In Monday’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman contrasted the commercial spaceport situations in New Mexico and California: while New Mexico was investing over $100 million into a new spaceport, attracting Virgin Galactic and the X Prize Cup, California has done little to promote Mojave Airport, an FAA-licensed spaceport that was the site of the SpaceShipOne flights in 2004. As Alan Boyle reports in MSNBC’s Cosmic Log weblog, things aren’t getting better for Mojave: an effort to secure an $11-million loan for a passenger terminal there failed to win enough votes in a California State Senate transportation committee hearing to advance to the full Senate. (See earlier coverage of this legislation.)
The measure, SB 1671, apparently suffered from a report filed by Jennifer Gress, a consultant to the Senate’s Transportation and Housing committee. One concern expressed in the report is whether the East Kern Airport District, which operates Mojave Airport, “has fully explored alternatives to a state General Fund-backed loan.” The report also expressed concern that the funds would be used to support Virgin Galactic, “a company whose owner has a net worth in the billions.” (“Millions for a billionaire”, as the report pithily summarizes.) Stu Witt, Mojave Airport manager, told MSNBC that the bill isn’t dead yet: another committee vote is scheduled for next week.
Update 12:30 pm Wednesday: It turns out the reports of the bill’s near demise were exaggerated: Alan Boyle, in an updated version of his blog entry, reports that the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Roy Ashburn, rounded up four additional votes for the bill a few hours after the hearing, giving it one more than the seven needed to be reported out of committee. So there’s still some hope yet for funding for Mojave.
Hooray for New Mexico! Vision, leadership and enthusiasm has begun a great era of opportunity for the ‘Land of Enchantment’. The future belongs to the adventurous.
“Millions for a billionaire”, as the report pithily summarizes.
Why do I find myself thinking about sports stadiums?
Why do I find myself thinking about sports stadiums?
You must have been reading my mind.
I’m not aware that the state of California supports the construction of sports stadiums out of the General Fund.
A city might, or even a special district (such as the East Kern County Airport Authority) but I am not aware of the state currently (or ever) funding professional sports stadiums.
The state analysis has a point; given that the principals involved in alt-space generally seem to be very wealthy individuals who are spending their own money (Branson and Musk, for example) as opposed to raising capital through the appeal of their business plan, the question remains why should any of California’s public funds (or those of any state, frankly) be committed to alt-space startups?
Also note that California is hardly populated by Luddites; the state and its people have committed public funds to what is arguably the finest public research university system in the nation (Cal, UCLA, UCI, etc.,), and has also placed on the ballot and had the voters approve, through bonded indebtedness, massive public investment in biotechnology research…Californians are hardly unwilling to support high tech.
Aerospace, of course, is hardly unknown in California; the state remains home to Northrop Grumman, while Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon, and Aerojet all have significant elements of their business in California.
In the IT sector, Oracle, Sun, Apple, and many other computer science firms are present as well, so they obviously recognize that the workforce and venture capital they need is present; those facts lead to the recognition by local and state government of the part both aerospace and IT play in the state’s economy.
What is it about space tourism specifically – much less alt-space in general – that needs public support, as opposed to attracting investment capital?
Sam, don’t forget the primary technology companies involved in the SpaceShipOne development — Scaled Composites and SpaceDev — are both based in California.
I’m on both sides of this issue. I am not opposed to States, cities, or any political entity, contributing money to encourage a high-tech facility to be located in its boarders. All of the towns competing for the stem cell research HQ you allude to offered money and / or in-kind contributions.
On the other hand, the opposite lesson could be drawn from my own city’s refusal to build a baseball stadium at public expense. Lo and behold, the San Francisco Giants managed to cough up the money they needed by themselves.
— Donald
Donald –
Fair points; I think the difference, obviously, is the expected payoff in terms of jobs (white, blue, and pink collar) is obvious in the case of a new automobile plant or biotech facility, not so much in building what amounts to a millionaires’ playpen like a suborbital tourism facility.
Sports franchises, obviously, locate in major media markets of necessity – automobile plants and biotech facilities do not have to do so, although supply chain and workforce issues tend to drive them to urban or at least exurban areas.
The deeper question, of course, is what is it about alt-space that doesn’t appeal to venture capital?
Venture capitalists tend to run in herds. Once a few people have made money on alt-space ventures, then the money will flock to it (and if history is any judge, in too-large amounts, with much of it thrown at foolish things).
Sam: The deeper question, of course, is what is it about alt-space that doesn’t appeal to venture capital?
While I agree with Rand’s response the rest of the story should be obvious. At this point in time, would you invest, say, your family’s retirement savings in any space industry other than comsats?
You and I might, but most people won’t. Commercial space needs to demonstrate the goods before anyone but the riskiest investors or ideologs driven by something other than money will invest in commercial space. Which means, there will be little money available for the foreseeable future.
That’s why I have come to the belief that if we want to send humans back to the moon (let alone the planets) in our lifetimes, whatever we do in space now, it must be a) quick, dirty, and cheap, using current technology; b) must get measurable results fast; and c) must be funded more-or-less by the current government space budget. We can’t keep wasting half our budget sending clockwork toys to the planets and most of the other half failing to develop dream launch vehicles. Nor can we pretend that private individuals are going to pay for this, at least at first. (Note in proof: SpaceX, et al, are all trying to do what NASA has already done in LEO better and cheaper; for the most part, they are not trying to push the frontier of what is possible.)
— Donald
it must be a) quick, dirty, and cheap, using current technology; b) must get measurable results fast; and c) must be funded more-or-less by the current government
That’s precisely why the world is in such terrible state that it is, politically, economically and environmentally. You want yours now, screw your grandchildren. There is no long term vision, because if there was, we would be focusing on the fundamentals of propulsion, launch and life support – an international space colonization program, leaving the planetary exploring to the robots for the time being.