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

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-

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-

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-

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-

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?

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-

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-

Right now, the key is the lack of launch capability, or rather the lack of a non-governmental launch entity with realistic pricing. To get that, we need people like X-COR, Scaled Composites, Elon Musk, and others to succeed. We need that three-tier system discussed the other day with full competition. With that, many things can happen.

To get the financing required means that someone needs to win the X-Prize and move forward. We need to show that there are some near-term, easily provable business opportunities in space. Tourism is a proven, but it is limited and will not open the floodgates. That will take the presentation of several avenues of revenue, but the good news is that a lot of this has already been done.

A conflict of interest reminder. I did work as a contract employee of NASA and you need to be aware of that, just as you need to be reminded of my previous post in regards NASA. Specifically, I was Director of Outreach for NASA’s Space Product Development Program, and it was the work done by industry through that program that offers up a lot of provable opportunities. My thoughts and prejudices on NASA do not mean that I am automatically a supporter of same, or that I can not and will not point out when it does something good.

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. This is a factor of only being able to launch through NASA, the lack of a reliable launch schedule, and the high cost of participation. While those in the program pay a reduced launch cost, there is still the considerable NASA paperwork and flight process to go through and while the Commercial Space Centers buffer industry, it is not a painless process by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, a number of companies – if not industries – have walked away because of the paperwork, the time to fly (often years), the fact that their payload can be bumped in favor of a political or science favorite, and such. Those walking, as well as those who stayed, show that there is an interest. So, could there be a commercial opportunity in providing a budget multiplier to industry, along with the resource of space and microgravity to industry? Hmmmmm…

Even if no one is willing to pursue that, there are some clear areas that fit the bill: foundry and metallurgy, flavors and fragrances, microbe growth and control, and others. Go check out the archives and follow those trails. Go to the SPD site and check to see what is going on right now, even during the lack of flight.

I see several opportunities that are small enough to be easily doable, near-term, and that would prove several new revenue opportunities for space commerce. In addition to doing the research, there is an opportunity to provide an industry-friendly space station, manned or unmanned; experimental hardware and facilities; and, of course, the launch opportunities for same. Add to this advertising opportunities, entertainment opportunities, and related revenue streams, and it could generate a more than fair return.

Never mind that such facilities would be well above the average terrorist, or that true isolation for hazardous work is available. Never mind that orbital resources such as vacuum, power, heating and cooling, or specialized radiation environments are naturally occurring there.

What, do you want me to do all the work? No, that is up to you. I have my eye on a couple of ventures that I may jump into. What you do is up to you. All I suggest is that you think near-term, think easily provable, and think profitable.

This is what is needed to help leverage launch development. With that, a stable economic base can be built, and then the larger dreams built upon it. Launch, near-term research, long-range research, and more will provide the foundation. Think about it. Then, go work to get rich off of it.

-30-

A business plan is the first thing investors want to see when you talk with them. In fact, they want to see it before you talk with them, so that they can ask questions, explore things, and then begin to decide if they are going to invest. It may seem tedious, or not nearly as fun as thinking of all the great technology that can be developed and discoveries made, but without a good plan, none of the other is going to happen.

Let me first address what a business plan is not: It is not a technological development map. You may have the greatest idea since Leonardo da Vinci on a subject, but simply trying to get people to give you money so you can do it is not going to work. Even your parents are probably not going to put a lot into it, because they are not going to get anything out of it. People give you money for two reasons: One, out of the kindness of their heart; and, Two, to get rid of you so you will quit bothering them. Neither of these options is likely to get you a significant amount of money.

Over the last twenty years, I have seen a LOT of people passionate about space put forward technology development maps in the mistaken belief that they were presenting a business plan. It is a great idea to do X, or to get humanity to Y, but all had the same failing in that simply doing it was the goal. There is also usually a look of stunned disbelief on the presenter’s part when questioned about what happens next. We get there, we have developed X, that is the goal, isn’t it?

No, it’s not. Getting somewhere or developing something may not even be the halfway point. It is what you do with the achievement that is truly important.

It is this that a good business plan addresses. It covers the status quo, what you propose, how you propose to get there, and what happens after you arrive. Let’s look at some basics of a good business plan, and then use that for some more discussions of space.

The status quo is where you always start. What is going on right now, be it a particular part of space exploitation or writing. Don’t be afraid to state the obvious when discussing the issue, as people outside a given area of specialization might not, and probably are not, as aware of things in that area as is a specialist. Things that are obvious to you are not necessarily obvious to all. An example could be:

“Writing is an intensely competitive field, with most writers focusing into various specialized areas. Even within those fields, there is specialization. Science writing may be broken down into groups such as medical writing, but within that field you may see someone focusing on a specific area of medical hardware. Yet, there is a clear need for writers who can write with knowledge and verve on a variety of issues, not simply one particular subset of a sub-specialty. “

Or

“Helium Three is regarded by many as opening the door to a new industrial revolution, particularly in power generation. Scientists feel that it could hold the key to safe and efficient fusion power production, while others see it as a catalyst for a variety of technologies. One of the greatest problems in testing these theories is a lack of naturally occurring Helium Three on Earth. The Moon, however, holds abundant quantities of Helium Three that not only could be used to prove or disprove these theories, but to supply an abundant source for industrial use if the theories are validated.”

These are simply hooks for a discussion of the status quo. A real business plan will go into verifiable numbers, citations for pronouncements, and other means of establishing what is the current state of affairs in a given area. Yet, that hook also has to be the hook for the next part, what do you want to do?

This is where a lot of business plans, not just space business plans, loose it. They get so caught up in the technology or achievement, that they see that as the ultimate goal. What you have to do is establish not merely what you want to do, but what you want to do with it.

Typically, a plan might call for going to the moon and obtaining sufficient Helium Three to prove or disprove the hypotheses. That, however, is not a business plan. The facts are that most of your initial expenses are in the initial getting to the moon and obtaining sufficient resources for testing. If you plan simply covers going and getting, and makes no plans for doing more if the results are positive, you may have potentially doubled or tripled your costs of operation. This is no obstacle to any government agency, but is a crippling blow to commercial operations since the idea is to make money.

Yet, if you look at scale of operations at the start and spend just a bit more up front, you can set things up so that if the results are positive, you have the infrastructure already in place to exploit the resources. That is what investors are going to be looking for.

Okay, you have laid out the status quo and what you want to do, namely that there is not sufficient here, we want to go there and bring back enough to test, and if good we want to move into full-scale operations. Great. You have a good technology map. Now, let’s make it a true business plan.

What will it take to do the job? This is much more than the technology, it is all the resources that will be needed, from people to paper clips, and what will be needed when. It also must include plans for what will happen if things don’t go as anticipated, for good or for bad. There must be no invocation of the Magic Technology Fairy or any other form of deus ex machina involved.

Let’s start with the easy part, the people. You need someone to lead the effort, you will need someone to keep up with the accounting, you will need various technological people at various times. On these, you may need some of them full time, while bringing in others for limited duration work or on an as needed basis. Keep in mind with all of it that with modern employment, it is much more than the salary, in fact it can be anywhere from about 1.6 to 2.75 times the salary in terms of benefits, bonuses, and other costs. A good figure to use is 2, so that if you are paying someone $50,000.00 a year in salary you can figure that the total cost will be $100,000.00. Figure out who you need, when you need them, and the total costs for all of them broken down by year for the duration of the plan.

Materials are the next cost, and include buying off the shelf parts and supplies, raw stock or material for making your own, the machinery for all in-house operations, special or standard storage containers or systems, etc. Figure in regulatory costs as well, as there can be special requirements for any given item. A chemical may need a special storage container, inspections, or special disposal. A part may require that it be vacuum sealed, or a clean room required.

Location is the next cost, with offices, specialized materials areas, and other volume. If you are a launch service company, you need a place to fly and test that won’t get you regulated to death, picketed, etc.

There is more, of course, but now you have the basic resources and associated costs down. What is needed now is a timeline for development. Work out what you need to do and when you need to do it to reach your goals. More than that, you then have to have sub-maps for the unanticipated. If suddenly some new technology comes out that you can use to jump ahead, have a plan. If your promising technology fizzles, what is your fallback? Map these out with estimated costs for each. Yes, you can anticipate a good bit of the unexpected using probability functions and risk trees.

You also have to look at scale as you do this. Almost no business springs full grown from Jove’s breast. Most use some form of pilot demonstration and then grow from there. If you are going to do something and then be prepared to exploit it, you need to look at the optimum scale of operation to accommodate both. You don’t plunk down a huge plant on the Moon just to test a theory, but you can make it modular so that it can be expanded in the event of good news.

This, however, is still just a technology map. It is a great one, well fleshed out, but it lacks the key component of a successful business plan. It lacks a return.

It does not matter if it is sub-orbital tourism, Helium Three on the Moon, or mining an asteroid, you still have to show what you are going to do once you get there. Fine, you are there, now what? How do you make a return on the investment.

Once again, you have to go into what is now. Let’s use asteroid mining as an example. You have to detail what it takes and costs to bring out your target materials here on Earth. What is the current abundance of nickel on Earth? What is the readily available amount for extraction? What is the current methodology for extraction and how much does it cost? What are the practicalities and costs of waste use and disposal? What are the environmental costs, both direct and indirect? What is the relative purity of the finished product? How is it delivered and what are the costs? How are all the costs amortized? What does all of this together make the final cost per kilogram of finished product?

Lay out your homework, and then go into what you will do. What is the relative abundance of nickel in space and what is the readily available amount for extraction? Can you get other materials at the same time and within the same facility? What methodology of extraction will you use and what will be its cost? What of waste disposal? What are the direct and indirect environmental costs? What is the relative purity of the final product(s)? How are you going to deliver it and what will be the cost? Hint, amortize the costs exactly the same as they do on the ground, so that you are comparing apples to apples. What does all this together make the final cost per kilogram of finished product?

Guess what. If you can provide a product that is as good or better than Earth-based, in greater quantity, and at the same or lower cost per kilogram, then you have a viable business idea, though we are not yet to a true business plan.

What finishes out any business plan is the marketing. Not in the sense of telemarketers and spam, though I might enjoy those more than the current crop of pornography and breast enlargement ads, but in terms of who are you going to sell which product or products. Using hypothetical asteroid mining, to whom are you going to sell each metal or alloy? Can you sell the waste products for shielding, if so how much can you provide? How much can you actually sell? To whom will you sell it? For what price will you sell it? Can you sell electrical power to other nearby ventures if you have excess capacity? Will you sell any excess processing capacity to others, and if so for how much?

All of this means doing market research, with it firmly based on current Earth operations. Flights of fancy are nice, but if you can’t back up your numbers with verifiable information, that is all you are doing.

Investors are going to demand real numbers and apple to apple comparisons. Which is why space tourism is so important right now. The fact is that space tourism is the only proven commodity other than satellite usage, which is an apple to orange comparison.

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.

Investors can look at these numbers and check them, which means they like these numbers. They can check and crunch them, which means that they are more likely to make an investment if they see a business plan they like.

Now for the problems, the main one being technology. Investors don’t mind taking risks, in fact some groups are willing to invest in 20 or more ventures even if only one works out, provided that one makes up for all the losses and still provides a significant return. They have to have at least one pan out, because the do not give money out of the kindness of their hearts. Space has not been a truly good investment, because many promising technologies have failed. Worse yet, the investors see NASA going through new launch initiatives right and left, and if the much vaunted NASA can’t do it, how can some basement start-up make a go of it?

This is not reality, but this is a case where perception matters. It is going to take someone winning the X-Prize or doing something comparable to break this mindset in regards launch companies. Yet, launch companies are not the only business model, but they are the key to all others.

All commercial space ventures are dependent on the launch industry and launch costs. As long as launch costs remain around $10,000.00 a pound, very little is viable. Drop it to $1,000.00 a pound, and interesting things start to happen. Drop it even further, and a whole range of new possibilities opens.

Tourism is not a great start because it is a very limited option. The number of people willing to go is finite, and no one has demonstrated that people are willing to go more than once. That the latter is a factor of cost is well known and understood, but the fact remains that repeat business is unproven. Unproven is a bad thing insofar as the investment community is concerned.

So, tourism is used to help open the door. What needs to be done to throw that door wide? Simple, we need a diverse range of business opportunities. Moreover, we need near-term readily provable options to start that door on its way. The fact is that the more you show business success the more willing mainstream investors are going to be to take part. You have to have more than just SpaceVest or similar high-risk outfits taking part. Getting to that mainstream is critical.

This is one area where NASA and industry should be working together, and it was an area that had just opened up when my contract went away. We had just make contact with a/the major trade association for venture capital groups and were in discussions on having NASA and industry speakers go out and talk about what Industry was already doing in space. The role here for NASA was to set the stage, and then let Industry talk about what they had gotten out of it.

Let’s face it, NASA is the government and standing up and saying “Hi, I am from the government and I’m here to help you” doesn’t fly real well at any time. Standing up and saying “Hi, I’m from the government and here is John/Jane Doe from Industry X to tell you about what they did, and I am here to tell you that it is no bull” goes a lot further.

Even better is having them stand up and say that they had a success, here is what it means to them and their bottom line, and that if they could have regular and low-cost access to space they would be flying on a regular basis. This demonstrates to the investment community that there is indeed a market and that initial quantification of same is possible. This makes it far more likely that they will invest.

What this means is that there are some good opportunities for new business plans out there. There is a foundation laid for, if nothing else, providing research opportunities so that real quantification can be done. Where the base is solid, there are actual research and production opportunities. As these are established, they will in turn generate that next generation of opportunities and allow expansion so that we can go out further into the solar system.

The two keys to getting the necessary level of investment are, however, launch capabilities and sound business plans. The more good plans there are, the more willing the investment community is going to be to help push the launch industry. There are a few businesses that are leading the way, but they need some company. Let’s give it to them.

-30-

Where to start is simple: Launch. While there are partisans for various companies, what we truly need are partisans for specific goals. There needs to be someone who offers small services, such as one to five people or equivalent cargo to suborbital or LEO; there needs to be someone who covers the 5-20 or equivalent cargo range; and, someone who offers the heavy-lift capability. All should cover suborbital range to LEO at a minimum, and some or all should also provide a direct or transitional option to MEO. Since these will be pursuing different markets, it would be a great thing if there were several companies competing in each, but that will take time.

The time is because no one has yet established a viable business case for any of the three options. The first steps have been taken, but a true and viable business case has not been presented or proven to date. Now, there are some strong candidates for this: X-COR, Scaled Composites, and Elon Musk’s new operation hold promise for this. Yet, until one or all of them succeed, the case will not be made in terms of obtaining ready financial backing.

This is a particular hobby horse of mine, but it does need to be repeated: To go into space the investment community has to be brought on board. The majority of investment banks, investment funds, angel networks, and other sources are not going to come into this in a big way on the basis of dreams and might-be-great-opportunity isms. They are going to demand research, hard figures, and realistic plans. The companies just mentioned have taken the first steps towards that, but you must remember that the investment community has heard this before from many other promising companies. Until someone begins to show real proof in hard numbers and currency, they are not going to put truly significant amounts of money into start-up space operations.

Jumping back, we need three different areas for three different business models.

Small-scale is the first, since a low-cost way to prove space tourism, limited experimentation, and related technology development is critical for many early models. In addition, it can provide proof of ability to take small payloads to orbit on an as needed basis, which also happens to provide an important capability for LEO and MEO operations. Right now, it cost several million to send seven people into space; if, on the other hand, it can be proven that you can take one or a small number and put them in space, at a space station, etc., and do so in the thousands of dollar range, then you have made a huge point. Furthermore, you can then make a nice profit providing tourist packages, experiment development and operations, passenger delivery, and small-scale cargo delivery.

Medium-scale is next, as it proves that larger scale tourism is viable, as well as providing a more significant cargo capacity. Of equal importance, it also could provide what the shuttle never truly has: a shirt-sleeve laboratory environment. Instead of a large load of passengers, it could take just a couple of people and some experiments up and do the Spacelab/Spacehab thing and do it for a lot less. The doors opened here are obvious and left for the student.

Large-scale also has to be addressed. There already is a need for long-term experimentation and related resources. The only way that commercial space research labs, orbital satellite servicing centers, and other delights of the space enthusiasts can become reality is with some form of heavy lift capability. You need to be able to loft large or heavy packages into orbit, and do so in an economical manner. Big dumb boosters can do it, but they are an expensive and limited proposition. While there are some things for which they may always be the best solution, they are rarely the optimum solution for most situations.

Okay, now you can get to orbit, what then? Again, as I have discussed in previous posts, the business models and plans have yet to be proven. NASA’s Space Product Development Program was helping to make the case, but the work done there is limited. As biased as I am, it did a good job given the limited opportunities and the internal fights it has to wage to keep trying to do what it was tasked to do: get businesses hooked on space.

The fact is that there are plenty of opportunities, and theories of how orbital research will benefit all types of industry, but the actual research and research time is extremely limited. This also applies to other ideas as well, from orbital power farms on to resource harvesting.

The good news is, however, that there is some base on which to make realistic business plans, and ways to do the preliminary research on a profit making basis. Much of this, however, depends on the launch services. Once they are proven, the other operations begin to become economically viable.

Think a bit about this, and look at it from an economic point of view: what else is needed in terms of launch services? What are the positives? What are the roadblocks? What can be done to remove roadblocks and enhance operations? What are ways to encourage the development of new launch technologies outside of direct government control?

These are all questions that need to be addressed, and it is up to each of us to do so. That is, if we really want to get into space. What say you?

-30-

In my post of Sunday, I primarily touched on why I think that something very drastic needs to be done. From past experience, it is clear that the culture at NASA is not going to change, at least not short of force majeure. I say this with great confidence both as a student of history and from my own experiences inside the beast. Window dressing is easy, and most of the so-called safety programs, quality programs, and related programs have been just that.

Since I think that this needs to be discussed in some detail, Sunday’s post was merely the start of the process. Not even a Den Bestian length post will do, since I think that it will take many such posts to lay out the various ideas and possibilities. To my mind, there is no better place to start than in the goals and models being used.

Why are we going to space?

This is the single most important question that needs to be asked, and the one almost never touched by partisans of any persuasion. The model we use now, pointed out so well by Rand, boils down in many respects to national pride. Both the U.S. and the USSR were in it for pride, for prestige, and for the military advantages that space provided.

That drive still manifests itself in almost every aspect of what we do in space. The shuttle is a potent symbol of American technological supremacy, and is flaunted as such. The Soviet Buran was intended as such, but its one and only flight resulted in its being dismissed. NASA funds a large amount of fundamental research in space, and touts the results as often as possible. While many of the results are ridiculed within the science community, it also needs to be noted that the most frequent critics are also those who are opposed to space, particularly to manned space efforts. That can, and often should, be put down to power and money plays, since many of the critics will condemn and in the same breath say that they should get the money for their research. Regardless, space-based research is a means of showing the flag and securing the program.

The problem is that this model simply does not make sense, and has not for some time. It is great for flag waving and for bureaucratic empire building, but nothing else. Accepting the premises of the posts by Rand and others on this subject, the question then becomes what do we want to do in space? Only when we have answered this question can be begin to select realistic, effective, and appropriate models for our endeavors. Only then, can we decide the best way to either restructure or replace NASA. Only then, can we determine appropriate regulatory environments for commercial activities.

So, why are we going to space and what do we want to do there?

The immediate response from many will be exploration, though sheer curiosity is the more honest answer. We want to know what is out there, how do things work in different locations and environments, from microgravity to various planetary environments. We want to find various limits, push them, and if possible push past them.

The second answer appears to be technological development. Launch systems are just a start, since many have pointed out the broad range of technology advancement that came from Apollo and the drive to the moon. Indeed, the computer revolution that has changed our lives owes its genesis to the race for space. Many in the development camp point out the potential in regards nanotechnology, biotechnology, and other ologies yet to be determined.

The third answer is settlement. Earth is the cradle of civilization, yet we cannot stay in the cradle forever. Various factions hold that it is a safety valve for overpopulation, a way of ensuring the survival of mankind, a way to deal with extremists by either sending them out or allowing the sane to escape the madhouse, a way of allowing wide scale social experimentation and engineering in isolated habitats, and a variety of other possibilities.

The fourth answer appears to be exploitation, the development of non-terrestrial resources. By making use of space-based resources, we can reduce, eliminate, or reverse ecological damage here; improve the quality of life; and bring in a new era of plenty for all.

There are others, of course, but these serve as a good start for our discussions. Let’s take a look at them and some of the assumptions that lie behind them.

Exploration is a wonderful thing, often as fun as it is dangerous. There have always been those with a drive to go see what is over the next mountain, at the bottom of the gorge, or beyond the edge of the horizon. Some have gone and explored all on their own, but over the years it became necessary to seek backing for such ventures since ships and supplies cost money. Before the full rise of the merchant class, the main source of such funds was from governments, who were looking for new territories and new sources of revenue. It was not altruism that caused Isabella to hock her jewels to fund Chris, but the possibility of gain for Spain.

In the past, companies have also funded research expeditions. Such funding, like that by Subaru today, gains the companies exposure/advertising and can gain them a direct return from what is found, be it material or intellectual treasure. Two separate things have severely restricted this. The first are the changes in the investment and regulatory environments. Whereas in the past companies were willing to invest in long-term research and goals, the rule today is short term gain and profit. This is encouraged by the regulatory environment as well as a large change in the makeup of the investment market. The second is that the government stepped in after WWII and began funding a variety of research programs.

The argument used for the latter was that no one company could afford to do the job, and that no consortium of companies would ever be formed to do it. The primary driver for this was the development by Germany of the jet engine and other advanced research being done. The jet had been largely ignored in the U.S., as had the work of Goddard in rocketry. The profits were quite nice as they were, thank you, and business had not pursued these avenues. Realizing that other countries could surprise us in the same way, the government began funding major science research.

This included aviation and space. NACA became NASA, and NASA has continued to grow. While aviation is definitely the little A in the name, other research had grown tremendously. From initial research into propulsion, materials, and such, NASA has expanded into fundamental research in all scientific disciplines. The basic argument remains that only the government can afford to do this, or is willing to do this. Yet, as shown by Subaru and other companies, this is not entirely true.

This also affects the technology development issue. Again, it is oft argued that it takes a huge government program to create the technology push. Without Apollo and the manned space program there would be no computer revolution. The fallacies in this argument are readily apparent, but it is still made and it is still accepted as gospel by many.

To my mind, one of the largest problems is the difference between the program then and now. Others have pointed out that during the moon race, NASA went and recruited the best and brightest from industry. In other words, these people had real-world experience and this was brought to bear on the problem. Where pure research was needed, they brought in help from academia. That does indeed need to be contrasted to today’s program where the majority of people at NASA have only worked at NASA, and may have even done their education through NASA.

With this, NASA has lost not only the external viewpoint and fertilization of new ideas, but the very diversity of ideas that allowed it to be so flexible in its heyday. Without this, how can even a new major program spur the technology development that we need?

The settlement idea is nice, but is not even the slightest blip on the government radar screen. If you can show a government, any government, how such can expand their territory or resource base, then you might start to get Isabella interested again. Until then, forget it. Settlement will require reliable launch, a good infrastructure, some serious financial backing, people willing to take a chance, and a suitable regulatory environment.

That brings us to the resource utilization concept. Even the most extreme supporter of government involvement will state that this really is a job for private industry. The problem is, that private industry has no way to get there. Given the cost of going through NASA, the NASA paperwork, and the regulatory environment and lack thereof, none are particularly interested. Until this changes, private industry is not going to be willing to consider the idea on any substantive level.

For the sake of argument, I am going to put forward the following ideas of what I want to do and how I think we can best get there from here. To follow-up on another comment from Rand, I agree that the political environment is such that doing away with NASA is not a politically feasible thing to do right now. Had the CAIB report and other things that were percolating in the background prior to Columbia been handled differently, it could have been a slam dunk. With the current lionizing of NASA, and NASA wisely placing its rear end in the laurels of past achievements – most notably Apollo – I think that it will be hard going. It may still be done, but I doubt it.

Even so, I plan to put forward here the seeds of what I think a new organization. This will get fleshed out a bit more in the days ahead, but for now just a bit more of a start.

It is my belief that we should be going to space to do all the things listed above. I do not, however, believe that most of them should be done by or through the government. My proposal is as follows.

First, I do not accept the idea that fundamental research can only be done or funded by the government. What I do accept, however, is that political realities dictate that some sort of push back the frontiers work will have to be done by a government agency for reasons of prerogative, power, and pork. In the days ahead, I plan to outline what I think such an agency should do, should not do, and how it can also harness the power that was behind much of NASA’s real successes – namely the power of business and ideological diversity.

Second, I think most of the rest can and should be done by private industry. What is needed here is a realistic regulatory environment, and a government that will enable and encourage instead of doing everything in its power to stifle. Also in the days ahead I intend to describe a framework, a model for how this can be done.

Third, I want to encourage others to take up this challenge. Don’t just write comments to posts, write major posts yourself on your site or submit same to sites such as mine, Winds of Change, or others. The more ideas, the more models put forward, the better the chance of coming up with an integrated whole that not merely makes sense, but will make good policy as well.

It is your space program, it is your future. It is up to you.

-30-

That I was biased towards NASA was a given, in that a cousin who I much admired worked for them. In fact, he had been recruited out of college by von Braun and worked as a part of his team. He slipped me things along the way, from NASA books and photos, to information that helped with a school project or two. I felt that there was nothing that the team could not do, that NASA would not find a way around.

Yet NASA does not live in isolation. While there is indeed a bureaucratic and moribund culture at NASA, it exists because of the neglect and misuse of the agency by Congress, the White House, and us: the public. It is our agency, and we have largely ignored it. Congress regularly uses the NASA budget for pork, for a political football, and much needed publicity. The White House has in many years ignored it, or used it for its own purposes, such as the Clinton administration’s using the agency to send money to the Russians that could not be sent any other way. Both the executive and legislative branches have also used any problem or failure of any size as an excuse to castigate, pontificate, and otherwise gain media time decrying the current inexcusable failure. The public has hardly been better, often being incited by politicians, the media, or special interest groups to call for torches, tar, and feathers over the most ridiculous of things.

This use and abuse by all sides has contributed to a cautious, timid, and don’t-rock-the-boat culture in the agency. In an agency that is supposed to push the boundaries, develop new technologies, take us to the stars. This is a process where failure is often more important that success, for it is from failures of things that we learn what doesn’t work or doesn’t work as planned. It means doing and saying things that might upset some people, for controversy over ideas is nothing new. Yet, because of the culture that is Washington, it is an agency that is scared to try almost anything new and innovative, from getting out news about science to simply getting into space.

The fact is, however, that NASA truly has gone from a fairly lean can-do agency into a bureaucracy where career maintenance and growing the budget is far more important than doing the job. Personal and program power are driving factors, as is the push to grow Centers and Center budgets no matter what it may do to the official goals of the agency or other parts of same. It is an agency that is very protective of what it regards as its turf, from launch services to science.

The best and the brightest are still drawn to NASA, and I have been privileged to work with a number of people who fall in this category. I have seen them struggle to do the right thing, to make the system work despite itself. And, I have seen the face of the enemy, those who are wedded to a system, the book, or their own personal agendas rather than to the dream and the stated goals of the agency.

The former are, in my opinion, the minority at NASA. NASA has become a moribund culture where any advancement takes not just years, but decades. Technology development is slowed to a crawl, and now almost always features the same people, the same companies, and the same basic ideas. Tremendous amounts of paper are generated, but little else. If you don’t think this is true, take a look at NASA’s efforts to develop a new launch system, and advance the technology to get us into orbit. Look at how many names the program has had, how much paper has been generated, and how little metal has actually been cut. Look very hard at how when failure was hit on some of the technology advances, work stopped and paper took over.

At the same time, NASA has not exactly been a friend to commercial space enterprises. This is particularly true for efforts to develop alternative manned space access. NASA has a great deal invested in being the only way to get people into space, from hardware and infrastructure to an internal culture that claims that only career NASA civil servants can be called astronauts. All those others who fly, or meet the international guidelines for being called such, can not be called such in any NASA publication.

NASA has for years tried to block the development of manned commercial access. Just take a look at the regulatory environment for such and NASA’s role in it. NASA has bitterly resisted any suggestion that any other launch service be used, unless it was completely under their control. There are many other examples, for those who care to go do the homework and look them up.

It’s official support of commercial activities has been limited. Despite various actions by Congress and its own charter, the agency has not been supportive of commercial research and development. Just go take a look at the history of the Space Product Development Program, which has managed to do some very important and good things with industry, for a good example. Take a good look at the so-called commercialization efforts of Dan Tam, or the idea that Headquarters had that companies would pay for large portions of the ISS without being able to display logos or use their sponsorship in advertising. Those ideas were patently ridiculous, obvious to anyone who had any real-world experience, and beloved by top NASA management who should have known better.

The fact is, the current administration has known that NASA has severe problems for some time. The rumor and speculation was that the current Administrator, Sean O’Keefe, was being sent in with a mission. That he was going to give NASA a specific period of time in which to voluntarily fix a number of problems. If that was not done, and I think most observers will agree that it has not taken place, then he was to take more draconian action. Columbia happened just before many suspected that the draconian was to take place. No agency is going to undertake major reorganization and reform under such circumstances, especially when there might be an outside vehicle that could be “blamed” for such changes.

Over the last several years, I have talked with people inside and outside of NASA. These are people who have looked at the programs, the “culture” of NASA and Washington, and where America needs to go, which is into space in a big way. The economic and technical benefits of doing so are more than obvious, they are very well documented in many outside studies. When one looks at the advancements that came out of the early days of NASA, the impact is positively staggering. The modern computer revolution can be easily traced back to Mercury and the earliest programs. There are many more examples that are left as exercises for the student.

We need that driver again. We need to seed the technologies that will drive not just our future, but those of our children. We need the resources of space, from vacuum to raw materials, from energy to the security that can be obtained there. Not just secure locations for critical research or intelligence, but the security that comes from not having all of humanities eggs in one basket.

The problem with truly trying to change a culture from within are the various civil service acts. Even in the face of gross incompetence or just plain laziness, it is effectively impossible to fire a civil servant. Add in unions for lower-ranking workers, and it gets even more interesting. While a directive to reorganize can come down from above, every effort will be made to find people a job elsewhere, meaning that the actual number of people does not significantly change. This is a reason that NASA years ago cut its own throat via brain drain by “encouraging” early retirements and did engage in some reductions in force. The fact is, however, that many of those people came right back as contractor employees.

NASA, and various administrations, have tried the usual tactics for change. These have not been effective. What is needed is something far more profound.

I have come to the conclusion that NASA needs to be abolished. It is the only way to make the substantive changes needed. In talking with others about this, I think that many of the services done by NASA can be given to more appropriate agencies, while a completely new organization can be started to take on the true core functions of NASA.

Space tracking, data and relay, and other functions currently performed by Goddard can easily be integrated into Space Command. Essential launch operations should go to the Air Force. Commercial promotion and development should go to the Department of Commerce, and be directed to make the fullest possible use of commercial launch and development services. All non-essential launch services should be contracted out to truly private launch operations as soon as possible.

Core functions of essential research into aviation and space development can be given to a new, small, agency. This agency will do some research on its own, but should fund as much of that research as possible to be done by private companies. There is some need for government funded, directed, and performed research, but the fact is that much of what is being done could be better done by private industry. Government needs, at best, to nudge and encourage, not to do and control.

As a part of this, cultures other than NASA need to change. Recent testimony to Congress by Elon Musk, Dennis Tito, and others have pointed out the travesty that is the current regulatory environment for commercial space activities. This matter must be addressed and a clear and business friendly environment created. We need to encourage these people, not hamstring them. This means not only removing the roadblocks created by NASA, but by reforming some other agencies as well so that a clear and sensible policy can be created.

None of this will be an easy process. Every special interest group around will clamor and wail, and want their pound of flesh. It will be a way to determine who is a politician and who is a statesman, for the former will want to give away pounds of flesh while the latter will instead look at and try to do what is right. Doing it right in Washington is never easy.

If, as rumor has long indicated, the position of the current administration to do this very thing, then I say let it be done. Let it be done right, and let it be done now. In all the ways that matter, our economic and technological futures depend on it.

The Department of Transportation claimed pride of place, as did the Department of Commerce and NASA. Industry was scared to death that NASA would get it, or would be allowed to effectively control the process elsewhere. If they wrote the regulations, it was a sure bet that the regulations would effectively prohibit private competition, at least according to almost everyone outside of NASA. This did include some people speaking off the record at other agencies.

These other people, along with certain members of Congress and various business interests, had a good point and reason to be concerned. The deck was being quietly stacked against private space companies. The interviews I did were quite interesting, and what was said off the record even more so. To be honest, I was inexperienced enough that a lot of it did not sink in then, and it was only later that I put some of it together.

The other interesting thing was that I could not find an outlet for stories on regulation anywhere. Then again, it was hard to find outlets for space stories period. Aviation Week covered the topic, but they were a closed shop. Newspapers, magazines, and other outlets just were not interested, and particularly not interested in stories about proposed or possible regulations of what was effectively a non-existent industry.

For better and worse, things languished in this mode for a few years, until the Challenger was destroyed. Minor rant, it did not blow up. It broke apart, and there is a heck of a difference. With that loss, Reagan told NASA to suck it up and took the launch monopoly away from it. They have never forgotten this, nor have they truly forgiven it.

The regulation issue did not really change all that much, though, simply because it was mostly satellites and disposable payloads going up. NASA still held the monopoly on manned space flight – until now.

Now, they have competition there as well. Scaled Composites is moving right along, and they have a habit of doing things no one else can or would do, and doing it well. XCOR is also moving along smartly, and they were one of the first companies to come along with a development program that I both liked and of which I approved. Some smart thinking went into it, and it shows. There are a couple of other serious contenders out there, but in my highly biased opinion these two are at the top. For other companies of interest, check out that press release I mentioned earlier.

Regulation is either going to throw open the doors, or it is going to kill the commercial launch industry before it ever has a chance to get off the ground. There will be no middle ground on this.

The right regulations that ensure reasonable safety to those onboard and those on the ground, and limit liability, are essential. This needs to be the minimum amount of regulation possible, as most will come from the companies themselves. They can’t afford a screwup because any such will sink them. They can’t afford to lose vehicles or people, or have something auger in anywhere other than uninhabited desert or ocean. They need reasonable protection from and limitation of damages and such unless the royally screw the pooch. If that happens, they know that it will not only take them out, but the entire industry as well.

The problem is that the regulations being put in place or considered will put a tremendous burden on them. The paperwork burden is staggering enough as it is right now, though typical for government operations. The paperwork to fly on NASA can easily exceed six feet in height, so government types who have no experience in the real world can’t understand why anyone who wants to fly would object to such. That is the way it is done now, after all.

No, its really not. No plane taking off has to fill out reams and reams of paperwork, undergo extensive testing and verification, and take years of effort to do each flight. If this were the case, we would not have an airline industry at all – and we seem to be working hard to kill it as it is.

What is needed for space operations is some common-sense regulation, minimal paperwork, and the same liability limits as given the airlines. So what if it leaves the atmosphere, it is still a flight.

Of great concern to industry right now are the new regulations, er, guidelines developed by NASA recently. I am not sure any NASA vehicle meets these requirements, so there is great concern when it is suggested they may be applied to industry. If we stick industry with the same ridiculous requirements that NASA operates under there will be no industry. NASA wants everything to work perfectly every time, any time, and has had a zero-defect environment in terms of safety. How well it has worked for them is obvious, and the fact that a zero-defect environment is always counterproductive managed to elude Goldin and his managers, and seems to be escaping many currently in management. The horror stories of the safety drive are many, but those are left for a truly enterprising reporter to go dig up, but they are there. Along with the strong drive to make sure nothing becomes a problem or gets identified as such, the inevitable corollary to zero-defect anything.

The fact is, there will be losses just as there are now airliner crashes and accidents. Everyone works to minimize them, and no one seriously suggests grounding all planes everywhere anytime a Piper Cub or a 727 goes down. What is done is to figure out what happened, put out a NOTAM, make any hardware fixes required, and get on with it. Anytime we loose a NASA craft, we take years to go through and try to fix things so that absolute safety is assured.

Face facts. There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Absolute. Safety. Not this side of the grave, at least. It is sad when we lose people, but not the end of the world. Part of the secret of America, and one that everyone foreign or domestic who hates America absolutely can't stand, is that we embrace risk. We always have. Moving here was not a sure thing, and moving out into the wilderness was not a Sunday drive into a park. People died. Towns burned. Caca occureth. We, as individuals and as a nation, accepted that and pressed on. If you really bother to study history, you will find it was embraced and the risk became part of the pleasure. There is no reason we should not continue this tradition as we change frontiers.

And since I know it will come up, yes, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this. I am a licensed pilot, I am working on getting back into full fighting shape, and I am willing to go, risks and all. Do you have the courage to join me?

My own opinion is that NASA should have little or no input to this process. They are at best a tainted witness and at worse highly-motivated partisan with a large financial stake in stacking the deck. Regulating a new industry so that it can get off the ground will be a delicate task, and calls for the lightest possible touch at the start.

You can make a difference on this. Let your congresscritter know how you feel on the issue. Make your letters and calls polite, fact-based, appropriately detailed, and constructive. Provide positive suggestions, positive feedback, and do so within the norms of what passes for civilized behavior in such contacts. If enough people speak up, the regulation can be done in a way to benefit all. It just takes each individual to live up to their responsibilities as a Citizen. Go thou, therefore, and be counted.

-30-

That means, you need to do more than just bash NASA with the standard phrases. What you need to do is list specific issues and items, document the problems with citations and other evidence, and present them to your congresscritters and the White House. You need to provide at the same time, constructive suggestions. This is an area where most organizations and people fail.

It is easy to say something is bad, it needs to go. The hard part is offering something in its place. If you want NASA to go, provide a framework of reasonable suggestions of what should be done in its place. It is not going to get you or your ideas far simply to say “Private industry will do it all.” The waving of the magic wand approach does not hold water, and it will not provide sufficient reason to eliminate an entire agency and its employees.

Instead, you need to say something along the lines of “Launch services can be provided by X, Y, and Z; orbital tracking and control can go to the Air Force; these functions can go to A, B, and C; and regulation of private industry can go to Transportation or Commerce. It is also worth noting that putting in a plan that says “Give me all your propulsion work and I will do it cheaper, faster, and better” won’t get you far either, unless you can provided detailed documentation on exactly how you will do this.

Everyone can, and should, complain. The serious people need to do more, and providing concrete, constructive suggestions is mandatory to being taken seriously. The problems are easy to see, it is finding workable solutions that is difficult. If you can’t provide the latter, then you really are a part of the problem.

It will also help that if you want to take part in debates, be more than a one trick pony. The number of times I have taken part in real or on-line debates where one party has made every response something on the order of “Space is for the people, not the government” is frankly unbelievable. No matter the subject, no matter the citations, this is the only thing some people can come back with. If that is all you can provide, then kindly shut up because you are hurting things a hell of a lot more than you are helping.

Not only are you failing the tests of rational discourse, you are making it easy for the opposition to focus on the trivial. They will, and do, use you and those like you, to marginalize everyone in the debate. They can honestly say that you did not come to debate, that you offer no suggestions or other information of merit, and that such “extremism” is all that is being offered. With that, everyone is dismissed, and rather effectively too.

I will also urge you to “get real.” It is great to talk about all the wonders that lie down the road, from asteroid resources to H3 mining on the moon, but there needs to be a lot more focus on the here and now. Investors do look down the road, but if all you are doing is pointing to a distant peak and saying “when we wave our wand a road will appear and we will be there instantly” you are going to loose them. Look towards that distant peak, but start building the road. At least show them a workable plan for building the road, one that does not depend on dues ex machina and other magic wands to overcome obstacles.

Imagine if you will Lewis and Clark, slightly updated:

“You see that mountain over there? We can pull 20 tons of iron, 5 tons of molybendium, and 3 tons of zinc out of it each day. No EPA regulations, no permits, and the ore can be processed on site using natural energy sources that are right there. All we will have to do is take in what we need to live, some special resources, and a pilot plant. Over there, that peak to the right. We can pull H3 out of it for use on-site and back here. Clean, abundant energy, gotten for pennies on the ton. Over there, to the left, is a plain where we can pull in precious and heavy metals. That valley just before the peaks is perfect for refining and production, and there is no worry about pollution as we can reprocess most of the waste. What isn’t reprocessed or used for building is carried away by the wind. What do you say, Investor?”

“Wow! This is great. You found all this in your preliminary surveys?”

“Yep. Here are the reports from our probes and on-site explorations. It maps it all out, provides quantities, what it will take to get the stuff out, and then to process it.”

“This is fantastic! How long will it take to get this going?”

“No time at all. Once we have your investment, the road will be there and we will get cracking.”

“The road will be there? What do you mean? Isn’t there already a road?”

“Well, no. Only a trail right now, that is why we need your investment.”

“Okay, well then, how long will it take to build the road? Who will build it?”

“Companies will come out of the woodwork to do this job and be a part of it. Once we have the money, they will come.”

“Really. Well, can I look at the plan for the road? There sure are some steep cliffs and deep rivers between here and there.”

“Well, there really isn’t one. We know that the companies will have their own and they will work.”

“Oh. So, you don’t have even a picture of where you want to start, much less a plan with milestones for this road? No surveys to be sure it can be built?”

“Well, no. We just sort of figured that we will wing it.”

“So, for this I gave up my lunch at Spago? You have wasted my time on a dream with no practical way in mind to make it happen? Good day!”

This really is what has been put forward too many times. The potential is out there, but a practical way to get there is needed. Unless and until a practical plan is put forward, you are not going to get the money for the road.

So, if you want to be serious and taken seriously, start matching your words with actions. Do more than just talk, start providing real information. Provide documentation, suggestions, and plans. Plans that are realistic, have valid waypoints, and clear opportunities and benefits for all. Then, and only then, will things get taken seriously.

-30-

There were a host of promises made by NASA and others when the Shuttle came online, of a new era of research, development, and production. The problem is that launch schedules could not be met and that a reliable schedule could not be developed. For both fundamental researchers and commercial researchers, it often took years to get an experiment flying. While this may be acceptable in the academic community, it is completely unacceptable for commercial research. Companies need to do research now, not five years from now. They need a firm schedule, they need fixed costs, and they need reliability.

Despite the problems, commercial research has made it up on NASA through the Space Product Development Program. Yet, despite its many successes, and proven leverage that has consistently been above a 2:1 ratio, the program may well be killed.

So what?

NASA has never been a true supporter of the commercialization of space despite legal mandates. NASA-funded researchers and the research community at NASA Headquarters have never seen commercial research as a positive, only an enemy. Many would rather see research programs and efforts die rather than switch to using commercial hardware. This despite the fact that commercial researchers recognized the need to automate and reduce crew time years ago, that they have proven systems, and that it can indeed do the job. The fact remains that they would rather spend millions or hundreds of millions to develop a facility that will be of limited use or one-time use instead of using fully-capable and adaptable off-the-shelf commercial hardware.

The NIH syndrome is not limited to just one area of NASA. One NASA center is developing entirely new plant growth hardware, rather than use the proven commercial hardware. The reasons given for this are specious, in my opinion, but a quick look at the budget, jobs provided the center, and other such things does give one some ideas of why it is needed.

Nor is NASA management much better. The previous administrator talked commercialization, but the focus was on finding companies to pay for what NASA wanted to do, rather than what industry wanted to do. These efforts, along with the major commercial achievements of the man brought in to oversee them, fell flat because they focused on NASA and not on industry. Current management is all for starting new programs, with JSC continuing to be the tail wagging the dog, while throwing out all that has been obtained.

Make no mistake, a great deal has been accomplished. Some areas of research have not panned out, but many others have been identified. There are quite a few areas that industry might be willing to pay a reasonable price to explore, provided that they can get the right price, a reliable launch schedule, and the right access. The commitments made to and through the Space Product Development prove this in the only way that matters: cash and in-kind contributions. Industry is willing to pony up if approached in the right way and in support of industry’s reasons.

Since NASA appears to be at best lukewarm, if not in full opposition, how then can the markets be identified and explored?

First, build on what has been done. The Commercial Space Centers funded by NASA have developed reliable and capable hardware that has been proven in flight. It is designed for low power consumption, minimal space requirements, high automation, and other positive attributes. There is a good base of data from the commercial research, some of which is not proprietary. That which is would suggest some markets to go after. Even if NASA were to kill the program, the expertise, hardware, and such may then be available on the market.

If NASA doesn’t kill the program, that expertise and such is still there, and the centers will have a strong incentive to work with private launch companies as a means of generating additional revenue streams.

Second, there has to be a way to make money at getting the data that will identify and open up new commercial markets. It may be as a “marriage broker” between researchers, research centers, and launch companies. It may well be something else. The fact is that what little data there is suggests strongly several very promising avenues for commercial exploration and exploitation. If anyone wants to talk to me about this idea, or in finding what they need, just give me a call.

Launch companies need to be taking a hard look at this. Satellites are not a good business model, it needs to be broader. The fact is that a company that can provide reliable access to short-, medium-, and long-duration microgravity is going to have a very nice competitive edge. There are paying customers who want and need this service at a good price. A company that would be willing to put a bit into providing something like a KC-135 flight, and can provide other access as well can and will get the research market.

It is also important to remember that volume is not really the issue, yet. The most important thing to come from commercial research will be the data, followed by samples. This does not necessarily require the space equivalent of a 747, it can be done on a smaller scale for now.

A space operations company is also viable in this environment. It has been proven that a good bit of commercial research needs longer times on orbit. Automated stations would work for some of the initial research, and crewed stations can come later. As long as data remains the primary product, many things are possible.

Moon and asteroid mining, energy collection, on-orbit manufacturing, and other such things are nice and laudable goals, but they are pipe dreams as far as the investment community is concerned. They are unproven and unprovable for the foreseeable future. What is needed to get there and make them viable are established commercial launch and service companies. Getting those companies funded as they should be funded requires existing markets with proven investments and investment opportunities.

The fact is that there is a market for commercial research in space and microgravity, even if it is currently limited to helping prove or disprove possibilities. The true potential for commercial research and commercial development remains to be determined. In doing this, the potential is there for people to make money on the initial exploration, and to clean up on what pans out.

While the foundation has not truly been laid for this, there is at least a cornerstone. What is needed now is for private companies to step forward and seize the opportunity. From that foundation, real space industrialization can be built.

-30-

For those just coming into this, go back and read the previous posts (here, here, here, and here) for the basics on microgravity and the effects of gravity. They apply to other things as well, and as it turns out they have a profound and unsuspected impact on plants. Most NASA-funded research had focused simply on if plants could grow in space, and not on much else. It took commercial research to break away from the fundamentals and look at such things as flavors, fragrances, and if things could grow from seed to seed.

Today, we are just going to look at flavors and fragrances, both because it is a fun subject and because it is a tremendous area of commercial potential. The fun is obvious, and for the commercial potential all you have to do is go and do some fairly basic research. Look at the figures on how much is spent on cosmetics each year. Look at how much is spent on perfumes and fragrances separate from cosmetics. Then look up as best you can how much is spent on flavorings. Can you say billions and avoid the temptation to avoid saying bill-yuns and bill-yuns? I knew you could.

Yet, this is a bit of a trick question. Most of the major flavor and fragrance houses are privately held operations. This means no Dun and Bradstreet, SEC filings, or other standard sources of information. From what I have found, and what others have reported, however, it appears that no matter how you divide things up, flavors and fragrances is a multi-billion dollar-a-year industry in the U.S. alone, much less world-wide.

So it should be no surprise that commercial research from this sector got a hostile reception at NASA HQ. No one there took it seriously, and it is still the subject of ridicule in some uninformed quarters of headquarters. Unlike other commercial research, which simply had to show the money, what you are going to read had to show spectrographic and other data to convince the bureaucrats to take them seriously.

This began because of a discovery made, not surprisingly, outside of NASA. In the course of any research you do something called a literature check. That is to say, you decide to be smart and see if anyone has done any research and publication on a topic before you go too far. In this case, researchers at International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF) realized in doing a literature check that none of the fundamental researchers funded by NASA – or any other space agency apparently – had ever checked to see what happened to the essential oils in plants in space.

Essential oils provide all flavor and fragrance. Period. This makes them of strong interest to any flavor and fragrance producer, much less to end users like parfumiers, food companies, etc. As a side note that seemed to escape the attention of a lot of boffins and bureaucrats, it also makes a heck of a difference in how foods taste, as subject of no small importance to astronauts. In other words, no one had ever thought to check to see if plants grown in space for food would even taste good.

Once the people at IFF had made this discovery, they began working to do an experiment to get an answer. Now this was an interesting process, given the intensely competitive nature of this business and the corresponding need for secrecy. The did persevere, however, and flew an experiment on STS-95.

Until three days before launch, I could not tell you much about the experiment. The secrecy clauses IFF needed prevented that, and it is one of the few times in the history of NASA that not all information on an experiment was freely available to anyone who wanted to look. You had to actually, gasp, sign non-disclosure agreements and do other things to see it. This was new and troubling to some at NASA, but supporting commercial research does require such.

What they flew as a rose. A special rose with a well-documented scent. The hypothesis was that they would get a shift in the scent, as the essential oil shifted a bit in response to the changes that took place in the plant because of microgravity. For those that don’t know it, there are a large number of such shifts that take place in any living organism.

In animals, such as humans, the most obvious is the shift of fluids in the body. The next time there is a launch, ours, theirs, or anyone, take a look at the crew as the obligatory march to the vehicle is shown on TV. They look perfectly normal. The trick is, find a shot of them a day or two after launch. The polite term is chipmunk cheeks, which is a fair descriptor of the bloated and puffy faces you will see. This is because all of the fluids in the body that are normally pulled down by gravity have been released. The net result is that they move up, causing the puffiness and bloating, and this continues until the body gets rid of the “excess” fluid.

Plants go through similar changes. Normally, plants are gravitropic, which is a fancy way of saying the roots go down and the plant grows up in response to gravity’s pull. In microgravity, they become phototropic, meaning the plant will grow towards a light and the roots vaguely away from it. Want to have some fun? Move the light around. There is a lot more to this, but the simple explanation will do for now.

IFF expected to get, at best, just a shift in the essential oil, and therefore in the fragrance. Even a slight shift would have been great, since the shift could then be the subject of a combinatorial chemistry exercise to rapidly profile thousands of potential changes based off that shift. Instead, I regret to say they did not get a shift.

They got an entirely new scent, one the rose had never before produced on Earth. Talk about hitting a home run…

The largest problem, other than convincing the doubting Thomas’s at NASA HQ, was that the next possible flight for them was almost five years away. That is the way the commercial ball bounces, sort of, at NASA. Even so, IFF was ecstatic. The new scent was quite nice, and in my highly biased viewpoint a much nicer scent. The ground-based scent was thick and cloying to me, while the space-based scent was light, crisp, and clean.

That particular scent has found its way into a perfume or two, and even was reported to show some potential as a flavor enhancer, like a spice can be. Not bad for a simple experiment to get pretty much a yes or no answer. Yes, it would produce a shift. No, it would not produce a shift.

So, is this the magic bean that will open up the beanstalk of commercial space operations? Maybe. Again, there has only been the one successful experiment. The follow-on experiment was on STS-107. No other similar commercial research has been done.

Is there a tremendous amount of potential here? You bet there is. Is this an area a commercial space operation should consider? Yes.

For more information on plants and commercial plant research in space, go here.

-30-

One of the many miracles today are artificial joints and bones. Wear, tear, disease, and more would previously have crippled people even 20 years ago. Instead, we know routinely replace joints, strengthen with pins, and do other things to restore almost full mobility to those afflicted by man or nature.

The wonders of the age are not yet enough for us, nor are they for the physicians who heal us or for the researchers who want to do more. Wondrous as they are, today’s bone replacement materials have a limited lifetime of about 10 years on average. Most are solid metal, providing mass and density differences that can have catastrophic effects on patients. It is not a good thing to place something in the bone that can split or shatter it. Nor is it terribly nice to have adhesion lost, and a replacement part come out all at once.

What will satisfy one and all are replacements that will be as bone, or will simply provide a scaffold on which the body can repair itself. For the short term, industrial researchers are seeking a lifetime replacement material that will have greater strength than natural bone without the mass and density differences of solid metal replacements. For the longer term, they seek materials that will dissolve as the body replaces them with natural bone. They will simply provide a temporary framework for the real work of repair.

Some of the more promising materials for the short term are metallic ceramic compounds. These can have great structural strength, are porous so that mass and density differences are minimized or eliminated, and can and will last a lifetime. Processed in gravity, they are porous but it is in essence a series of layers instead of a true multi-cellular porosity. Interestingly enough, when processed in the absence of gravity, the porosity in these materials changes from layers of chambers to an open system that is almost identical to that of natural human bone.

Needless to say, this has captured the attention of commercial researchers. Experiments have been run on the KC-135, and experiments were scheduled for STS-107, Columbia. Much more commercial research is planned for the ISS.

The data to date has been extremely promising, and the combustion synthesis method of processing a very large success. In fact, it was promising to the point that Guigne International developed the first ever commercial research facility for space without NASA funding. Space-DRUMS® is a containerless facility devoted to materials research and production in microgravity. Despite this, it really is not intended as a full-scale production center. Instead, what it does is produce samples and small components for study.

Such studies are important, as the drive is not to produce bone replacement or other advanced materials and biomaterials in space, but to allow them to be produced on the ground. If researchers can determine how to trigger the porosity that is almost identical to natural human bone on the ground, it would allow custom “parts” to be fabricated essentially in the operating room. This has numerous advantages, not the least of which is that because it is a high-temperature event, the final product is sterile when produced, eliminating a source of complications.

So, again, we are not looking at a material product being produced in space, though that is again a possibility. What we find is another case where the data is the key to this. It will be the data that helps researchers identify the trigger for the change in porosity, and will allow them to determine if it can be forced to occur in a one gravity field.

No magic bullets yet, no material goods that can only be produced in space, but a good start. There is a potential for a product or products, but we are not there yet. A commercial company, however, has identified another potential avenue of commercial development not dependent on the government.

-30-

To be honest, casting is not something that has riveted the attention of most people. You pour stuff into molds, and out come the products. It is also a gravity-dependent operation, since gravity is the driving force that causes the molten materials to flow in and fill the mold.

Yet, microgravity may well play a key role in the next generation of metal casting. The catch is that none of the casting will be done in space, but strictly on the ground.

Unlike many ventures, the improved products come about because of improved computer modeling and operations on the ground. What does come from space is accurate data to go into the model.

The most sophisticated computer model in the world will turn out garbage if that is what is placed in it. The better the data, the better will be the results produced by the model. Computer modeling is the key to improved casting, since it takes away much of the “art” and guesswork that is the backbone of the industry. It allows more complex shapes to be done, new or improved alloys to take the place of less-effective but traditional materials, and holds the key to reducing production wastage.

Simple molds are not a problem for casting. You basically pour, fill, and go. But stop and take a look at the items around you. How many of them are truly simple shapes? Modern equipment and items are requiring increasingly complex shapes. Designing these parts, the molds for them, and the casting process to create them is taking equally increasingly sophisticated computer models.

Modern alloys and composites such as metallic ceramics are pushing the edge of the art. The new materials provide many improvements over older and better known materials, but there is not yet a knowledge base for them within the industry. Knowing precisely what they will do, when, where, and how in the process is critical.

Production wastage is another key factor. The parts that don’t make it because of voids, fissures, or other deformities are a cost, a burden on production. The more you can reduce or even eliminate these defective parts, the less the cost of production.

The key to all of this is having good data on the thermophysical properties of the alloy or metal in question. You need to know such things as the viscosity, the thickness of the molten metal, and the surface tension so that you know how is it going to flow into the mold, how fast it will flow, how will it stick to the sides of the mold, how fast will it start to set up, etc. Trying to get this data on the ground is difficult at best. I have likened it in the past to trying to get the temperature of a very squirmy three-year-old, and doing it through a thick curtain to boot.

Once again, the effects of gravity make it difficult to get accurate readings. You have convection, buoyancy-driven flows, and other factors impeding your efforts. And once again, in microgravity you have a very quiescent environment that makes it easier to get not merely accurate data, but precise data. The greater the precision, the better it is for you.

A number of companies, including Ford, have invested in microgravity casting research. Ford, as a matter of fact, had considerable success with their research. The best news of all is that research has been done in microgravity, though not in space. For some alloys, it is possible to get precise data onboard a KC-135 flight. The Vomit Comet provides 7-20 seconds of microgravity in each arc, such that data can be taken on a molten sample. This is done by “thumping” it and observing the oscillations and from that determining a variety of parameters. Multiple arcs means multiple measurements, which means improved precision.

Now, not all data can be collected on such a flight, so a facility is planned for the ISS to do this type of commercial research. If all goes well, it could mean some significant improvements to the metal casting industry.

Yet, finding commercial backers for this work is not easy. Most casting companies are true “mom-and-pop” shops, with five or less employees. They can’t afford large amounts of money for research, if any at all. In this case, however, there was and is an innovative option: The American Foundry Society. They have partnered with a Commercial Space Center (or whatever name NASA HQ has changed it to this week on a whim) on behalf of their member companies. They are funding research proposals, such that the data will be made available to all members.

This is a very unique arrangement that bears some serious consideration. Many companies may can benefit from research or operations in space, but lack the resources to fund the work by themselves. Yet, by pooling resources through a professional organization that can select appropriate research and fund it for all members, much can be done.

So, while again there are no products per se identified, there is a field that has benefited from such. There is a great deal of potential here for further research and operations. Also, a new model for operations and research funding has been identified. The data being gathered is quite valuable, and again provides an avenue for further development.

For more information on metal casting, go here.

-30-

That’s right, microbe poop. The drugs are the waste products of microbes, given off in a process of fermentation. This method is used to produce a wide variety of pharmaceuticals, so needless to say anything that has to do with improving this process is of strong interest to drug producers.

According to published information, even a one percent increase in the efficiency of this process would mean millions of dollars in costs savings each year. This translates into higher profits, lower drug costs, and other good and wonderful things.

Now, a fact about the microgravity environment aboard orbiting spacecraft that is not well known is that microbes love microgravity. They thrive in it. This fact fills the boffins with glee, provides commercial researchers with interest, and drives the crew health and safety people bonkers. Because the microbes are so prolific and enthusiastic, it means that keeping the environment healthy can be a challenge.

While the fundamental researchers are wondering why, commercial researcher have a slightly different take on things. They want to know “How can we make this happen on the ground?” Not because they want an unhealthy world, but because this applies to microbial fermentation as well.

Bristol-Myers Squibb has funded commercial research on this topic through BioServe(WARNING: Annoying enlarging homepage). While the initial research was extremely promising, follow-on research has not enjoyed the same success. This does not mean that the area is unproductive, but rather that they have not enjoyed a 200 percent increase in efficiency in every experiment. That’s right, a 200 percent increase is the peak experienced so far. Now, go back and take a look at what I wrote about a one percent increase in the efficiency and what that would mean for drug production.

Before you get too excited, this does NOT mean that drug production is an immediate commercial venture for a space company. The number of experiments is very limited, both because of a lack of flights and a lack of commercial research opportunities on those flights. Commercial investigators do see promise in this, but for now the real commercial value is in the data.

As with many things, it is developing an understanding of what is actually occurring, why it is occurring, and how to apply the data that is the money shot. At current launch rates, current costs for space onboard ISS – especially given that it has no competition – and the projected near-term developments, actually producing drugs in space is not viable.

What is viable is the research. Going and doing the studies, and finding ways to apply that knowledge on the ground is where industry is willing to invest. If there were an opportunity for a company or companies to be able to fly this type of research on a more timely basis, at the same or lower cost than they currently are paying, would there be interest? One would think so.

Yet, for all the promise that this seems to hold, it is not the only possibility for commercial research. BioServe is also pursuing commercial research into the effectiveness of antibiotics in microgravity. It stands to reason that if microbes are so prolific in space, then this would be a good place to test antibiotic effectiveness.

Another company that has taken advantage of the microbe in microgravity is PentaPure. This company designs and develops water purification systems that can be used by customers ranging from individual hikers to small municipalities. While at NASA, I had the chance to meet and work with these people, and their enthusiasm for commercial space research was contagious.

There was, of course, the obvious reason: if they tested a system in space and it worked there, then it would really work down on Earth. The better it worked up there in a microbe-friendly environment, the better it would be here.

The fun thing about it was, however, that this was not the only reason for their enthusiasm. Yesterday, I wrote about all the effects of gravity and how they affected crystal growth. The same things also affect the ability of scientists to study many other things, including water purification.

In microgravity, the company had been able to examine without interference what happened to a fluid as it passed through the system. In this way, they learned what worked, why it worked, what didn’t work, why it didn’t work, and then they could use this information to design improved or new systems. They could then test these ideas on a small scale in microgravity to see if they really worked.

Similar results can be found for various aspects of tissue engineering and cell culturing that make use of microbes. The biomedical aspects are promising as well.

So, we have some initial very promising research. The data from this commercial research is valuable, and this value may well translate into monetary value for the companies. Is it a stand-alone commercial venture? Not yet, but as with yesterday there is the start of a good foundation, proven hardware and expertise, and the basis for further research and development.

Again, a commercial launch or operations company would find this to be a good part of a business plan. If results continue to be good and promising, it may well be a very fertile field for exploitation.

-30-

For many years, actually centuries, the development of new medicines was a haphazard process. Something was found to work, then someone would change the dosage, change the composition, and also check to see if it would work on other things. While medicine did advance, it was at a price and in many cases the cure wound up being worse than the disease.

In the last quarter of the last century, a new approach was begun that stands to revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry. Rather than do what was in effect somewhat random combinatorial chemistry, researchers realized that they had the technical and computational tools to adopt an entirely new approach to drug design.

All biological processes, healthy or disease-based, depend on proteins. If one can determine the structure of a protein, you can learn how it does, or does not, function. They key to determining the structure of a protein is to grow a pure, nearly perfect organic crystal and determine its precise molecular structure.

Once this crystal is obtained, it is subjected to an intense beam of X-rays, which are recorded for scattering. Using the pattern created by the X-rays, researchers can then precisely plot the position of each molecule, if not the individual atoms. With the structure complete, it is then possible to identify the active sites that cause the particular protein to work. For more detailed information on this process, please go here.

By designing compounds to bind with that active site, it is then possible to create drugs that will either help the protein do its job, or block it from operating. By helping, drugs can be developed that will assist the protein with doing a positive function. By blocking, you prevent operations that are harmful to an organism.

This means that the drugs are much more effective in doing their work, and that side effects are minimized because the drugs only work with a particular protein. Since few other proteins have that same form of active site, the drug has very little to do with any other part of the body. The net result are drugs that are extremely effective and safe.

The problem with this process has been in the growing of the protein crystals. At extremely small sizes, the crystals can have a near perfect structure. Such crystals are, however, extremely hard to analyze even with the most powerful cyclotrons in the world. While it is possible to grow some proteins larger at acceptable quality, many proteins that are of interest have not been able to be produced on the ground.

The problem is gravity. Everyday, you see the problems around you. Sugar settles to the bottom of your tea, demonstrating sedimentation. Water forms a rolling boil, demonstrating convection. Cold drafts come under doors, demonstrating buoyancy-driven flows. Gravity also pulls down on structures of all types, from proteins to building frames, causing them to be less than perfect. All of these things combine to hamper the growth of protein crystals that are large enough for study, yet have as perfect a structure as possible. Complicating this further is the fact that some proteins may have more than one structure, and getting the desired one to grow can be quite a challenge.

Early on, it was suggested that microgravity would provide a solution to this problem. As a result, protein crystal growth experiments have been a staple on spaceflights. As with many predictions, reality was somewhat at variance.

It was discovered that some proteins grew more rapidly in microgravity, to the point that they had degraded by the time the Shuttle landed, just as a fruit will ripen and rot. Other crystals grew at a much slower rate than on the ground, such that a two-week shuttle flight was not sufficient time. Also, the stresses of landing and handling were problematic.

Yet, a great deal of useful data has been collected. A number of proteins have been analyzed in a detail and perfection never before obtained. Basic research data that is helping determine which proteins are likely to grow at a given rate has been obtained, and a number of advances in protein crystallography, as it is known, have been made.

Nor does the list stop there. The hardware to grow protein crystals in space or on the ground has been advanced significantly as well. Efforts to develop an X-ray facility that can fly in space has resulted in a far brighter beam that can now be produced by a unit that uses much less power and takes up much less space has been developed for use in ground-based labs. Other analysis, cell cloning, and related techniques have been advanced as well.
So, is structure-based drug design a ready-made venue for space commercialization? Not yet, but it is extremely promising.

As with so many things, the data gathered in all the spaceflights is only a fraction of one percent of the data that has been gathered on the ground. From that data, it appears that microgravity research may well be a strong part of any commercial space operations, but there are some hurdles that must be overcome.

The first is reliable and frequent access to space. Until such time as these experiments can fly on a regular basis, many of the promises will remain promising hypotheses. There is a great deal more data that needs to be obtained on the kinetics of protein crystal growth in microgravity before a decision can truly be made.

The second is in being able to do analysis while in microgravity. This means that an automated system for collecting the crystals, determining which ones are optimal for study, then analyzing them is required. The good news here is that such a system has been developed, including an X-ray source that is brighter than most conventional units at a fraction of the volume and power requirements has been developed. The bad news is that industry is not yet willing to step forward and provide the money needed to build and fly such a unit on the International Space Station.

Industry has stepped forward and funded a great deal of commercial protein crystal growth research in space, providing millions of dollars of cash and in-kind contributions. This level of support, which has been in place for a number of years, is indicative of serious interest in this effort by the private sector. Such support is exactly the type of thing that the investment community is looking for when they evaluate commercial proposals.

There is a great deal of proven hardware and expertise available for use by companies, as well as a foundation of previous research necessary to attract both paying customers and commercial investment. This does make for a very attractive package for someone looking for a viable commercial scenario. If a facility were developed and kept in orbit, the samples would not necessarily require large amounts of volume or weight to transport, and the end product would be data that could be beamed down to the ground without the need for transportation.

So, while it is not something that can carry a commercial effort all by itself, and is not yet fully proven as a commercial venture in space, structure-based drug design and protein crystallography are promising areas of near-term interest. A commercial launch or operations company would do well to consider this area as a part of its business plan.

For information on commercial protein crystal growth operations at NASA, go here.

-30-

First, I am going to duck for now discussion on NASA, its problems, its reduction or elimination, and other considerations. First, like it or not, NASA is here and it is going to be here for a while longer. It has made some haphazard efforts at commercialization, and it has laid some important groundwork for commercialization. No matter how anyone feels about it, it does no good to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Instead, what I am going to concentrate on for now are the possibilities for commercial activities, citing what commercial research has been done and look at the potential. Once I have worked through a number of different areas, then the discussions will go back towards the best way to get there.

Aside from tourism, there are three immediate possibilities for commercial operations in space: Products, Data, and Services. Most people will agree on this with no debate, but what are the “good” items and ideas is the subject of considerable debate.

In approaching this, I want to look at it from the point of view of a business. When a business begins to look at a new venture, there are several steps to the process. The idea is brought forward, it is explored within a limited budget and framework, prototyped, evaluated as to cost-effectiveness and cost per unit, potential sales estimated, and then and only then does the project move beyond small scale.

A large problem with many discussions of space commercialization is that they ignore this basic process. They also ignore the simple fact that for all the years we have technically been a spacefaring race, the actual amount of time spent doing any sort of substantive research in space can be literally measured in days, not years and really not even months.

In America, the shuttle can only go up for about two weeks, rockets for minutes or days, and the International Space Station is yet a very limited opportunity. Within any flight, you have to allow time for launch, preparations to start, time to end, and landing. This means that out of a two week mission, you loose one to two days on each end. In Russia, the same applies to rockets and the various space stations over the years have again been limited opportunities for commercial research.

Time is not the only problem. There are constraints on volume, the size of the hardware has to fit in limited space. Often, this is limited to the size of one or two middeck locker units. NASA will rent you a full rack on the ISS, but the price is literally sky high.

Power is another constraint. The one thing everyone fights over is the limited power supply available on orbit. The amount of power that is available for research has finite limits that are much lower than most people would believe. If one experiment is making a heavy draw on power, no other experiment can do so at the same time. The rationing of power is a major issue for research.

Mass is, of course, an issue. There is only a limited amount that can be carried on any craft. One of the reasons for the Columbia mission was that every other flight was dedicated to ISS resupply and construction, which placed severe limits on research that could be flown on any given mission. The ISS supplies took up not only volume, but a large chunk of the mass that was available.

Stowage is yet another issue. It is rare that most experiments are truly self-contained. Almost every experiment has multiple samples, tools, and other items that have to be stowed external to the actual hardware. This takes up storage space and volume, as well as mass allowances. Power can also be a problem if the samples have to be stored at other than ambient temperature.

Crew time is the final issue. No matter where it flies, most payloads involve some crew interaction. Many experiments have involved extensive crew involvement, from mixing to loading, monitoring to changeout. The amount of crew time needed is a limiting factor, from payload selection to operations. The lack of a larger crew on ISS is one of the prime limiting factors for research operations at this time.

Now, you have to factor in other things as well when examining commercial research in space. There have been a number of investigations flown over the years. Take a good look at how many are sponsored by NASA for fundamental science investigations. Look at how many have been sponsored by another agency for the same purposes. Take a look at the number of such experiments flown on any given platform or mission, and compare it to the commercial research being flown.

The amount of time that has been available to commercial research is, to be polite, limited. Yet, there has been a variety of such research flown under the Space Product Development Program. Leaving aside for now the whole issue of NASA involvement, let’s concentrate instead on the results and what they can mean for real commercialization.

That this program has been successful cannot be debated. Companies have put significant amounts of cash and in-kind contributions into the program; ideas have been explored, and around twenty products are on the market that come from the preparations for research as well as the actual research. These are not spinoffs, but rather spinons. Rather than taking NASA technology and moving it out, they have brought technology into space, or have used research for or in space and microgravity to develop new products and technology independent of NASA research efforts.

This has served as a testbed for determining areas that can benefit from private research and operations in space and microgravity. It covers a broad range of applications, and we are going to explore many of the ones I have seen to be very promising, or at least interesting.

I am not yet sure how I am going to organize this, since some areas may well provide data, products, and services. What I hope to do is explore the business areas involved, look at what has been done, and what might could be done if commercial launch and service operations were available.

Over the next few days and weeks, we will examine areas, look at the data that is available, and deal with the proven facts rather than conjecture and emotions. There will, of course, have to be some conjecture, but it will be based on results and in the form of hypotheses. The advantage to that is that hypotheses can be proven or disproven with experimentation. Conjecture, wishes, and WAGS can’t.

The result, I hope, will be to start a new series of discussions here and elsewhere on the true range of possibilities for commercial operations in space.

-30-

Second, I am largely going to ignore NASA in this post. There will be some discussion, but the real drivers towards a thriving commercial space industry, launch, orbital, and beyond, have little or nothing to do with NASA. While the part of me that is libertarian tends to agree with those who say NASA and the government should have no role, such thinking is extremely simplistic and unrealistic. The fact is, NASA is here and it has the potential to be the 800 pound gorilla of the piece. To wish such away is sheer fantasy. It is far better to face the fact that it is here, and figure out how to deal with it and how to make it useful for as long as it is here.

Third, I am going to take the position that technology is not the true driver. I will even go so far as to say that the exact technologies developed are largely irrelevant to the process. What matters is that the appropriate technologies will be developed as needed, and can be developed in a reasonable time frame from today if the key issue is addressed.

That key issue is where most discussions on this topic fail. If you want to have some fun, and prove a point, go to almost any space advocacy discussion and try to address any issue other than technology. No matter what the subject is at the start, the conversation or posts will turn rapidly and speedily away from the topic and focus in on technology. I am even willing to bet that if comments are left to this post, that they will tend to focus on technology, and not the true subject of the piece.

Why this is, I suspect, is because many of the people who are interested into going into space are of a scientific bent of one form or another, which focuses on technology and related advancement to solve any problem. Many grew up on Star Trek and later shows, almost all of which focus on technological solutions to problems. Indeed, that is pretty much the only option in that universe, given that money has been done away with, perfect utopian communism established (as opposed to Soviet- and Chinese-style socialism), and the Ferengi are used to represent capitalism. The bias implicit in that is left as an exercise for the reader.

Yet, it is to capitalism that we must turn if space is to truly be commercialized. Governments around the world have not produced truly new launch technology in almost 50 years. The Shuttle and Big Dumb Boosters (BDB) that are expendable all still use the same basic technology as was developed by the Germans at Penemunde. True, there have been refinements and even a few advancements in both solid and liquid technology, but the basic systems remain the same. Current efforts to develop new systems and technologies by government agencies are stymied by a myriad of factors.

That leaves private industry, and there the field is littered with broken dreams. From Blackhorse to Roton, promising technology that has failed to live up to its potential is scattered across the landscape. Yet, in many cases, it can be and should be argued that this is not the fault of the technology itself. The fault lies with the companies, and with many advocacy groups, who were so wrapped up in technology that they failed to consider the key issue: commercialization.

What is a commercial activity? It is an effort to make money by a company through a product, service, or technology. It is a truism of business that it takes money to make money. If you go and peruse the press releases of almost any commercial space effort, particularly those that failed, there is one root cause to the failure: the inability to secure adequate funding.

Was and is this the fault of government? No, it was and is not. The failure lies in the mindset behind most past and current efforts at space commercialization. The mindset focuses on technology, and ignores the business side of the equation. That is to be expected when most of the people involved, be they in start-up companies, the government, or with advocacy groups, approach the problem as a technological issue.

An exercise for the reader: Go do a search on business plans for any given commercial space launch venture, past or current. Take a look at that plan and look to where they plan to make money. Odds are, that they are looking at either satellite launches, or in the far-reaching plans, at some form of space tourism.

Another exercise for the reader: Go take a look at any study on space commercialization, be it one authorized by NASA or some outside source such as a space advocacy group. What do all of these studies focus on as the major source of income for a commercial launch company? Five will get you ten that it is satellite or related launches, and with more recent ones adding space tourism.

Now, go take a look at the total number of satellite launches each year. Take a look at projections for satellite and related launches each year for the next 10 or so years. Take a hard look at space tourism, and how many people can currently afford it and how low the price per pound to orbit will have to drop before it becomes a truly effective source of revenue.

The hard fact is that such a market is not going to really support one company independent of government support, be it in the form of launching satellites for the government or other direct and indirect subsidies. You can pretty much forget supporting multiple independent companies.

The true failure of space commercialization is that there has never been a viable business plan and commercial model for operations. The dream has been that if you build the technology, they will come. That may well be, and the stars the ultimate field of dreams. The reality is, however, that no one is going to provide the financing necessary for the dream.

Venture capital funds, investment banks, seed and venture funds, and angel networks all have one thing in common: They give out funds to make money. Talk to any of them and they will tell you that they are not looking for a twenty percent return on investment, but a two hundred percent return where possible. All these groups work on this basis, and while each has a specialty niche that they fill in the process, the bottom line for them is a realistic business plan that shows at least the potential for a significant return on their time and investment.

Without a realistic business model, people are not willing to invest in space technology development plans. While there are some sources of investment for space activities, such as SpaceVest, those funds are quite limited in comparison to the normal market.

So, what will it take to get the interest of the greater range of investment sources? In simplest terms, it means showing that there is a broader market for commercial space activities than satellite and related launches. It means developing realistic business opportunities in space that engage the full range of industry. You need to show multiple avenues of business, activities that extend far beyond tossing things out into orbit.

How then does one do this? NASA, ESA, and other governmental agencies have long funded research in a variety of scientific disciplines. It is an effort mired in controversy and a great deal of discussion, with some of the most serious attacks on the results and effectiveness of same coming from those who feel that funding of that research is taking away from their funding. When evaluating the claims and counterclaims, remember that both sides may be after the same limited resources and evaluate accordingly.

Fundamental or basic research is fine, but it is applied research that moves industry. NASA and other agencies have developed grand plans for major industry participation in space ventures. All such agencies have a price list, a very high price list, for entire facilities to be dedicated to such efforts. To date, no one has come forward with the massive amounts of money those agencies desire to get for such dedication. Again, such unrealistic planning, often by those with little or no experience in private industry, is a field of dreams approach.

What has worked are smaller facilities, often shared between companies, that have been made available for reasonable fees. NASA’s Space Product Development Program has clearly demonstrated this approach, and begun the process of developing the customer base needed by a commercial launch industry. Yet, this program too has problems, both internal to NASA and a culture that is inimical to commercial research, and external from those that see it as a threat rather than an asset.

If space commercialization is to succeed, what is needed is a bridge. The idea behind Space Product Development is correct in that no company, particularly companies who don’t see “rocket science” as being a factor to them and their development, is going to invest large sums of money in any effort. At best, they have to be made aware of the possibility of space being an asset to them, either for research and development or for production, and then enticed into trying it out.

Such incubation ventures are crucial, and somehow need to be brought out to a broader range of industry. It may be that simply working with industry to explore the possibilities may provide an interim business plan that can provide the profitability to move things forward, but it is not the firmest of plans.

Until such time as commercial space ventures can go to the investment community and show a multi-faceted and viable business plan, the funding is not going to be there. Until the investment community is educated on both the potential and the actuality of commercial research and development in a broad range of industry, they are not going to be willing to fund ventures to any significant degree.

Therefore, it is clear that three things need to be done.

First, the space community has got to shift its focus from technology to business. Technology is nice, but who is going to pay to use it is what is truly important. This cannot be a limited market, there has to be a broad base of industry involved.

Second, a larger customer base needs to be explored and developed. This will take some fairly serious education and recruitment of industry, and this will take time and resources. No company is going to invest even a small portion of its research dollars into trying something to see if it will work for them, unless they have good reason to believe that the gamble will pay off.

Third, a strong education effort is needed to the investment community. This needs to come not from the people developing this really nifty technology that will do all these wonderful things, but from companies that want to make use of that technology, that have a proven track record in their market segment, and some form of successful initial research. Again, they are not going to put their money into it without a good reason to expect a payoff, just as industry is not.

It also means realistic surveys and studies on space commercialization, ones that do not focus on technology and the way things are done, but rather on what can be done. Breaking the box will be difficult, because there is a great deal of vested interest in the current system. Doing it, however, is crucial.

The base for this exists, a cornerstone if you will. What is needed now are the people, companies, and the resources that will build up and out from it.

-30-

Second, I am largely going to ignore NASA in this post. There will be some discussion, but the real drivers towards a thriving commercial space industry, launch, orbital, and beyond, have little or nothing to do with NASA. While the part of me that is libertarian tends to agree with those who say NASA and the government should have no role, such thinking is extremely simplistic and unrealistic. The fact is, NASA is here and it has the potential to be the 800 pound gorilla of the piece. To wish such away is sheer fantasy. It is far better to face the fact that it is here, and figure out how to deal with it and how to make it useful for as long as it is here.

Third, I am going to take the position that technology is not the true driver. I will even go so far as to say that the exact technologies developed are largely irrelevant to the process. What matters is that the appropriate technologies will be developed as needed, and can be developed in a reasonable time frame from today if the key issue is addressed.

That key issue is where most discussions on this topic fail. If you want to have some fun, and prove a point, go to almost any space advocacy discussion and try to address any issue other than technology. No matter what the subject is at the start, the conversation or posts will turn rapidly and speedily away from the topic and focus in on technology. I am even willing to bet that if comments are left to this post, that they will tend to focus on technology, and not the true subject of the piece.

Why this is, I suspect, is because many of the people who are interested into going into space are of a scientific bent of one form or another, which focuses on technology and related advancement to solve any problem. Many grew up on Star Trek and later shows, almost all of which focus on technological solutions to problems. Indeed, that is pretty much the only option in that universe, given that money has been done away with, perfect utopian communism established (as opposed to Soviet- and Chinese-style socialism), and the Ferengi are used to represent capitalism. The bias implicit in that is left as an exercise for the reader.

Yet, it is to capitalism that we must turn if space is to truly be commercialized. Governments around the world have not produced truly new launch technology in almost 50 years. The Shuttle and Big Dumb Boosters (BDB) that are expendable all still use the same basic technology as was developed by the Germans at Penemunde. True, there have been refinements and even a few advancements in both solid and liquid technology, but the basic systems remain the same. Current efforts to develop new systems and technologies by government agencies are stymied by a myriad of factors.

That leaves private industry, and there the field is littered with broken dreams. From Blackhorse to Roton, promising technology that has failed to live up to its potential is scattered across the landscape. Yet, in many cases, it can be and should be argued that this is not the fault of the technology itself. The fault lies with the companies, and with many advocacy groups, who were so wrapped up in technology that they failed to consider the key issue: commercialization.

What is a commercial activity? It is an effort to make money by a company through a product, service, or technology. It is a truism of business that it takes money to make money. If you go and peruse the press releases of almost any commercial space effort, particularly those that failed, there is one root cause to the failure: the inability to secure adequate funding.

Was and is this the fault of government? No, it was and is not. The failure lies in the mindset behind most past and current efforts at space commercialization. The mindset focuses on technology, and ignores the business side of the equation. That is to be expected when most of the people involved, be they in start-up companies, the government, or with advocacy groups, approach the problem as a technological issue.

An exercise for the reader: Go do a search on business plans for any given commercial space launch venture, past or current. Take a look at that plan and look to where they plan to make money. Odds are, that they are looking at either satellite launches, or in the far-reaching plans, at some form of space tourism.

Another exercise for the reader: Go take a look at any study on space commercialization, be it one authorized by NASA or some outside source such as a space advocacy group. What do all of these studies focus on as the major source of income for a commercial launch company? Five will get you ten that it is satellite or related launches, and with more recent ones adding space tourism.

Now, go take a look at the total number of satellite launches each year. Take a look at projections for satellite and related launches each year for the next 10 or so years. Take a hard look at space tourism, and how many people can currently afford it and how low the price per pound to orbit will have to drop before it becomes a truly effective source of revenue.

The hard fact is that such a market is not going to really support one company independent of government support, be it in the form of launching satellites for the government or other direct and indirect subsidies. You can pretty much forget supporting multiple independent companies.

The true failure of space commercialization is that there has never been a viable business plan and commercial model for operations. The dream has been that if you build the technology, they will come. That may well be, and the stars the ultimate field of dreams. The reality is, however, that no one is going to provide the financing necessary for the dream.

Venture capital funds, investment banks, seed and venture funds, and angel networks all have one thing in common: They give out funds to make money. Talk to any of them and they will tell you that they are not looking for a twenty percent return on investment, but a two hundred percent return where possible. All these groups work on this basis, and while each has a specialty niche that they fill in the process, the bottom line for them is a realistic business plan that shows at least the potential for a significant return on their time and investment.

Without a realistic business model, people are not willing to invest in space technology development plans. While there are some sources of investment for space activities, such as SpaceVest, those funds are quite limited in comparison to the normal market.

So, what will it take to get the interest of the greater range of investment sources? In simplest terms, it means showing that there is a broader market for commercial space activities than satellite and related launches. It means developing realistic business opportunities in space that engage the full range of industry. You need to show multiple avenues of business, activities that extend far beyond tossing things out into orbit.

How then does one do this? NASA, ESA, and other governmental agencies have long funded research in a variety of scientific disciplines. It is an effort mired in controversy and a great deal of discussion, with some of the most serious attacks on the results and effectiveness of same coming from those who feel that funding of that research is taking away from their funding. When evaluating the claims and counterclaims, remember that both sides may be after the same limited resources and evaluate accordingly.

Fundamental or basic research is fine, but it is applied research that moves industry. NASA and other agencies have developed grand plans for major industry participation in space ventures. All such agencies have a price list, a very high price list, for entire facilities to be dedicated to such efforts. To date, no one has come forward with the massive amounts of money those agencies desire to get for such dedication. Again, such unrealistic planning, often by those with little or no experience in private industry, is a field of dreams approach.

What has worked are smaller facilities, often shared between companies, that have been made available for reasonable fees. NASA’s Space Product Development Program has clearly demonstrated this approach, and begun the process of developing the customer base needed by a commercial launch industry. Yet, this program too has problems, both internal to NASA and a culture that is inimical to commercial research, and external from those that see it as a threat rather than an asset.

If space commercialization is to succeed, what is needed is a bridge. The idea behind Space Product Development is correct in that no company, particularly companies who don’t see “rocket science” as being a factor to them and their development, is going to invest large sums of money in any effort. At best, they have to be made aware of the possibility of space being an asset to them, either for research and development or for production, and then enticed into trying it out.

Such incubation ventures are crucial, and somehow need to be brought out to a broader range of industry. It may be that simply working with industry to explore the possibilities may provide an interim business plan that can provide the profitability to move things forward, but it is not the firmest of plans.

Until such time as commercial space ventures can go to the investment community and show a multi-faceted and viable business plan, the funding is not going to be there. Until the investment community is educated on both the potential and the actuality of commercial research and development in a broad range of industry, they are not going to be willing to fund ventures to any significant degree.

Therefore, it is clear that three things need to be done.

First, the space community has got to shift its focus from technology to business. Technology is nice, but who is going to pay to use it is what is truly important. This cannot be a limited market, there has to be a broad base of industry involved.

Second, a larger customer base needs to be explored and developed. This will take some fairly serious education and recruitment of industry, and this will take time and resources. No company is going to invest even a small portion of its research dollars into trying something to see if it will work for them, unless they have good reason to believe that the gamble will pay off.

Third, a strong education effort is needed to the investment community. This needs to come not from the people developing this really nifty technology that will do all these wonderful things, but from companies that want to make use of that technology, that have a proven track record in their market segment, and some form of successful initial research. Again, they are not going to put their money into it without a good reason to expect a payoff, just as industry is not.

It also means realistic surveys and studies on space commercialization, ones that do not focus on technology and the way things are done, but rather on what can be done. Breaking the box will be difficult, because there is a great deal of vested interest in the current system. Doing it, however, is crucial.

The base for this exists, a cornerstone if you will. What is needed now are the people, companies, and the resources that will build up and out from it.

-30-