Given the hostile action that NASA has taken to end previous commercial ventures, no one in their right mind would risk a NASA controlled ISS being a viable market. As soon as someone gets close to deploying an alternate vehicle I expect NASA to revise the proxops procedures (even for berthing) to tarbaby them out of the market.

And don’t think for a second that the Russians will let you dock on their end, they’ve got a lucrative Soyuz monopoly to hold on to.

Donald, you’re the one ignoring markets, not I.

Grandma’s money has already been spent on the Space Station, why not get something for it by treating it as a market.

Again, this whole argument is silly. Mr. Biglow’s plans are just that. The Space Station is there. Everyone else — as a market, as opposed to flying their first experiments — is several years out, and probably the better part of a decade or more. Why wait? Service the market we have now, while preparing for the future markets.

These are not mutually exclusive options!

— Donald

If makes no sense to talk about who’s mistaken or not when discussion future events.

Perhaps so, but you are thinking as an engineer, not as a money manager.

No, I’m thinking as a businessman, and astute observer of government space programs.

Maybe its not fair, and maybe it isn’t even wise, but the reality is that most of the money out there will go to a government-backed project, rather than some fly-by-night rocket builder dreaming of orbital tourism.

Yes, and the other reality is that most of that money will be wasted, and not accomplish its intended goals. Fortunately, even if most of the money goes to the government programs (for now), enough is going to the private ones to do what will need to be done.

Space advocates need to forget their dreams for a moment and ask themselves where the people who actually manage other people’s money — and have a fiduciary responsibility to limit how much they lose — are going to invest that money. (If you are not familiar with the concept of fiduciary responsibility, look it up, because it is a key concept, and probably the key concept, in money investment.) Then, they need to ask themselves how to develop a business plan to get them to invest, if not grandma’s money, at least a middle-aged business person’s money, into their project.

Errrr…no. They don’t. That’s what Elon Musks, and Richard Bransons, and Bob Bigelows, and Jeff Bezoses are for. Elon and Bob have no fiduciary responsibility right now except to themselves. They continue to spend their own money and build hardware (and in Bob’s case, launch it).

Perhaps so, but you are thinking as an engineer, not as a money manager. When I’m investing grandma’s money, I buy a government-backed CD. When I’m investing my retirement money (as opposed to what I call my “gambling money”), I’m likely to invest in a mix of government-backed CDs and bonds and large company bonds and stocks. When I’m young (and, for most people, young = poor) is when I invest in the kinds of high-risk opportunities we are talking about.

Maybe its not fair, and maybe it isn’t even wise, but the reality is that most of the money out there will go to a government-backed project, rather than some fly-by-night rocket builder dreaming of orbital tourism.

Space advocates need to forget their dreams for a moment and ask themselves where the people who actually manage other people’s money — and have a fiduciary responsibility to limit how much they lose — are going to invest that money. (If you are not familiar with the concept of fiduciary responsibility, look it up, because it is a key concept, and probably the key concept, in money investment.) Then, they need to ask themselves how to develop a business plan to get them to invest, if not grandma’s money, at least a middle-aged business person’s money, into their project.

In any real world, the government will be a major part of that plan (COTS), and / or you will have achieved regular proven operations before you ask for anyone else’s savings (SpaceX). Putting it where the customers are paying their own money simply isn’t going to work until the customers are making more money than you could make just putting your money in a CD or into a house.

So far, I can’t think of even one entrepreneurial launch company can meet that basic requirement for attracting money.

— Donald

— Donald

Not when the “market that exists” is an extremely fickle customer. I’d put my money on the market where the customers are paying their own money, rather than taxpayers’. Your mileage may vary…

Do you really want to ignore a market that exists for a market that may exist some undefined years in the future? That strikes me as an extremely poor marketing plan.

Moreover, in the end, Mr. Biglow is likely to end up using the vehicles developed for Space Station support.

What are we arguing about? Supply the Space Station market now, when there is another market supply both.

— Donald

He plans to have a three-person hotel up by the end of the decade (not all that far away) and one triple that size two years later. That sounds like a lot bigger market than ISS, particularly considering that the stays will be much shorter, and the number of visitors greater.