The Laughing Wolf

Keith can disagree with John as much as he wants, but as for me, when John Young talks, I listen. I’ve had the opportunity to talk and listen to John Young several times, and his experience, knowledge, and sense are such that I DO listen.

If the quotes are accurate, pay close attention to the words. Listen to what Rand says in his post. Look up the wonderful Heinlein quote on technology progression. Then think a bit.

The Shuttle is a young/early technology: It worked, but is incredibly complex well past the point of being a kludge. There is only a limited amount that can be done to reduce that complexity and make it more reliable, and reliability does in this case equate to safety. That is a truism of aviation as well.

The early planes were not reliable. They were kludges in many cases, and the technologies used in them were primitive. The materials were not up to the task, either in the plane itself or in the power plants. Putting them together was a challenge, and the wires, straps, nails, and screws used were legion. The net result was that they fell out of the sky with distressing (and entertaining to the masses) regularity.

Something similar happened with velociopedes, or automobiles as they are better known. They were temperamental, complex, and the phrase “Get a horse!” was heard with regularity for many years.

In both cases, what happened was that technology and design advanced, and systems were simplified and strengthened as a result. The reliability and safety, therefore increased, and it was no longer the dare-devils who rode in such infernal machines, but average citizens. In less than 100 years, we went from the horse to a car in almost every family and a general aviation industry that transports millions to billions each year. The vehicles involved went from crude and extremely complex to far more simple systems in many respects. Not to say that modern engines and electronics are not complex, but when you look at the rudiments of the system, the system is relatively simple.

Yet, cars still break down, they crash because of electro-mechanical failure, and are involved with accidents. Airplanes still fall from the sky because of structural failures, electro-mechanical failures, weather, and other delights. When this happens, we do not order all cars stopped or ground every airplane in the world.

For one reason, there are many different designs of vehicles in use. What affects one may not affect any other. For another, we accept a degree of risk that is far higher than most realize. Yes, there are good odds that anytime you go somewhere, you will have a problem. Those odds, however, are acceptable to most of us. We accept that risk and go on with our lives, hoping that the worst doesn’t happen.

Space exploration is still very much in its infancy. One reason for this is that it has pretty much been a one shop operation. Imagine if you will that the Wrights had managed to patent and control every aspect of aircraft and aircraft power plant design. Yes, they did control some significant portions, but imagine if you will that Sperry, Douglas, and all the others had not been able to enter the fray. Imagine if there had been no competition.

It was the competition, the branching out and trying new designs, materials, and power systems that drove the development of the aviation age. It was that, it was finding ways around those patents, and it was the willingness to take risks and try new things that made the age and gave us the relatively safe and reliable systems we have today. In today’s regulatory climate, where government permission is the defacto standard, and litigation-frenzy, I am not sure it could have taken place. But it did, and we all benefited.

Space can be the same way. We are just now starting to see that with Space Ship One and others to follow. The lessons learned from rockets and the Shuttle are being applied and we now head from the equivalent to the Wright Flyer to the Jenny (meaning no offense to the new systems). They are better, stronger, and will be more reliable. As we go, new systems will be developed and soon we will get the diversity of models that makes progress and safety possible.

The fact is, however, that we will continue to lose craft and people. It is as inevitable has highway traffic deaths and the loss of passenger and civil aviation planes. It is a cost of doing business as well as a statistical certainty. Face it, accept it, and deal with it for no amount of legislation, regulation, or just good thoughts will change that bit of reality.

Then really listen to what John Young is saying, for he is right. NASA faces a choice: fly the Shuttle or put it away. The so-called Space Transportation System is old, it is complex in all the wrong ways, and it does not have a high reliability factor. It never will, because to fix the bad bits of complexity will require changes such that it will be far cheaper and easier to design and build an entirely new system than to fix the old.

But before you make that decision, keep in mind that the monopoly is broken, and NASA is not the only game in town anymore. As a bit of food for thought, how many entries do you think you might get if NASA announced that it would pay the amount it spent developing the Shuttle, technologically obsolete when it launched, to a company that developed and delivered a system meeting the base requirements laid on the Shuttle? A few years ago, I bet it would have been zero. Now, however, that is a very different question and one well worth our consideration for NASA would no longer be the only customer looking for launch services.

NASA needs, as Rand points out, to act or get off the pot in regards the Shuttle. It should either return to flight now, with the known risks, or be relegated to museums. We, as Citizens of this country, need to think a bit and acknowledge the risks of space or any travel. We need to make clear our acceptance of risks and that space exploration and exploitation carry a higher risk than driving on the highways. We also need to make clear that we want that risk to go down, by encouraging true private launch companies and new technological innovation – innovation and development free of excessive regulation, government interference, and obstruction by any government agency for any reason.

If we are not willing to take risks, then we should quit right now: quite driving to the grocery store, quit flying home for Christmas, and just quit as a civilization and a species right now. For without risk, there is no life and no advancement of life. Accept it, and move forward so that we can find ways to reduce it, particularly when it comes to getting into space.

LW

« ...hunt's ended

Buzz Aldrin gave some good food for thought and was his usual tireless self. Even when I disagree with him, I respect him and what he does. While wedded to NASA and the current model, he is also up for a lot more commercial than currently takes place.

The economics panel went extremely well. The points that needed to be made were made and presented. At least some of the Commission members heard, listened, and understood. At least one of the members was obviously scared and/or horrified at the mere shadow of commercialism and profit, and that showed too. With luck, I will get to do some posts on some of the key issues raised next week.

The media panel was interesting, and well worth expanding in my book. Admittedly I am biased, but there were so many points raised that it was impossible to do them justice, on either side. The thing that interested me was that there was plenty of food for thought that needs to be chewed over here, by the Commission, by NASA, and by The Media, old and new. The one thing I did notice is that while two or more of us were blogging realtime, such was not apparently considered journalism by the staff. More than one mindset needs to be changed, and if things focus on the media that was, it will be the same as going back to Saturn Vs to enact the new vision.

The attendance was not nearly what I would have liked to see. Admittedly, it was a work day and all that, but this was a public forum/hearing for Citizens and to which Citizens had at least some chance in the drawing for making statements to the panel. As such, it was extremely disappointing.

Nor was the local Old Media much in attendance. I saw one reporter from AP, and that was about it. Maybe they covered things yesterday, but even the Commission members were commenting on the lack of local news coverage. Apparently, only the local Fox station had given any coverage to it that morning.

My other observations were all personal in nature. One member of the panel clearly loves to talk and/or hear themselves talk. Questions do not need to take five minutes to ask, especially when the actual question buried in the verbiage takes less than 30 seconds to state. I asked about one member, if they ever smiled. They reminded me much of a fire and brimstone preacher I knew in passing as a child, who perpetually glowered, knowing that somewhere, somehow, someone was having fun and they couldn’t stop it. This panel member had a similar expression and countenance, and in response to my query, the answer came back that they had not been seen to smile in the entire two days. I did get a brief semi-smile afterwards outside, when I passed them and wished them safe journeys, but very brief.

If you live in or near San Francisco or New York, you still have a chance to watch and maybe take part. I urge you to do so.

All in all, a productive and interesting day. What remains to be seen now, is what impact – if any – getting the message across about commercial space activities has on the panel.

-30-

« ...hunt's ended

It is an interesting experience getting in, as airport-style security has been set-up and I had to go back to the car and deposit my pocket knife before entering. Started to ask about the nail clippers, but decided not to push it. The site is interesting in that there are no publicly available drink or food machines, and only some people have access to bottled water and the like. Some are indeed more equal than others.

While I did not make it in time for all the sessions, I was here in time to here some of Buzz Aldrin’s comments. Buzz is, as ever, enthusiastic and made some good points. While I disagree with his focus on some things, he does bring up a number of interesting factors.

This is also a technology experiment for me. I had hoped to use Wi-Fi, but there is none in this building, or none that we can access at least. However, we do have Ethernet provided and I cheerfully making use of it. My trusty Nikon digital is here, along with a new multi-media card reader. If all goes well, I will try to post a picture or two this afternoon.

Things should start back momentarily, so stay tuned

1315 Hours: Mr. Michael E. Kearny, President and CEO of Spacehab is the first speaker. Things are running a bit behind, so let’s list some of the Players:

Chariman: Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr.
Gen. Lester L. Lyles (Ret.)
Dr. Laurie Leshin
Michael P. Jackson
Carly Fiorina
Dr. Paul Spudis
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Robert S. Walker
Dr. Maria T. Zuber
Steven G. Schmitt

The panel of interest to me is Commercial Space & Economic Feasibility. It will feature Mr. Kearny; Mr. Marco H. Caceres, Senior Analyst & Director Space, The Teal Group; Mr. Stephen Fleming, General Partner, EGL Ventures.

1323 Hours: Kearny: things have been challenging, but… Multiple contracts with NASA for Spacehab module and unpressurized pallets. Buy back un-used resources from NASA from own funds, sell to users. Contract has been good for NASA, but problematic as well. NASA not used to this type of contract, not normal way of government doing business. While all held to high ethical standards, not really working out as well. Discussions of different markets: Government launch and infrastructure vs. a typical robust market – in current market model, government is a limiting factor. Using commercial launch and infrastructure would benefit NASA and other customers. Six companies currently offer ability to take cargo to ISS at fixed price; government can go to fixed price contracts and get cargo to ISS in six months if they so choose. NASA should solicit bids for commercial services.

1330 Hours: Caceres: Analyst, determine what is real and what is not. Was skeptic on President’s proposal, but willing to be convinced. Thought it was a stunt, given lack of cost and other information. Gave benefit of the doubt to it, because we need more launch services, we want more launches, satellites, etc., We want our companies to make lots of money, benefit economy. No matter how much a long shot something seems, we include it in our forecasts, until proven otherwise. Examples include Teledesic, Iridium, etc. Yet, even with a system the size and complexity of Teledesic, people were hopeful and it was given the benefit of the doubt, all wanted it to succeed, general consensus was to see how Iridium went before getting excited about Teledesic. As things progressed, began to include in forecasts. Ultimately, Teledesic went nowhere; but, we took it seriously even when not included because we could see it being successful. More on timelines, noting all including ISS were within 10 years. Problem holding attention and approval for anything over 10 years. Industry tends to look at things 5-10 years out. World-wide mission model is a 10 year model. Anything over 10 is data, but not considered real. Chances are that anything over 10 will not be implemented as originally planned. Kennedy speech brought up, with 10 year goal. (seems to be writ in stone). Kennedy vision short-term, not long-term; would not have had same impact if stretched out. Average person can’t or won’t see that far out. Just 8 years to meet Kennedy’s challenge. Reagan challenge similar, but underestimated costs and delays and budgetary problems. ISS (NASA) came across as a program trying to stay alive at any cost, rather than a realistic program with high goals. Unique construction project, no more. Good for contractors, jobs, and politicians. Has not caught imagination of public. Suffered from space no longer being new, no cold-war race with Soviets. Somewhere along the way, public lost interest. Teledesic suffered similar fate.

1340: Caceres: ISS gives a good model of how NOT to do things. Current vision must move faster, better, etc. If keep linking moon and Mars, it will result in information overload to public, loss of interest, etc. De-link the two efforts, or see both go down.

1345: Fleming: Spaceflight has been government monopoly for 40 years, Wall Street has never invested. Quick history lesson. National Railroad Program in the 1870s would have been doomed to failure: Automobile program, same; National Airplane Program, same; so why did we end up with a National Space Program in the 60s? What happened? Private industry never really engaged, still no privately funded space flight, compare with Kitty Hawk. Said the four most dangerous words in the English Language “It’s different this time.” Dissection of Kennedy speech. Flags and footprints make a lousy business plan. Went to moon to early, never went back. Shuttle not profitable, ISS same, no real interest from industry in investing. Wandering in desert of government monopoly. We can afford this, but what can we do with it? Flags and footprints? Or develop an industry with full economic benefits. What if we go to Mars? Flags and footprints again, nothing of sustainable value. Commission has two missions: minimize costs, and break mindset. We don’t want a series of spectacular stunts, but building of benefits/infrastructure. Today, it cost about twice the object’s weight in gold to put it in orbit. Costs have got to come down 10x to 100x. That is going to control what we do in future space missions. $37.00 stamps; $1,500.00 Fed Ex; $200/gallon gas, imagine it. This is why Wall Street has stayed away. $10,000.00 wrenches and $3 million cost to get someone there to turn it, along with two years planning, it can’t be done. Yesteryday, heard from from entrepreneurs who can help lower these costs. Build them all, let the market sort it out. Provide the payloads, reasonable regulation, and that will bring the costs down. This will vastly help with options to go to the moon and beyond. How to do it: BE A CUSTOMER! Don’t insist on design control, let a thousand flowers bloom. Let entrepreneurs be creative, some will go broke, that is what capitalism is all about. This is what Wall Street will invest in. We will (need) to make space launch boring. Profitable industries are sustainable, government programs are not. With private industry, costs of missions to moon and Mars will drop 10 to 100 times. “Reach low orbit, and you’re halfway to anywhere in the Solar System,” Robert Heinlein.

Aldridge: You are all implying a major cultural change. Government will identify what needs to be done, then turn it over to industry, instead of how now done

Fleming: The post office did not tell the airlines how to run a plane or airline. They let them do it.

Kearney: follow-ups and similar points

Aldridge: What recommendation can we make?

Several points and examples, but all agreed that government should provide the payloads, and not try to manage launches, etc.

Carly: (Given all), why do you think Spacehab contract was let? What made them decide to do it that way at that time?

Kearney: (summation) NASA was looking at trying to stimulate commercialization at the time, and this was such effort. Discussion of various business models and such, and how market selects, how Spacehab has changed. Astounding that NASA did it. Discussions of extensive NASA paperwork to launch, how commercial customers can’t or won’t do it. How Spacehab does it all, meeting every point (emphasized to Gen. Lyles) for 20 percent of what it costs NASA. Discussion of complexity and paperwork, and contrasts commercial venture with Russians on napkin versus the massive paperwork and complexity with NASA. To get to moon and Mars, must be done differently from current.

Tyson: When I think of business model, I don’t think of one where only customer is government. With airplanes, other customers. Given excess launch capacity reported now, where do you say, how does this square with not having other customers to up usage rate? For that to work, do you need more than the government.

Fleming: Yes, you do need and yes there is/will be. Volume is key. Need mass production because all rockets built now are essentially hand made, unique. Need reliable mass production to bring down price. Government as customer helps make this possible. When cost starts dropping by half, then other markets open up.

Kearney: disputes excess launch capacity info, pointing out costs, lost business, etc. Research, commercial research, that would love to fly and can fly at $10,000/pound, but can’t get it.

Spudis: It is different this time. Learning to use space resources makes it so. This is a mission to change the paradyme by no longer dragging things up from gravity well. Seems incensed at flags and footprints line.

Walker: If we were to put out an RFP reasonably quickly, how soon would the half dozen or so companies be ready to deliver goods to ISS?

Kearney: 30-36 months, explanation, possibly sooner

Walker: Before the gap then?

Kearney: Yes. More discussion

Walker: Moon prize, is that a valid figure?

Fleming: Yes, discussion of same and potential profits. Prizes do not make a business plan, but they can stimulate technologies.

Carly: Not a question, but a summary: I think what we have heard today is that the President’s vision is bold, that we should approach this bold goal with focus and a sense of urgency, we have heard that we have to approach it with the full set of resources at our disposal,; but fundamentally I think what we have heard is that we need to be more bold, to restructure the way we do things.

NOTE: THESE ARE NOT QUOTES, PARAPHRASES AT BEST

Fleming: I agree. Railroads as model, discussion

Caceres: You have to be bolder, we are a different society now

Kearney: discussion of free market and what it can do, now people can drive and change things. Pointed out that no customers on airmail flights, no passengers really at that time. Only later did that come about.

Jackson: If we are going to do business in a different model, I want to know what the whole toolkit looks like. I understand can’t lay out everything, but that being said ti seems the launching of the new model that seems the hardest. What other things can we use to help that. Investment, prizes, etc. Long discussion of various government agencies and programs. Should there be international help?

Fleming: what tools? Lot can be learned from DoD, part. DARPA. Make things more friendly to startups. DARPA model could go a long way to jump starting

Kearney: on the subject of FAR, there are ways. FAR part 12 gives mechanism as boilerplates can be waived. Multiple suppliers, fixed price. Second issue first and foremost when you are doing a business case is the market. How many will I be able to sell. First step is creating a stable and profitable market with multiple suppliers so that there is competition.

???: Brands? On Sides of Rockets?

Kearney: Why not? From a commercial perspective, if it is safe and won’t harm the astronauts, we don’t care.

Fleming: Advertising is good, and NASA should be able to advertise.

End of panel, thanks.

Courtesy of Stephen Fleming, here is his presentation:

Hope this works... It does, drag to desktop or click whatever is required to download it to your desktop...

Media panel underway, some of it preaching to the choir here. Mr. Daniel Stone, President and CEO , Space Holdings (Space.Com, etc.) up taking NASA to the woodshed on outreach, PIO, etc.

The Commercial Space & Economic Feasability Panel

Lot of good ideas and comments from media panel. Some things they call for, such as advertising and marketing, are illegal. That is why NASA does not do them. That is why NASA does Outreach instead. Interest is there, just needs to be tapped.

Discussion of multi-media, HD, etc., and how it can help with involvement.

Lyles: Rating top agencies to work, WaPo, how public doesn’t know NASA at top; AF experience, crisis in recruiting; is NASA at a crisis point?

Stone: Yes. At point, beyond. Special time given all that is going on. Comments on IRS and NASA as most visited gov sites, bet is that NASA is most popular. While there are ways NASA can piggyback, it will require a lot of money but it is money well spent. Good investment. NASA has advantage of having their brand on others.

Robbins: conversation with Whitson, ISS, focus on science. Realize now that didn’t have a lot to talk about, because not a lot of science going on. So if you are going to market NASA what are you going to do? People are kind of holding back a bit to see if this vision is real, if there is a cogent program that makes sense. More discussion, point is that by time Apollo 12 took off, interest had begun to plummet. Public didn’t think that one thing was building on another, leading somewhere else.

Discussion

Lyles: Rating top agencies to work, WaPo, how public doesn’t know NASA at top; AF experience, crisis in recruiting; is NASA at a crisis point?

Stone: Yes. At point, beyond. Special time given all that is going on. Comments on IRS and NASA as most visited gov sites, bet is that NASA is most popular. While there are ways NASA can piggyback, it will require a lot of money but it is money well spent. Good investment. NASA has advantage of having their brand on others.

Robbins: conversation with Whitson, ISS, focus on science. Realize now that didn’t have a lot to talk about, because not a lot of science going on. So if you are going to market NASA what are you going to do? People are kind of holding back a bit to see if this vision is real, if there is a cogent program that makes sense. More discussion, point is that by time Apollo 12 took off, interest had begun to plummet. Public didn’t think that one thing was building on another, leading somewhere else.

Robbins: need to change NASA? Need to change culture of academia! Need to assure them that it is okay to talk in plain terms. Discussion. If science community is not speaking in a clear voice, then I can’t put it in paper. NASA needs people who can translate into plain language. Science, academic community need to do this.

Tyson: Mercury 7, didn’t have to advertise. Marketing is a four letter word because when you hear that you have to convince people to like it, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. How handle? (much longer to make point).

Stone: has to be somewhere in middle, served up in a way that children will be willing to consume. Bit of arrogance in deciding what is good for you. Has to be truth and credible, but consumable. That is not a four letter word.

Robbins: JPL and good media relations. JSC, no.

Tyson: Could you judge between interest in space as represented by missions and space as represented by scientific discovery? Can you judge where split is?

Stone: yes, baseline at Space.Com is on astronomy and scientific discovery, surges when missions, over time what we have seen is an increase in the base as more people sucked in by missions, which brings it together. What we do is help bring those worlds together, ties it all together. Not discrete, but a whole.

Robbins: Doesn’t need launch, just be interesting. Get info out in a way that is compelling, and it will be received. Flintsone factor. If scientists can better convey what they do, it will get out.

More to come?

Well, some at least. I am here with Michael Mealling of Rocket Forge who is also live blogging. Actually, I think he is true live while I am semi-live. :) Not sure how much I will cover the rest today, but will just see how it goes. Some of the key points I wanted to hear and see made, and both are satisfied.

Public statements going on right now. Dog's breakfast. Hope Michael gets to speak, not one of the first four names called. Nor among the next two names called. Drat.

Some good points being made, about removing some of the fear of failure, leadership, and more. Some very interesting points and comments as well. Keeps it interesting. Most is very predictable. Drat again. Lots of buy in to current model and mindset. Double drat.

Michael still not one chosen to speak. Bleep.

NEOs have come up, not surprised. NEO=Near Earth Object. Wait one, not an Armagetdown or similar bad movie thing, seems to be focusing on exploration potential. No exploitation mentioned yet, but different. Nice twist.

Michael not chosen yet again. Bleep.

One speaker passes; latest is author who wrote a book about the truth about Challenger, headed where? Clear to him that NASA charter needs to be overhauled and that is how to implement all these great ideas. Second point is that to be in space business without heavy lift capability is essential. Build the rocket and they will come. Finally, propulsion R&D is vital. Cryo, nuke, etc. all need to be explored. Need to hit, and restore the total belief that the American public owns NASA. It has to be the will of the people. Decide, then go forward, lots of rah rah, offers his services.

Next speaker makes points, including low turnout, lack of coverage here. Reaching out is important, because solid public support is a must.

Third public hearing is concluded. I intend to visit, get some good Indian food, and head back home.

-30-

« ...hunt's ended

NASA is an agency with no purpose other than to maintain its budget, centers, and power. It has no grand vision, no realistic drive in science, and a workforce that has suffered many blows of late. The fundamental science at NASA is reasonable science, but often lacks a clear justification for it being done at NASA.

As for launch vehicles, NASA has not developed anything truly new in more than 30 years. Efforts to develop new systems, reusable systems, and such have generated tons of papers, multitude of powerpoint presentations, and loads of studies: and not one working piece of bent metal. In other words, they have yet to deliver on any new or innovative launch system in at least a decade, and I would argue much longer.

Innovation and risk taking at NASA are dead. NASA has become an extremely risk-adverse agency, because any perceived failure of any type immediately brings out enemies in Congress, the Administration, the Old Media, and even in its own leadership. Having survived the Goldin years and some presentations, I can testify that it did not take much to be declared a failure or otherwise call down the wrath from on high. The result was that, especially at NASA Headquarters, people became increasingly unwilling to make even the most simple or basic declarative statement. Any statement that was made had to be backed up with multiple citations and proof, and even then the statement might not be made for fear that it might be somehow wrong in some other unspecified way.

Safety is a shibboleth at NASA that demands large amounts of time and money, to no realistic end. While it is officially denied, NASA has become a zero-defect/zero-tolerance agency. Safety meetings take hours each month to discuss all manner of hazards and ways to prevent workplace injury, lost time injuries, personal injuries offsite, and flight safety. The emphasis during my tenure there was mostly on the former, because flight safety was supposed to be assured and being addressed in a responsible and effective manner. After all, hours upon hours and dollars upon dollars were being spent upon it.

Which meant that all other defects had to be purged. There were to be no lost time injuries. Period. Yet, by regulation the first aid kits demanded for all offices and floors of buildings could not have band aids. If something was bad enough for a band aid, it meant that a trip to the infirmary or paramedics were needed. Net result was, unless you violated the rules and kept some in your desk, a good paper cut would become a lost time accident. This, in turn, resulted in yet more meetings, studies, and new workplace rules designed to prevent this new threat to the drive for perfect safety.

It is my opinion that this idiocy, which came from the highest levels of the Center and NASA, directly contributed to a loss of safety. It was the focus on the minute that allowed the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Columbia. NASA has, again in my opinion, failed to adequately address the problems identified, and Ifni only knows that only a few token sacrifices have been made in regards that loss.

And it was a loss. More than just the crew and orbiter, there was a loss of confidence in the agency, in space exploration, and a loss of valuable data and programs. Because of its failures in the launch development department, NASA only has one real way to get to space. With the fleet grounded, NASA is reduced to begging or buying rides from the Russians. While this is good for Russia and the Russian space program, it means that almost every major NASA research program is at a standstill.

Add to all this the demise of the only realistic program NASA had for encouraging commercial space activities, because it failed an ideological litmus test of the Bush Administration, and a very bleak picture emerges. It is made even darker by the fact that the administration has never openly announced any comprehensive policy or plan towards space.

There is, allegedly, a group working on same for an announcement sometime in the coming year. The problem is, no one truly knows who is working in or with this group, or how to present things for consideration. The latter is crucial to any realistic plans for space, because it is very likely that the only model being considered is a governmental model.

For years, the idea has been that only the government could, or was willing to, fund space activities. It was too expensive for any one company, and no company would be willing to take the risks to put humanity into space. This was the public rational put forward in large measure because space was largely a military development. The technology and plans had to be safeguarded from the enemy, and the civilian and military space race was the result.

That has been over for quite some time, and commercial space the goal set since Reagan. Yet, NASA has bitterly resisted and fought any such efforts, even though its own Charter, not to mention the Commercial Space Acts, mandate it. Commercial is a very dirty word at NASA, and it is fought tooth and nail. One of the more effective means of doing so has been to promote and cite at every turn the cost/risk meme/model.

Because of the history and 60s successes of NASA, and the repeated use of this meme, is that very few people ever stop to consider that there is a box there, much less think outside of it. The so-called major aerospace companies are making a lot of money off the current model, and probably are not that interested in major changes to it. Few, if any, in Congress truly contemplate that the world and space exploration has changed. The concept of space exploitation is just bad science fiction, after all.

The real danger here is that the Bush Administration tends to do things all on its own. It does not leak trial balloons or engage in any of the typical things an administration does to test or tilt the waters. This can be, and for the most part is, a very good thing. The problem lies in the fact that there is no way to tell if anyone in the space policy circle can or will consider that the governmental model is obsolete.

Recently, I had the opportunity to see just how deeply the idea has been planted that only NASA can do space, and that only superbeings can be astronauts. In some channel surfing, I came across E! talking about celebrity Ooopses right in time to find that Lance Bass was in the top 25 of all time. Why did he deserve this? Turns out it was his attempt to go into space. Was it because the production company that was to pay for everything didn’t? No, the major reason given was that he, as an entertainer, had no business trying to go to space. Space, after all, was only for the elite.

This bit of bullshit was truly depressing. Admittedly, this was a bunch of actors and entertainment reporters so I was not expecting brains, much less brain surgery. What made it so depressing was how this showed a mindset that is firmly imbedded in a significant portion of the public, largely courtesy of NASA. NASA has for years pushed the best and brightest as a major part of its PR campaign. NASA goes so far as to ignore the IAF definition of what constitutes an astronaut to declare that only its chosen few career crews can be called astronauts. It is expressly forbidden to call anyone other than a career civil servant at NASA who has been duly chosen for the corps, an astronaut. All those guest scientists and politicians who have flown? They are forbidden to call themselves astronauts and anyone writing for or about NASA is very strongly encouraged to follow this practice.

NASA has seized this term as its own, and puts a very rigorous definition upon it. They also defend this practice by hook and by crook, for it promotes the idea that NASA is the best, and that only NASA and the hand-picked few can do space.

The rest of the world is not much brighter a picture. The Europeans are still firmly wedded to the governmental agency concept. Their idea of space commercialization is to form new companies with government assistance and ownership, and then work with or through the governmental agencies. Nor have they been immune to setbacks, and I was not happy at the apparent loss of Beagle 2. Not just because of the scientific loss it represents, but I also admit to a sentimental attachment from being owned by a beagle and having Beagle as a radio call sign for a few years.

Sad to say, but the people closest to any concept of free market space capitalism are the Russians. The problem here is a lack of funding, and being wedded to a NASA that tries to scuttle any truly commercial act by the Russians. Bring up a tourist? Not in our station or part of station! Advertising? Again, not in our station! Doing anything else that smacks of nasty free enterprise? Only in your vehicles and if we can block that we will. Now be a good serf and do what your betters say.

Amidst all this, however, is a great ray of hope. Proof that the governmental model is not the only one. For on December 17, a very momentous and under-reported (in the Old Media, at least) event took place. High above the Mojave, something wonderful happened.

Without government funding or support, developed by private financing and a lot of hard work by many talented people who are not a part of NASA or any other space program, a new spaceship broke the sound barrier. What is the big deal you say? We’ve broken the sound barrier for years, decades even. What is the big whoop?

To put it simply, this is pretty much the first time that any group has put together a manned vehicle to do this without government involvement. Nor will it be the last. XCOR and the companies competing for the X-Prize are all working towards this goal. Nor is that the end of it, for they intend to go to space inexpensively and on a regular basis.

Forget NASA, ESA, and all the rest. Private companies are going to space. The successful test flight of SpaceShipOne has placed us more than halfway to the goal. The technology has its proof of concept, as does the control systems and such. Now, all that remains is to go all the way, as soon as development and regulation allow.

Is there a place for government in space? Yes, there is. The government needs to set realistic policies and regulations for commercial, private, or other space ventures. The government can assist with developing truly advanced technologies, or allowing companies access to facilities so as to aid private development of same. The government can help limit liability for all space ventures, just as it does for aviation. There are a host of things government can do, but has to date not done.

What is needed now is not some grand re-do of the Apollo program, but a real space race. Not between governments or political ideologies, but between companies or private groups. This race, this competition, will result in the real next generation of launch vehicles. It will encourage innovation, risk taking, and all those other things that are an anathema to governmental agencies, but are crucial to development. It will give us not one system, but many proven systems so that there is redundancy and cost-effectiveness.

The governmental model has been broken. Frankly, I am not surprised at the lack of coverage given by the Old Media as it is probably about as much an anathema to them as it is to NASA. Well, that may not be entirely fair. Most Old Media reporters truly don’t have a clue why the real celebration of the Wrights was so important. They lack the subject knowledge to grasp it. Others see it as something bad, because it was done by an evil company who is bent on, gasp, making a profit rather than simply doing something noble for humanity. The best coverage and analysis, therefore, is in the New Media. This also means it is spreading, because there are few bottlenecks to block or distort it.

For the destruction of the governmental model of space, I would have to change my description of the state of space in 2003 to hopeful. The beauty is, however, that there is another reason to feel that way. The governmental model has been destroyed, and a new model has begun to emerge.

For decades, space enthusiasts have used the models of the exploration of the New World, as well as those of sailing and aviation, to describe the possibilities. The problem is, none of these are truly valid in and of themselves. There are portions of each that apply, but none truly apply to this bright new world.

Yes, going to space and exploring and exploiting does have parallels to the development of the New World. There are treasures and resources to be reaped, and just as our forebearers had no clue what awaited them, we have no real idea of what will come. A good example of this was the need for wood. One of the largest reasons for early settlements was to send back resources to the Old World, and wood was one very much needed given the loss of forests in England, france, and elsewhere. Yet, it proved to be much better to process the wood where it was being harvested, and simply ship home medium to finished products instead of the raw materials. This, in turn, created an industrial base in the New World. Much the same is likely to happen with space, since it just makes a lot more sense to process on the spot. Nice thing is, there is abundant energy, vacuum, and other resources for this. You also don’t have to worry about air, ground, and water pollution.

One portion of the aviation model has also been proven true. Contrary to popular belief, the Wrights didn’t get a single government grant to develop their first plane. Nor, for that matter, many of the follow-ons. In other words, the government was not needed to start this expensive and extremely risky new industry. In point of fact, the government hamstrung efforts for many years, and most of the interest and commercial business for the Wrights and others came from the governments and companies of Europe.

It can be argued that except for the profound military implications of space, that is what would have happened here. The government had little or no interest in rocketry or space until they were almost literally hit in the head by the military applications. Scaled Composites has just shown that the government is not needed as a sponsor, which raises questions about the real need for governmental funding. In the process, another portion of valid model is developed and proven.

By raising or proving new portions or complete models, the way is paved for doing much more. Models are needed for funding, for realistic and positive regulation, and for identifying new ventures. A door has indeed been opened, and what waits beyond is anyone’s guess. All that truly matters is that the door has been opened.

If the Bush administration will truly honor the ideals it has stated, and if you the Citizens will exercise your rights and responsibilities to be involved and make yourself heard, then next year’s state of space may well be described as rosy. What it will take is a realistic and meaningful space policy that is not married to a long-dead cold-war model, but embraces the true spirit of aviation, free enterprise and the new model of space.

-30-

« ...hunt's ended

Much of the problem, as with many problems involving space, lies at NASA. Within that agency, there are two schools of thought with one being dominant. There is the minor school that holds with the idea that industry should select and do (and fund) commercial research designed to investigate the feasibility of space and microgravity for a variety of purposes. Then there is the larger school, which holds that they have developed or have designed some nifty something, and that industry should now fund it or pay NASA loads of money for developing, marketing, and actually doing the work. This is the same group that put forward the proposition that industry would be willing to throw money at NASA and the ISS for the sheer adventure, money that NASA could then do with what it wanted since industry would, of course, expect nothing in return. This is the same group that wanted companies to sponsor ISS racks, and was amazed that companies were not willing to do this if they could not have their logos on the sponsored hardware or have the sponsored rack referred to as the __________ Rack.

For many years, this larger group has put forth a variety of items as precursors for space manufacturing, or that were presented as true leaps in space commercialization. If you go back and look at them, most of them were NASA-developed hardware or ideas that industry was brought in on well after development. In short, it was a glorified spin-off operation rather than a true commercial development.

Adding to this was the deliberate downplay by NASA of true commercial research being done. It was not promoted, and sometimes was even presented as NASA research. A long-standing effort on my part was to break NASA PAO of the habit of stating “NASA did X” in regards commercial research. No, NASA did not do X. Company Y, (most often) in partnership with Commercial Space Center Z did X, with the assistance of NASA. There is a heck of a difference there.

It also does not help that NASA is incredibly risk averse. Anything that can be labled a “failure” is something to be buried and forgotten. A story or brochure that raised Dan’s ire was to be burned and buried, and an experiment or investigation that was not a complete success? Much the same, alas.

As for the “stand back, they are going to throw money at us” grandiose ideal as presented by the two Dan(s), well… As far as I can tell, NASA got zero dollars and nothing else out of those operations. Yet, they were billed as the epitome of space commercialization that would unlock the doors. Yeah, right.

The string of failures is bad enough, but worse yet is the poisoning of the terms that has occurred as a result. People, including a number of experts, have accepted the use of the terms space manufacturing and space commercialization for these efforts even though they are nothing of the sort. The net result is that you have “proof” that space manufacturing and space commercialization, or any specific segment of same, don’t work.

Bull.

The fact is, we really don’t know all that much about any area – with a couple of exceptions. The fact is and remains that research by industry for industry has a miniscule amount of research time in place. In fact, it is just enough time to develop good questions and determine how to proceed with investigations, rather than to make any form of judgment.

On the ground, if often takes months or years of research simply to identify which way to go with a given research project. Computer simulations and other operations can help shorten it, but the usual result of early experimentation is a lot more questions rather than pat answers.

The amount of time spent on true commercial research in space is measured in weeks, not months and years. There are some extremely promising areas, but very little has been proven from an economic or research viewpoint. We are still very much in the early idea stage, but as I have stated repeatedly, I also think that it is a stage where money can be made when regular, low-cost space access becomes available. The Shuttle ain’t it. The Big Dumb Boosters of Bomart ain’t it. Russian rockets ain’t it.

The real hope for exploring all the areas of potential research, development, and manufacturing lies in real access to space. It needs someone to win the X-prize, and it needs several competing services. Then, not only can research into the real opportunities for space commerce and manufacturing take off, the rest of us can as well.

Forget the “accepted” definitions of space manufacturing and space commercialization as espoused by NASA and others. Take back the terms and apply them as they were meant to be applied.

-30-

« ...hunt's ended

Now, to repeat ad nauseum, yes I did work as a contract employee for NASA and the Space Product Development (SPD) Program. Keep that in mind as we go, though my bias may not be what you expect.

The fact remains that despite its shortcomings, SPD did a great deal for space commercialization. While they could not directly fund any research, what was done was to get the broadest possible range of businesses involved to do their research in space or microgravity. This did several things, including: demonstrate hard numbers as to businesses and types of business interested in space-based research and development; allow a variety of areas to be explored by companies to determine if they would be useful or profitable to companies; provide actual dollar figures in terms of the amount of money – cash and in-kind – that industry was willing to invest in space business; and, provide hard data on the economic return of the investment in space-based R&D.

The program operates through commercial space centers located across the country. With one exception, they were located at institutions of higher learning. The idea behind this was to bring together the academic knowledge and research capabilities with the real-world knowledge and practice of industry, and then apply the synergy that comes from making use of NASA resources including access to space and microgravity.

The academic institutions benefited from the investment in the centers by industry, and through having faculty and students work on real-world applications. The benefits to the students in terms of practical education is obvious, as are the other benefits. Industry benefited by being able to make use of the academic knowledge base, research facilities, and the low-cost labor (students) for the work, as well as from the unique environment of orbital space. NASA benefited by meeting its legal requirements under the NASA Charter and the various commercial space acts. The U.S. economy benefited from the research dollars and from the money that has come from new products and companies, and U.S. education reaped much needed benefits as well.

Space commercialization benefited as well. First, the program clearly showed that there were several hundred companies of all sizes and types interested in space as an R&D tool or possible tool. The amount of cash and in-kind contribution is trackable and documents for all that industry was willing to invest millions in cash and in-kind contributions. The product economic benefit is harder to track, but can be demonstrated both in product sales (there are better than 20 products on the market that come not from spin-offs but from companies doing or preparing to do research in space and microgravity) and in the capitalization of various spin-off companies. Spinning off divisions and companies is a great sign of economic growth and vitality. All of this is now documented for the investment community.

I use the past tense even though the program still exists, because it is scheduled to die. The ivory tower types at OMB have declared its death, and the White House agrees. It seems that not only was the program a well-documented success, the horror, but that the commercial space centers were as well. This success seems to grate on certain types, both within NASA and at OMB. The former hate commercialization with a passion, while the latter lack real-world experience.

The death knell comes because the centers are not recompeted each year. This, you see, is unfair to any other potential centers. Never mind that they are subject to an outside audit on a regular basis, and that new centers are started and centers that fail to attract industry partners and investment are eliminated. The academics have spoken, and being a success is not allowed. This ignores several basic facts, the first one being “Would you invest large sums of money in an entity that might not be here in six to twelve months?” Would you commit to a long-term research program with someone who might not be there in a few months? Logic is not necessarily an important commodity in governmental planning and operations.

So, SPD is dead. Long live SPD. Yet, there is no need to waste the important foundation they have laid. It is clear that NASA is not the place for commercial development. NASA is fundamentally opposed on a philosophic and operational level to commercial operations and research. Fine, why not put the commercial emphasis where it is respected and encouraged: the Department of Commerce.

Yet, rather than just push SPD over, why not take the time to do it right. Why not do the things that are going to help commercial space development, all the things NASA was opposed to doing?

The first thing that is needed is leadership from outside the government and the usual gang from Bomart. You need someone with real-world leadership, proven success in business, who also knows space. The ideal candidate would have experience in a true space startup, as well as the needed corporate experience. Team them with a deputy director who has been involved with SPD and other activities, who knows the nuts and bolts of what has been done. The synergy here is obvious, as is the business lead.

Then give them a charter worthy of the goal. This new division would do the following:

Expand the base built by SPD at NASA. There is a good deal of research and economic data there, as well as some good models. Take that and build on it by looking into the areas that gave NASA hives, including advertising, direct sponsorship, tourism, remote tourism, new areas of research, etc.

The basic commercial space center concept worked well, but needs to be revamped a bit. No, not just to meet the idiocy of the OMB recompete requirements, but to make it even more effective. The key to the centers was the industry involvement. Get input from industry on the areas currently addressed, those areas where they have already expressed an interest, and see if there are new areas as well. Use that as the basis of a competition for 15-20 centers that will be established for a term of no less than five years, with options for additional increments for a total of up to ten years.

These centers would then have the stability to attract industry yet meet any whining about fairness. Have them subject to the same type of external review as is current, with an eye towards eliminating any that fail to meet the requirements for number of industry partners, cash and in-kind contributions, etc. At the end of ten years, they can then start a new recompete cycle, with the industry partners and trade associations having inputs. Those that don’t make the grade at five years are eliminated, or if close, can be given one or two year extensions to see if they can make the grade. If they don’t, they go. If they do, they continue. If a new area is identified with or by industry, then a new center can be started. This ensures continuity, fairness, and much more.

Now, since these centers are no longer tied to NASA, that means they don’t have to use just NASA for launch and operations. They can make us of any launch service and should be required by charter to use commercial launch, research, and related facilities wherever possible, with the usual caveats towards new and small businesses. This means that if Scaled Composites, XCOR, or others succeed, they will have an almost guaranteed customer base with commercial research. It would also open the door for competing space facilities, both space platforms and space stations. Just think of the opportunities, and competition, there.

In addition, until such is available, NASA should be required to provide access on the same low-cost basis as is currently being provided. Fair is only fair, after all. It was the dependency on NASA that resulted in the miniscule amount of commercial research that has actually flown. To date, with just a few exceptions, the potential for space-based research and development is really not known.

What is needed is time in space so that all the elegant theories can be tested for commercial viability. Can microgravity make it easier to do some things? Will the conditions encourage certain biological processes or activities? Can certain data be gathered with higher precision in an easier manner? Stay tuned, as we find out the answers. It will only be with this time that we start to find out what can benefit and where space business can start to go in terms of research, development, and – eventually – production. Not just manufacturing, but a host of other areas as well.

Now, this is a nice start, but should only be one part of what is done. The second thing that needs to be done is to establish this new operation as the focal point for coordinating government regulation of commercial space activities. This way, industry and government can be brought together to develop some realistic guidelines and operations to the benefit of all, in a Department that is at least reasonably favorable towards business.

The best way to do this would be to establish a committee with several representatives from the new space industry (XCOR, Elon Musk, Sea Launch), at least one representative from the Bomart group, and one each from the relevant government agencies. This committee would advise and discuss with a manager from the new program, who would be charged with developing a coordinated government policy and acting as an advocate for space commerce. They would need a staff and related support.

Third, this new operation should act as a clearing house and coordination for research that can benefit commercial space activities. Energy, Defense, NASA, and other agencies do a great deal of research into materials, propulsion, control, and other activities that could benefit companies looking at going into space. Particularly those companies who have hit a snag in the development process. Why not give them an office they can turn to who can then see if anyone else has addressed a particular problem? Why not provide them with a low-cost means of leasing specialized testing facilities that would otherwise be unused or under-utilized? Make use of the research data and research facilities to benefit companies and competition.

It would have to do one SPD job, however. The new operation would have to continue to be a buffer between NASA and other government launch operations and industry. Few if any companies are going to be willing to put up with the paperwork, testing, and hurdles that go into flying with NASA. So, until real commercial comes along, that buffer will continue to be needed.

The final thing is that it needs to have a sunset clause. To prevent it from becoming a problem, rather than an asset, it needs to be set to expire in no less than 30 years with options to close down the centers sooner if the basic research needed to prove concepts is completed. This will be determined by activities such that industry is no longer funding research into if space is a potential benefit and/or when industry and is spending in excess of $500 million a year with private service companies on direct research, development, or production. Actually, this needs to be broken down a bit to cover major research areas so that they can be phased out and new areas identified as and if needed.

This is just a rough outline, but it is a fair start. Now for the budget issues, since the first question is what will it cost? Fair enough. To create this program will cost app. $50 million for the centers, including startup and competitions, with a recurring cost of at least $35 million per year thereafter. The coordination and regulation role will probably take $20 million per year, while the research coordination/assistance operation should have around $35 million per year at the start. Launch costs will be at least $50 million per year for now and general operating budgets will probably be on the order of $20 million for salaries, facilities, travel, equipment, outreach and education, and related administrative activities. This is all off the cuff, but is a good starting point for discussions. Round it a bit and call it $225 million to start.

This should not be too far off the full budget for SPD using full-cost accounting. So, it is not a major increase or decrease in the budget. It has the potential to provide a great deal more to support business development in space and a solid foundation to build upon. There are a few more bells and whistles that need to be added before it can be written up as a bill, but not a whole lot more. The basics are here.

So, what do you think?

« ...hunt's ended

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-

« ...hunt's ended

The fact is that space enthusiasts, and I count myself as one, tend to get caught up in the goal, the technology. It is the means of getting there, the specific projects that catch our eye and become the focus. The problem is, that focus is shared by no one else. No one else truly cares about the neat things we can do with a specific technology. Let’s face it: the really neat technology that can only come into play once we are in space is only of interest to a very small group. That is the problem.

Instead, it needs to be looked at from two distinct, but closely related, viewpoints. First, the customer. Second, the investor.

The customer should be the driver. What does the customer want? What can you sell the customer that they don’t yet know that they want or need? Michael makes some very good cases for this, and of finding incremental products to sell.

The latter ties into the second viewpoint that is crucial: the investor. The investor is looking for anything that helps guarantees a return on investment, and for ways to greatly increase that return. That means finding as many markets for each product and waste product as possible.

Yep, I said waste product. What is one person’s trash is another’s treasure and that will hold true in space as well. For years, people have tried to get NASA to leave the external tanks in orbit so they can be used. They not only have processed metals and chambers, but several tons of unused liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen on board. It actually costs NASA energy and money to dump them into the ocean, but for reasons (or lack thereof) known only to them, NASA has bitterly resisted doing so. A waste product, and a possible sale to another customer.

What is clearly needed in most of the commercial space community, particularly in the space enthusiasts community, is a change of outlook, a change of approach. The focus needs to be less on the technology or really neat thing, and on how that technology or thing can make money.

More on that later, maybe even tomorrow.

-30-

« ...hunt's ended