology/specific outcome point-of-view. You have to look at it from the point of view of potential customers and potential investors. They don’t care how cool anything is, or how evil you think NASA, only what it can do/does it mean for them.

This is particularly true when attacking an entity that has some of the highest positive name recognition in history. The average member of the public thinks of the lunar landings, the marvel of the shuttle, and has not a clue of the true problems that exist. Even when something like Challenger or Columbia comes up, it is often seen as an anomaly. Presented the right way, information can reach and change this viewpoint. Done as many NASA haters are doing it, it can have precisely the opposite effect. Word to the wise.

Also, when I said that space tourism was limited previously, I very clearly stated that it was limited from an investor’s point of view. In terms of potential, and what I would love to see, it is unlimited. I hope that the future as envisioned by Heinlein, Kotani, Roberts, and others comes true with lots of space tourist travel and opportunities, and I have been working to try to make such come true.

The fact remains that only the potential is unlimited. From the point of view of venture capitalists, investment bankers, and others, it is still largely unproven. That is not a NASA viewpoint, it is not my viewpoint, but it is the point of view of the financial community. To quote from my post of the other day, “The fact is, we know that there are at least two people who are willing to fork out $20 million to go to space, and that there are a number of others who are interested in so doing. We know that there are X number of people who can afford this, and that of that number that Y percentage are capable of meeting all requirements and going, and that of Y that there are Z percentage that have expressed interest. From this, market research has shown that if the cost of going to space comes down, more people are interested in going. In fact, the number grows significantly the lower the cost becomes.” The fact remains, however, that only two people have gone and everything else remains to be proven.

Anyone who is serious about getting into space needs to quit looking through the wishful thinking glasses and start looking through the investment glasses. What will it take to get funding?

Simple. It will take XCOR and Scaled Composites, or some other group to be successful. Ideally, we need three companies to make it, and best yet at least three companies in each of the major throw weights. Settling for the more realistic, it takes at least two companies to make it, and bring the price down. When they do that, there will be certifiable and documented proof of how many are willing to fly at what price. Projections and studies are nice, but seeing people actually pay to fly is the coin of the financial realm. Once people are flying sub-orbital and to orbit on a regular and paying basis, then you have what you need to meet the viewpoint of investors.

Look at it from their perspective. Investors have heard for years that there is a lot of interest in space tourism. Yet, only two people have flown and future flights have had problems because of funding flow and because of NASA. The funding flow problems predated most of the major NASA issues, so that is what investors see. Investors also question the true amount of business that will use space for any purpose. If there were a large demand, then there would be more efforts to develop new launch opportunities – again, from their viewpoint.

I also want to point out that I was not endorsing space manufacturing as a sole option, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I pointed out fairly plainly that space manufacturing is not an immediate possibility. To quote from one post: “If nothing else, the program has shown that there is a business opportunity for basic industrial research in space. There are many theories about how a variety of businesses could benefit from doing research and development in space, and possibly even production there. The problem is, very few of them have ever truly been explored and proven or disproved. For all the time that the program has existed, the actual amount of time that has been devoted to commercial research in space is beyond miniscule.”

What I did say was that providing for the research that may lead to such is a near-term product that can be marketed and sold, not only to business but to the financial community. Money can and should be made off proving the concepts.

Are there some that have been proven? Yes, and various companies are already pursuing some of them. Are there some things that could be manufactured on orbit even at current costs? According to some in industry, the answer may be yes, but more research is needed. Why not make money off the process and use it to drive investment by proving in the only fashion that truly matters that space can and should be commercialized?

Investors want proof. They want projections that are based on cold, hard facts, not dreams and idle speculation. Customers want products that serve an immediate need and do so at a reasonable price. If you want someone to try something new that they don’t know they need, you have to lead them to it.

Cheap shots, bigotry, and grandiose dreams won’t do that. What it will take is grand dreams that build on realistic steps that look at the needs of the customer and the investor. Otherwise, we are going to be stuck with NASA, and not even our grandchildren will reach the stars.

-30-