Congress

Martinez and the gap

To follow up on Sen. Mel Martinez’s visit to KSC, Florida Today reports today that the senator will work to “minimize” the gap between the shuttle and Orion. It’s a little unclear at first whether this means he’ll try to shorten the existing period between the two programs (currently projected to run from late 2010 to early 2015) or just try to keep it from getting any longer; his comments as quoted in the article suggest the latter. “[W]hat we need to do is make sure that we continue to be there and fight for the program… to ensure that the worst-case scenario doesn’t happen. We don’t want to get there.” That sounds more like playing defense than offense.

Sen. Martinez added that he’ll work with other members of Congress to build “coalitions with other states” that have a stake in NASA’s exploration program to help secure funding. “We’re returning to the Moon. America doesn’t quite know that that’s happening, and we need to make sure the story gets out,” he said. “That’s my job — to get the story out of NASA and to make sure that the members of Congress are informed and interested in what it can do for our country to continue a viable space program.”

63 comments to Martinez and the gap

  • I worry that this obsession over the “gap” will lead to delays in retiring the Shuttle rather than increasing the pace of development of Orion. Politicians love to take the path of least resistance: (i.e. “Let’s keep the Shuttle flying for two more years to reduce the gap.”) This would simply eat up funding that could go to Orion and Ares development, with no real benefit from additional Shuttle missions.

  • ColdWater

    You take this way too seriously. The term, “gap,” implies a strategic importance to human spaceflight. And there is none.

  • anonymous

    “I worry that this obsession over the “gap” will lead to delays in retiring the Shuttle rather than increasing the pace of development of Orion. Politicians love to take the path of least resistance: (i.e. “Let’s keep the Shuttle flying for two more years to reduce the gap.”) This would simply eat up funding that could go to Orion and Ares development, with no real benefit from additional Shuttle missions.”

    Moreover, it wouldn’t actually reduce the gap at all. Almost all of Shuttle’s costs are fixed. Assuming no new money comes to the NASA table and assuming Ares I/Orion development costs are also fixed (i.e., no alternative is pursued) — both reasonable assumptions — delaying Shuttle retirement just delays the start of the gap. It would still be a five-year gap, just shifted to the right by whatever number of months or years that Shuttle retirement is delayed.

  • Thomas Matula

    I predicted in a thread a while back they would cut the flight rate to keep the Shuttle flying several more years. Looks like they are working themselves up to creating a “justification” for doing so…

    Last I checked they had enough ET’s and other components on hand for about 18 flights, including the “last” ET going down the line now. That is enough for 6-8 years at a rate of two a year. And they are only mothballing the production line, so it could be restarted in theory if needed.

  • anonymous

    “You take this way too seriously. The term, “gap,” implies a strategic importance to human spaceflight. And there is none.”

    I agree. But I’d just point out that this is suppossed to be Griffin’s highest priority, and it’s the stated priority of many of NASA’s backers in Congress. The fact that they’re not pursuing more affordable alternatives to Ares I/Orion or providing the funds necessary to shorten the gap shows how hypocritical their hyperbole really is. They need to be held to their rhetoric (or forced to abandon it).

  • Ferris Valyn

    Someone should ask Martinez (and everyone else whos worried about the gap) why they don’t put more into COTS.

    Sorry, I am stating the obvious, aren’t I?

  • Nemo

    Moreover, it wouldn’t actually reduce the gap at all. Almost all of Shuttle’s costs are fixed. Assuming no new money comes to the NASA table and assuming Ares I/Orion development costs are also fixed (i.e., no alternative is pursued) — both reasonable assumptions — delaying Shuttle retirement just delays the start of the gap. It would still be a five-year gap, just shifted to the right by whatever number of months or years that Shuttle retirement is delayed.

    That is incorrect. Most shuttle funding is planned to be redirected to Ares V/EDS/LSAM development – the Ares I/Orion funding remains fairly constant after shuttle retirement. Delaying shuttle retirement may delay Ares I/Orion some, but it won’t be day-for-day and the gap will shrink. The real effect of delaying shuttle retirement would be to delay the start of any “serious” work on the Ares V/EDS/LSAM, and that would result in a day-for-day slip.

  • Thomas Matula

    The key problem with raising funding for COTS is who would be qualified to receive it? Among the two winners only SpaceX has the deep pockets, courtesy of Elon Musk, to meet the matching funds requirements. Rocketplane-Kistler seems to be struggling based on what is leaking out. And so who else among the COTS bidders would be qualified? And if you change the terms to reduce the amount of funds the COTS firms would need to raise you would likely have the current winners sue.

    The only other option for COTS would be to provide that when the RFP for contracts are let for service they specifically include a number (2-3) of missions that carry astronauts to ISS. But again, who would be qualified to provide those services other then perhaps the current COTS winners IF they succeed? The existing alt.space firms with deep pockets are chasing space tourism and show little interest in serving ISS. And given NASA recent torpedoing of Bigelow’s basic model by offering the ISS free (see article link below) to researchers there seems little reason for anyone to gamble the farm on an orbital vehicle for ISS servicing.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/racks062607.xml&headline=Free%20Commercial%20Use%20Of%20ISS%20In%20Works&channel=space

    Free Commercial Use Of ISS In Works
    Jun 26, 2007
    Frank Morring, Jr./Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

    So the although the idea of expanding COTS funding is good, just how would NASA be able to do so without being sued by the current winners while providing the full funding and stable market that the start-ups need to raise funding to

  • Thomas: Good questions. I’ve been half-expecting SpaceX to go to court over NASA looking the other way at Kistler’s missing financial deadlines. While I think Mr. Musk has been far to quick to bring on the lawyers in the past, in this case it might be hard to argue with him.

  • “That is incorrect. Most shuttle funding is planned to be redirected to Ares V/EDS/LSAM development – the Ares I/Orion funding remains fairly constant after shuttle retirement. Delaying shuttle retirement may delay Ares I/Orion some, but it won’t be day-for-day and the gap will shrink. The real effect of delaying shuttle retirement would be to delay the start of any “serious” work on the Ares V/EDS/LSAM, and that would result in a day-for-day slip.”

    You’re right that most STS dollars will go to the “Other” line (which funds Ares V/EDS/LSAM) in the Constellation budget. But when you add up the “Crew Exploration Vehicle”, “Crew Launch Vehicle”, “Ground Operations”, and “Mission Operations” lines — and those are the lines that fund Ares I and Orion — in the Constellation budget, there’s an increase of almost $1.6 billion going from FY 2010 to FY 2011. And that $1.6 billion increase is only coming off a $2.9 billion total for those four lines in FY 2010, i.e., it’s a huge 58 percent increase.

    Ares I and Orion are going to need that big infusion of funds from Shuttle’s retirement (or something like it) to stay on schedule for their 2015 IOC. Every day/week/month that Shuttle operations is extended, that big increase for Ares I/Orion gets delayed. And for the first year or two of extended Shuttle operations — until the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budgets can “buy back” the unrealized increase — it will be a month-for-month slip.

    Again, you’re right about Ares V/EDS/LSAM delays (which, in some ways, are worse), but Ares I/Orion will also see month-for-month slips if Shuttle operations are extended.

    FWIW…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Thomas,

    I can see 2 possiblities –

    First, you raise the point about the lack of funding RPK has. Part of that could be addressed by with drawing the proposed CEV that can act as a transport to ISS (someone else can remind me what the term is – Phase 1 I think). I think that more investors would be open to the possiblity, IF it saw Nasa would indeed use it.

    Secondly, you said
    “Rocketplane-Kistler seems to be struggling based on what is leaking out. And so who else among the COTS bidders would be qualified? And if you change the terms to reduce the amount of funds the COTS firms would need to raise you would likely have the current winners sue.”

    Investors aren’t monolithic when it comes to companies to invest in – Investors might think RPK is too overly optimistic in its assumptions, but thinks that CSI, or Spacedev, have a better chance. Of course, since CSI/Tspace/everyone who didn’t win, they have to raise significantly more money, which would counteract the investors who think their design is sound (since its easier to raise 100 million than 500 million).

    Alternatively, Nasa could restart its Red Planet capital, and go that route, to provide money.

    My point is, this idea of “closing the gap” based on increasing funding for Orion, or extending the shuttle’s lifespan, aren’t the only 2 options.

  • anonymous.space

    “And given NASA recent torpedoing of Bigelow’s basic model by offering the ISS free (see article link below) to researchers there seems little reason for anyone to gamble the farm on an orbital vehicle for ISS servicing.”

    I agree at the 10,000 ft. level, the new ISS national lab report competes with Bigelow.

    But when you look at the details, ISS is crippingly difficult to do research on. Even if the access problem is solved by COTS, it takes years to jump through all the ISS safety and certification hoops. And even then, NASA will prioritize it’s research over commercial or other agency users. Even with ISS rack space offered at zero cost, the costs and hits to schedule of just doing business with NASA may well be prohibitive.

    If I were a betting man, I’d still bet on Bigelow to provide an overall lower cost, more timely, and more responsive environment for space-based research. I’d venture a guess that Bigelow will compete very well with ISS, especially as Bigelow (and Musk and others) are basically ignoring the cost of the capital they’re sinking into these projects, just as the government can.

    There’s also the scenario that says that activities on ISS become an important pathfinder for activities on Bigelow stations. This might be especially true depending on what Bigelow’s deployment schedule actually turns out to be. An unlikely scenario given the concerns above, but possible.

    Finally, I’d also note that Bigelow’s talks have generally focused on addressing the perceived needs of foreign nations that lack access to space facilities and turning them into customers, while the ISS national lab report is focused on U.S. R&D agencies (besides NASA) and U.S. companies as “customers” for ISS.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “The key problem with raising funding for COTS is who would be qualified to receive it?”

    Arguably any of the other four of the six finalists in the COTS competition.

    “Among the two winners only SpaceX has the deep pockets, courtesy of Elon Musk, to meet the matching funds requirements. Rocketplane-Kistler seems to be struggling based on what is leaking out. And so who else among the COTS bidders would be qualified?”

    I see your point, but the logic doesn’t necessarily follow that another company can’t raise the necessary private investment just because Kistler can’t. The size of investment necessary to complete the Kistler vehicle, technical issues with the Kistler vehicle, the all-or-nothing nature of the bet on the reusability of the Kistler vehicle, and other problems may be hindering Kistler’s ability to raise funds. These are problems that other finalists may not share. Heck, even Kistler’s history — past problems raising money and its switch from LEO constellation to human space flight markets — may still serve as an impediment to private investment now. It’s very possible that NASA picked a proposal that met its criteria and needs best, but that does not look so great from the perspective of a private investor. As great as Alan Lindenmoyer and his team are, they’re not experienced venture capitalists or private equity analysts and they may have passed over a better proposal for private investment.

    “And if you change the terms to reduce the amount of funds the COTS firms would need to raise you would likely have the current winners sue.”

    Actually, AFAIK, there was no minimum cost-share requirement in the COTS competition. Business cases were judged on viability, not on the amount of private dollars brought to the table. (This was a flaw in the X-33 selection that NASA appears to have learned from.)

    “So the although the idea of expanding COTS funding is good, just how would NASA be able to do so without being sued by the current winners”

    Although Musk has demonstrated a propensity to sue, he’s always done so from the outside, trying to break into the NASA or USAF markets. Now that he’s on the inside with NASA, he has little incentive to torque off the customer by meddling in the customer’s business with Kistler or Kistler’s substitute. (But I fully expect to see Space-X take another legal swing at ULA down the road.)

    And for Kistler, at some point their lack of performance becomes a cause for termination. They can always challenge that in court, but if the NASA lawyers have built the case and dotted their “i’s”, Kistler won’t have much of a leg to stand on.

    FWIW…

  • Kistler has their vehicle half-developed, and, all other things being equal (which, I know, they aren’t), that should make them a cheaper and / or sooner proposition. That may have had something to do with NASA’s calculation.

    Anonymous: It’s very possible that NASA picked a proposal that met its criteria and needs best, but that does not look so great from the perspective of a private investor.

    Yes, but the very conditions that made COTS politically, and potentially commercially, viable (the existance of the Space Station as a market) push COTS in this direction. The very political motivations for COTS push it toward meeting the needs of those motivations, i.e., supplying the Space Station.

    For both your and my reason, if I could invest in either of these companies, I’d probably choose SpaceX because of their ideological (as opposed to commercially justifiable) source of capital.

    — Donald

    — Donald

  • Dave Salt

    anonymous.space wrote: “Even with ISS rack space offered at zero cost, the costs and hits to schedule of just doing business with NASA may well be prohibitive.”

    Get Away Special (GAS) cans on Shuttle may provide some lessons here. If memory serves, they were priced at something like $60/kg but mostly ended up carrying ballast because few had the time and/or effort to go through NASA’s integration process.

    Donald F. Robertson wrote: “Kistler has their vehicle half-developed, and, all other things being equal (which, I know, they aren’t), that should make them a cheaper and / or sooner proposition.”

    Kistler were/are(?) under Chapter 11 (owing $900 million?), had lost most of their key engineers and their level of development was simply a measure of the mass of manufactured components. Not exactly the best investment portfolio one could wish for.

    Dave

  • Al Fansome

    MATULA: And if you change the terms to reduce the amount of funds the COTS firms would need to raise you would likely have the current winners sue.

    Dr. Matula,

    Could you please provide a reference to the terms that you are implying. A lawsuit requires more than a statement by a public official about “skin in the game”. It requires a point of procurement law, or some term in their agreement that is violated.

    I believe there is no real requirement in the original COTS procurement document with regards to the “amount of funds” that must be invested. If you disagree, please tell me the section of the COTS announcement.

    On top of this fact, if you understand “other transactions authority”, you would know that NASA has a huge amount of flexibility. It is much harder to sue somebody under OTA, than it is under regular FAR-based procurements. Given that this is OTA, and there is no stated requirement in the original procurement, then there is no hard requirement.

    NASA has a lot of options under OTA. In fact, I read somewhere that SpaceHab’s newly revised cargo system — which was recently announced — is designed to be developed for about the amount of funding that remains unspent on the RkP space act agreement. I can see nothing that would preclude NASA from giving SPAB a firm-fixed-price SAA that has no requirement for private funding.

    In fact, it is hogwash to measure “inputs” as opposed to “outputs”. If SPAB were to get the SAA (in the world where NASA drops RkP), then NASA should care less about how much money was put into the project by private investors. What NASA should care about is SPAB’s meets all their objective “output based” milestones, including the last milestone which is to demonstrate the capability to deliver cargo to ISS.

    Now, I personally don’t know how SPAB can demonstrate this system at such a low cost (around $160M) … but if they could do so, then that is a pretty good deal.

    – Al

  • Jeff Foust

    Regarding the COTS selection process, there’s a good article in this week’s print edition of Space News (not available online, unfortunately) about RpK’s funding situation: the company believes that they’ll be able to raise $500 million (the full amount of private financing they need) by next month. However, the article also includes some details about how NASA selected RpK and SpaceX that haven’t been widely publicized before now. Not surprising, SpaceX was the obvious first choice for a COTS award, but reviewers were deadlocked between RpK and SpaceDev. In the end, RpK’s existing hardware, but “financial uncertainty”, won out over SpaceDev’s relatively more stable financial situation but “technically complex design”, in the words of Scott Horowitz. And, RpK was asking for less money than SpaceDev.

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    The key point is that Elon has deep pockets and has shown a desire to sue in the past. So its not if I could find the magic term, but if his lawyers are able to. And I suspect they would if they are good. That is what lawyers are for. Just look at how he nailed NASA giving money to Kistler for data on its vehicles even though his firm never bid on alt.access.

    And it would be hard to set up a new COTS round excluding SpaceX and Kistler-Rocket Plane, and even harder to write the rules preventing them from winning a second round of contracts. Perhaps SpaceDev may edge out Kistler- Rocket Plane, but the harsh reality is that number of viable alt.space firms, at least in terms of human spaceflight, is not all that deep, desp[ite all the alt.space hype.

    Why do you think Bigelow is designing his system to support the Soyuz docking with it and is looking beyond space tourism to flying foreign astronauts? He bought the alt.space hype on irbital access and is now paying for it. And will continue to aoy for it as the problem he will run intowith foreign astronuats is these countries are going ask themsleves if that are paying Russia to fly their astronauts on a Soyuz why not go to the ISS instead of Bigelow? After all it has more foreign policy prestige… And Russia of course will be more then happy to have them on the ISS. And there goes his foreign astronaut market.

    Really, I feel sorry for Bigelow as the alt.space crowd has really failed him in providing access to his planned station. Viewgraphs are pretty, but it’s a long road from a viewgraph to a space vehicle even for alt.space firms as Burt Rutan, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are showing. Really Elon and SpaceX are Bigelow’s only real hope. I do hope the Falcon I launch coming up is a 100% success. Alt.space really needs it to be to retain its credibility.

    Note that its not that I am opposed to more COTS funding to fill the gap, I am just realistic about its chances of succeeding. NASA’s best hope for closing the GAP is to drop to a two-man lunar CEV that will launch on an exisiting EELV. NASA no longer has the luxury in time or budget to be developing both a new human launch vehicle and a new human spacecraft. Ares I killed that opportunity. A Shuttle based Direct Launcher might be viable for the Lunar lander and trans-srage, but no work will start on it until Shuttle is gone. And even there you run into the problems associated with Shuttle infrastructure.

  • Al Fansome

    MATULA: The key point is that Elon has deep pockets and has shown a desire to sue in the past. So its not if I could find the magic term, but if his lawyers are able to. And I suspect they would if they are good. That is what lawyers are for. Just look at how he nailed NASA giving money to Kistler for data on its vehicles even though his firm never bid on alt.access.

    Dr. Matula,

    Thank you for admitting that you know of no “legal” basis for a lawsuit on this issue.

    You can sue a loaf of bread for looking at you strange. Whether you can win is an issue related to law.

    MATULA: And it would be hard to set up a new COTS round excluding SpaceX and Kistler-Rocket Plane,

    Whether this would be considered a “new round”, or a new competition in the “old round” is an interesting question. FWIW, I think it would be difficult for Elon to sue NASA for deciding to give the RkP money to tSpace, SpaceDev, SPAB, or one of the other COTS competitors … since SpaceX already has their money, and they clearly knew there was going to be more than one winner. (It would also look really bad for SpaceX to complain about the ULA monopoly, and then turn around and appear to be monopolists themselves.)

    MATULA: and even harder to write the rules preventing them from winning a second round of contracts.

    Who is proposing to write rules that exclude them from the follow-on competition? (Considering that Elon is buddies with Griffin, this is highly unlikely to happen).

    MATULA: Perhaps SpaceDev may edge out Kistler- Rocket Plane, but the harsh reality is that number of viable alt.space firms, at least in terms of human spaceflight, is not all that deep, desp[ite all the alt.space hype.

    Perhaps if we pumped a lot more money into the New Space firms using new commercial-like approaches — like we pump tons of money into the old non-traditional cost-plus firms — then it would not be hype, and there would be a lot more reality.

    This is kind of like saying “everybody says that baby has a future full of promise … but it sure is weak … it might die … so I don’t think we should give it any food since food costs money.”

    That baby is not going to grow up unless somebody gives it some food.

    I guess what I am saying is that I read your attitude as being somewhat antagonistic, and cynical. The problem is that an antagonistic attitude towards New Space has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The first step to having a New Space industry, that will give us the benefits that everybody talks about (including yourself), is deciding that we want a New Space industry. The second step is figuring out what we need to do to get that industry. The third step is doing it.

    I really am not sure what step you are on. You keep sending conflicting messages.

    – Al

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    I am not the one that would be suing, Elon Musk will and his lawyers will find a legal basis just as they did with Kistler. Lawyers ALWAYS are able to find a legal basis to sue on if a firm feels it is being double-dealed as Elon Musk would if NASA reopened COTS with a new round of funding. That is what you hire lawyers for. And if Elon Musk’s lawyers are better then NASA lawyers they will win. Law is not a search for truth like on TV or as engineers think. Its a dogfight best on who argues best in the court room. That is why Elon beat NASA on Kistler and lost to Boeing/Lockheed on ULA. And That is the point you are missing.

    As for “looking bad’ by suing to be a monopolist. Elon Musk comes from the IT world and that is part of the Silicon Valley culture, using lawyers to protect your interests. That is what IP lawsuits are all about.

    Also, sad to say, just pumping money into alt.space firms is not the solution. The Dot.com bust should have taught folks that lesson. Its about having a good team and then creating a stable market and customers. Kistler ran through how many hundreds of millions so far without a first flight?

    What you call antagonistic, and cynical is what is called being a rational business person. Perhaps that is why I am not drinking the kool-aid or buying into hype of the Alt.space, New Space or whatever SFF plans on calling the movement next week when this name is discredited by failure.

    There is a way companies are built in the space industry. It’s the way Orbital Science was built, Spacehad was built, SpaceX is being built.

    First you put a good balanced team together. Folks with actual business experience and experience in the field. And who don’t wear rose colored glasses. Then you find a single simple task to focus on, one that is doable with the capital budget you are likely to have. If you have a billionaire, then it could be bolder then if you don’t have one. Don’t except angels or VC’s to come beating path to your door. Or that flashy press releases will bring them. They aren’t stupid, they recognize hype when they see it and there are a lot of better ways to invest. Instead focus on just one mission or contract that is doable with your resources and move one.

    Example, while all the Alt.spaceers were chasing after Alt.access and space tourism NASA quietly retired many of its old sounding rockers, vehicles like the Super-Loki that had a heritage dating to WWII. Instead they gave Lockheed-Martin a contract to build a new basic sounding rocket for aeronomy research. Now this was a task and a good bread and butter business that many of the X-Prize firms could have been viable competitors on. One that would have built a cash flow and creditability for bigger and better things. Remember there are dozens and dozens of sounding rocket launches each year and the market is price elastic for aeronomy researchers. Yet all the various alt.space/New Space firms ignored it for the hype of the X-Prize, Space Tourism, human spaceflight markets. I guess unmanned sounding rockets were fashionable enough for the alt.space celebrities.

    So, yes, as a result of seeing only hype and repeated poor business decisions I am cynical about alt.space being anything but a mechanism to fuel the egos of a hand full of alt.space celebrities.

    Now Folks like Elon Musk, Bigelow, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, Richard Branson do have the money to do space commerce and they are doing so because its their passion. Just as American Cup Racing is the passion of other millionaires/billionaires. But do not over look that they will not bet their bottom dollar or risk the core of their fortunes on it. They are too smart for that. What they are putting into it is their gambling money.

    And also recognize they are getting a harsh education. I was at the Churchill Club conference in San Jose in June 2002 when Elon Musk announced SpaceX. He talked about how he found it impossible to fund a robotic mission to Mars at current launch costs. He told how he was going to revolutionize space access and drive costs down using Silicon valley methods in a year with an investment of $50 million. It is now over five years and well over a 100 million and he is still looking for his first 100% successful launch. Yes, it has been a major education experience for him as he will admit. But he has stuck with it and I expect he will succeed. I hope he does as he has earned it the hard way, the only way a successful firm does.

    Burt Rutan first started looking at Spaceship one in 1997, Paul Allen fully funded him in 1999, yet it wasn’t until 2004 that he made it into space, just month before the funding for the X-Prize ran out. And Spaceshiptwo is taking far longer then the 2007 service date which was announced for it when Virgin Galactic first made the announcement in 2004. I fully expect they will miss their 2009 date for entering into service. No, human space flight is not easy as alt.space hype says.

    Similarly Jeff Bezos is perhaps the most likely to succeed. But he rightly ignores the limelight and focuses on just doing it. Which is good. As it’s a path likely to succeed. I am expecting great things from Blue Origins.

    And Bigelow went ahead years ago developing his space stations based on the alt.space and x-prize hype that a fleet of private spacecraft would emerge to service them. None have. His only options for access to his station will be the Soyuz, or perhaps the SpaceX Dragon when its flying. Listening to him on the Art Bell show in April he sounded very disappointed in the alt.space movement and his strategy for foreign national astronauts, along with his biotech strategy I view as simply attempts to salvage the situation. I hope they work, but expect they won’t for political and economic reasons. His last best hope is a contract to add a module to the ISS. Like Beal he bought the alt.space hype hook, line and sinker and has suffered for it. And I expect he will probably go the way of Beal, disillusion about space commerce.

    The lesson in all four is just raining money on small space firms won’t get you any better results then funding regular firms. That is an urban myth and part of the alt.space hype. Quite honestly Boeing and Lockheed could very well do $50 million dollar missions to the lunar surface as well as any alt.space firm if they used Russian launch vehicles and didn’t have to meet the needs of NASA’s science community nor oversight, but that is another story. Actually they would probably do it better as their engineers already have experience building spacecraft.

    So yes, I am antagonistic to alt.spacers since they seem to spend 95% of their time bragging about what they will do only if they had NASA’s budget and only 5% actually doing anything other then PR stunts like the X-Prize. If the percentages were reversed I might be impressed with the industry. And with recommending more funding for it. But as it is, and I say this having been around a number of alt.spacers for many years, including being a former Space Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation, that I see the only goal of alt.space is to feed the ego of alt.spacers. And feel free to substitute New Space or what ever the term of the week is for the movement if it makes you feel better.

    As for your analogy about feeding a baby. Yes, it’s a good one. If a Baby is hungry you do give it food, but you give it formula, not a t-bone steak which is what you are advocating. It needs to grow up and have teeth before is will be able to eat steak. And so do many of the alt.space firms.

    Remember, before HP made a fortune making electronic they made clock-drives for amateur telescopes. And Mircosoft started out writing code for the Altair 880. Now if alt.spacers were to start by focusing on similar projects, and hats off to UP Aerospace and JP Aerospace which are, I would have more respect for them. But as it is I see them alt.space is more a cult drinking the kool-aid then a real hope for space commerce.

    Now with that said, there are entrepreneurial space firms, I won’t disgrace them with the term Alt.Space or New Space, like Spacehab, SpaceDev and SpaceX that could fulfill a conventional contract to build a human spacecraft. But it should be a real contract like Lockheed has for the CEV. Not a COTS program or other prize system where the winner has the burden of funding raising without a predictable ROI. Now if NASA wanted to do a Small Business initiative for firms that have been in business for at least 5 years with revenues greater then $1 million and but under $100 million for a 2-crew manned system on board an EELV I could see that being a viable way to fill the gap and provide a back-up to the CEV. But not using COTS and playing to the alt.space hype.

    Why a million dollars revenue? Because a firm has to demonstrate some level of business maturity to earn a million dollars over at least 5 years, while the $100 million limit indicated they haven’t got too comfortable in the space industry yet. Think of it as giving a t-bone to a teenager who has demonstrated they are ready to prove their worth. Now that I would support.

    Tom

  • Ferris Valyn

    “Remember there are dozens and dozens of sounding rocket launches each year and the market is price elastic for aeronomy researchers. Yet all the various alt.space/New Space firms ignored it for the hype of the X-Prize, Space Tourism, human spaceflight markets. I guess unmanned sounding rockets were fashionable enough for the alt.space celebrities. ”

    Actually, thats not true. There are multiple NewSpace companies that are actively pursuing the unmanned flight. I admit, the big name ones, (Bezo and Rutan/Branson) aren’t, but you can’t say the whole industry is ignoring it, simple because the people who have the most money are ignoring it, and for that matter, the journalists are ignoring it as well (its not nearly as sexy as space tourism).

    Hell, Masten’s whole business plan is based around it..

    The truth is, there are a large majority of NewSpace companies that are opperating suborbital crafts that are looking for any and all possible revenue streams, ranging from the glamirous (space tourism), the exciting (space sports like spacediving), to the unusual (space burial) , to the mundane (suborbital science).

  • Ferris Valyn

    And while I am thinking about it, we could also talk about UP Aerospace, another c ompany thats look at suborbital science, or Armadillo, who, from what Spacenews and space.com were reporting, are actively being purusued for suborbital science.

    Just because you aren’t paying attention to the industry doesn’t mean that the industry is ignoring this possiblity.

  • Thomas Matula

    Ferris,

    IF you check above I stated “hats off” to both UP Aerospace and JP Aerospace as entrepreneurial space firms doing it right and focusing on near term goals.

    Masten, like the typical alt.space firm, seems to be going in many directions, from small sub-orbital to “extra-terrestrial landers” with a grand solution to everything.

    http://www.masten-space.com/products.html

    Successful companies focus on the first step, not the last one. It may be nie to have a roadmap like this in your study, but on your website it makes folks, especially investors, wonder how much attention you will give to the first step. It makes investors wonder if you are really focused on this as a business or a crusade. The former is good for ROI, the latter kills it.

    Armadillo is looking a sub-orbital human spaceflight, not a good way to do sub-orbital science as it adds needless expense. Aeronomy research just needs instrument results, not dead weight like a pilot or observer who add expense and complexity without improved results.

    Also I didn’t mention Xcor, but they seem to be maturing, focusing now on USAF contracts, not space hype. That is why I expect the Angel Investors are now interested as they see potential for actual revenue streams, not speculative ones. I would say they are making the transition from alt.space/new space to real entrepreneurial space.

    But then the best website for alt.space news is called hobbyspace.com, which says it all about what most alt.space firms are – expensive hobbies.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Thonas – First, have you looked at Masten’s business plan? I have. And a website is very different than a business plan. They are focused on a core aspect of providing sub-orbital science. Yes, they are focused on using vertical take vertical landing rockets for a number of different options, but they’re primary short-term plan is to provide sub-orbital science platform.

    As for armadillo, they are also focused on provided a VTVL rocket platform – yes, they are focusing largely on a human platform, but not soley – again, I cite the space.com article, and Carmack’s talk at ISDC (hell, from his comments at ISDC, there has even been interest in using Pixel as a flight platform). To quote the article
    “Somewhat to his surprise, three major aerospace companies are talking to Armadillo Aerospace about flying sensor systems on Armadillo vehicles, using them as high-altitude platforms, Carmack said. Those flights are expected to begin in 2008. While not identifying the customers, he said one of those companies is not a domestic U.S.company.” Their modular rockets don’t need someone in the loop – Look at their single module vehicle, or their 4 module vehicle.

    You cite the issue of what investors are looking for – do you actually know the investment status of the various companies? I do, but most of it I was told in confidence, so I don’t feel at liberty to talk about it (and for more than one, I signed NDAs for it).

    I guess this is the question – Can you provide a horizontal platform when it comes to suborbital flights (IE can I easily switch from flying humans to flying scientific instraments). I suspect you don’t think you can. I think you can.

  • Nona

    One thing in Professor Matula’s screed caught my attention:

    Example, while all the Alt.spaceers were chasing after Alt.access and space tourism NASA quietly retired many of its old sounding rockers, vehicles like the Super-Loki that had a heritage dating to WWII. Instead they gave Lockheed-Martin a contract to build a new basic sounding rocket for aeronomy research.

    Professor, can you identify the LockMart-built sounding rocket that NASA is using today? I know, as I’m sure you do, that it’s not the hybrid sounding rocket that LM-Michoud started working on back around the turn of the decade, since that project is either on indefinite hold or cancelled. Last I checked NASA was still using good ol’ Black Brants and Terrier-Orions; they weren’t even using much the newer Oriole sounding rockets that was developed by a subsidiary of one of the professor’s favorite companies, SPACEHAB, before they sold the system to DTI.

    Also, as you already know, the sounding rocket program has been pretty anemic at NASA in the last several years (although Alan Stern has pumped a little new life into it recently, probably because he himself has done sounding rocket flights in the past). Researchers who do sounding rocket research, like Lynch at Dartmouth, have publicly bemoaned the state of the program on a number of occasions, such as in the pages of Space News. That doesn’t sound like a very healthy market to base a business on, does it, Professor?

  • Al Fansome

    Dr. Matula,

    Thank you for acknowledging that you are both cynical and antagonistic about the NewSpace industry. It was pretty obvious.

    I am not sure who did you wrong, but I will note that in your screed above you listed nine New Space firms (SpaceX, Blue Origin, SpaceDev, XCOR, SpaceHab, UP Aerospace, JP Aerospace, Bigelow, Virgin (i.e. Branson/Allen)) that are somehow doing something right (even if they are not perfect by your standards.)

    Do these nine companies a favor, and stop the blanket attack on the New Space industry. You are attacking policies and approaches that many of these nine companies care about, and consider important to their future.

    I am not sure what is motivating your anger, but while you are taking shots at them, the people in these companies are on the playing field of life, committing their lives and personal fortunes to creating a new business.

    Yes, most of them will fail. That is the story of every industry, and a fact of life. But nobody respects the person who sits on the sideline casting asperions and judgements, and doing nothing to help.

    Instead of what you are currently doing, I recommend that you go start your own company, since you believe you know what it takes. The biggest favor you can do for all of us is to succeed. If you do get on the playing field, I promise I will not be throwing stones your way, but will be cheering you on, and trying to figure out how I can help you (and others) in the industry.

    – Al

  • Thomas,
    Masten, like the typical alt.space firm, seems to be going in many directions, from small sub-orbital to “extra-terrestrial landers” with a grand solution to everything.

    http://www.masten-space.com/products.html

    Successful companies focus on the first step, not the last one. It may be nice to have a roadmap like this in your study, but on your website it makes folks, especially investors, wonder how much attention you will give to the first step. It makes investors wonder if you are really focused on this as a business or a crusade. The former is good for ROI, the latter kills it.

    Since I’m not an officer, I can’t say anything specifically for the company, but I can give my personal opinion on the matter. The product roadmap that you quote was made to try and paint the concept that while our main focus is and always has been suborbital science, that these technologies that we’re developing are applicable to other future markets down the road–ie that the technology is not some expensive dead-end/niche. If you bothered to read the rest of our site, particularly our blog, you would see that almost all of our work to-date has been focused on the critical path of developing the technologies and vehicles we need to address the suborbital market. Even our participation in the “Lunar Lander Challenge” is directly related to that goal. The vehicle we’re building for the challenge is the same one we would’ve been building at this point even if there was no prize. I’m personally interested in lunar applications, as is Michael, due to my background with the Moon Society, but I’d say that less than 5% of our time to-date has been spent on stuff that doesn’t directly relate to our critical path, which is developing the vehicles and supporting systems to allow people to do low-cost suborbital space research and development.

    ~Jon

  • Really Elon and SpaceX are Bigelow’s only real hope.

    So what’s Lockheed Martin and the Atlas V, Tom? Chopped liver?

    I agree with Al that your fun-house-mirror view of alt.space isn’t helpful. I see a glass at least half full, and filling more. You seem to see one with a few drops and draining.

  • Thomas Matula

    Rand,

    What? An alt.space/new.space firms consorting with the evil old aerospace firms? What is the world coming to?

    Actually the fact the Bigelow is working with Lockheed is perhaps the best indication of his disgust with the alt.space/new.space movement. He’s recognized if you what a system to take humans to orbit you go to the professionals to build it, not the viewgraph firms of alt.space. Rememebr actions speak far louder then words.

    [[[I agree with Al that your fun-house-mirror view of alt.space isn’t helpful. I see a glass at least half full, and filling more. You seem to see one with a few drops and draining.]]]

    I know, you must be like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, and keep clicking your slippers together saying “I Believe” “I believe”. Sorry, group think is how a cult looks at the world, not a rationalist as a libertarian would say.

  • Thomas Matula

    Jon,

    A website is the public image of a firm. The image this website projects is of a firm with its head in the clouds, not one with its feet on the ground. If you are focusing on the sub-orbital non-tourist market that is great. Although I would say even 5% of your time on blue sky projects is a luxury for a start-up.

    Still, if I was an investor doing research on alt.space firms, or someone looking a alt.space vendors and I saw this website I would pass on by. Which is something to think about. What is the purpose of this website in your strategy. Is it part of your business development plan? Or just something to show other alt.spacers.?

  • Thomas Matula

    Nona

    Let’s see. NASA contracted with a major aerospace firm to build a launch system to replace a number of old launch systems. It produce a bit of hardware, a single test flight and no operational vehicle. Sounds familiar. And this to provide a capability NASA could purchase from alt.space firms. Where is the alt.space OUT CRY?

    Where are the Editorial and Op-eds by the Alt.Space celebrities that NASA should stop flying its own sounding rockets, it should buy them from alt.space firms (which actually could deliver in this instance as UP Aerospace and other launches show…). Where are the prospacers storming of Congress to force NASA to retire its fleet of aging sounding rockets and buy the services from alt.space firms?

    The lack of such an outcry proves better then anything else what alt.space is really about. Its about hype not substance. Its more fun to rant and rave that NASA should turn over the crown jewel of human spaceflight to companies that yet to reach orbit with their rockets I guess then to actually do something that might be productive. The Alt.space movement missed a golden opportunity to its point by forcing NASA to buy sounding rocket flights from alt.space firms instead on doing them with its existing launchers. If the alt.spacers are right this should save NASA money while increasing access to space for researchers.

    If the alt.space movement was truly about changing the paradigm of how NASA does space they would have jumped at this opportunity to prove they paradigm works. Instead they ignore it because it isn’t flashy or trendy, it doesn’t feed the egos of the movement leaders. Which is all alt.space is about.

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    If I had a few million laying around I would start-up a entrepreneurial space company to focus on the sub-orbital sounding rocket market. But as it is I prefer to make my 220K a year as a strategic consultant/online educator. BTW one key to business success is to evaluate what the real barriers to entry are, not what you wish they are and they are high for the space industry which is why most firms without millionaire backers stay in the viewgraph stage.

    As for the entrepreneurial you list. several are already trying to distance themselves from the alt.space/new.space movement and failures like Mircorp, Rotary, Ortag, Lunacorp, Applied Space Resources, 90% of the x-prize teams, etc, etc, I know most of these were “alt.space” firms (i.e. New Space 2.0) which is why the term New Space was invented, to hide the failure of CATS and the alt.space movement of the 1990’s. The promoters of New Space are not doing them any favors by using them as examples to raise funding for their viewgraph firms. Indeed they are just serving to undermine their creditability.

    Also I mention Burt Rutan, not Virigin Galactic. You are confusing two different companies. Burt Rutan always requires a contract from someone with money before he let’s Scaled Composites do any work. He is running a business and always has.

    While I see Virgin Galactic as part of the New Space Hype and am skeptical they will ever fly space tourists. It all depends on if Richard Branson holds his interest or goes chasing after the next new wave, like biofuel and global warming. Right now Virigin Galactic is good hype for his Virgin Empire and that all it is. But its already gone from the estimate $125 million in 2004 to over $275 million in start-up costs, a 120% cost over run. I expect the cost will run up more. And this is without the $198 million the State of New Mexico is shelling out to give him a place to fly from. My expectation is that the prototype Spaceshiptwo will be built, it will fail to meet expectations in the test phase and the plug will be pulled on it. But we will see in a couple years who is right and if it acutally enters passenger service.

    Why am I antagonistic to New Space? Because I see it as basically a cult of beliefs and pseudo- economic myths that is making it harder to develop government policies that will allow the EXISTING $110 billion space commerce industry from evolving to the next level. And that is perhaps the biggest lie of the New Space movement, that somehow its “inventing” space commerce. Space commerce has been around for over 40 years. The thrill seekers of space tourism, space diving and x-prize cups are no more part of the critical path to space commerce then the stunt flyers at county fairs were to air commerce. Yes, some barnstormers grew up and became part of the industry, but most didn’t, just making aviation seem like a circus stunt.

    Worst the dare devils and stunt flyers gave aviation safety, and economic viability a bad name creating an environment of regulation and industry image that took years to overcome.. A similar backlash against space tourism after the first fatal crash with celebrities will also likely harm firms seeking to find legitimate roles for humans in space commerce. I know believe that so I suggest you take the time to read some aviation weeks and other aviation magazines from the 1920’s and 1930’s educate yourself on the what happened then. It wasn’t the relatives of Knute Rocke that sued, it was the millions of his fans that called for the blood of the airline industry and led Congress to create a new stricter regulatory environment for it. Just imagine for a minute what the reaction would be if someone like Paris Hilton died in a space tourist crash… Sure she knew the risks, but did her fans or the news media looking for a story? I leave you to visual the nightmare which will follow when the profession vultures focus on space tourism and the politicos out do themselves to play to the crowd. Read up on the Knute Rocke crash, it might give you some ideas of what might actually happen…

    Tom

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    I haven’t seen Masten’s plan, but I have seen several others. Like you I am under NDA. But basically most oar the same, focusing on technology and vision, not markets and ROI. When VC’s and even angels look at a business plan they look at three things. Your Proformas, Your documentation that your proformas are realistic and the experience and quality of your management team. They could care less about visions, how you will revolutionize the world, your dreams. That is worst then noise, it’s a turn-off you are not serious. Sadly few space firms have business plans like that, at least among those I have seen.

    And yes, I know there are several pursuing sub-orbital. I just did a market research study in that area for a client so I probably know more about the legitimate firms and where they actually are then you. And the manned systems are non-starters for most existing markets. Manned systems are non-starters due to the increased cost, complexity and regulation issues.

    Which is why your “horizontal platform” is a non-starter. In fact its that same kind of thinking which was used on the Shuttle. Yes, its cheaper and smarter to place 5, 000 lb comsats in orbit using a 150,000 lb reusable space plane with a seven man crew then on an ELV. Yes, its makes a lot of sense to use a rocket with a 1,000 lbs of weight devoted to a pilot and their life support and recovery systems to place a 50 lb aeronomy package into the upper atmosphere…

    Also I am not surprised folks approach John Carmack, several groups approach Burt Rutan and Paul Allen on using Spaceshipone. There is a huge interest in several sub-orbital markets. But Burt Rutan and Paul Allen decided to go with Richard Branson and Spaceshiptwo instead of developing markets for Spaceshipone. The future will judge if that was a wise choice. Hopefully John Carmack is more hungry for money and will follow up with a unmanned vehicle.

    Tom

  • Actually the fact the Bigelow is working with Lockheed is perhaps the best indication of his disgust with the alt.space/new.space movement.

    See, that’s what I mean. There’s no reason to think that he is “disgusted.” It simply means that he’d hedging his bets. I seriously doubt that he has the emotion that attribute to him, but your projection is quite telling.

    I know, you must be like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, and keep clicking your slippers together saying “I Believe” “I believe”.

    Ummmm…No.

    People might take you more seriously if you provide more analysis, and less amateur psychoanalysis and irrational dyspepsia.

  • Yes, its makes a lot of sense to use a rocket with a 1,000 lbs of weight devoted to a pilot and their life support and recovery systems to place a 50 lb aeronomy package into the upper atmosphere…

    If it can be done more cheaply and reliably than an expendable sounding rocket that way, then in does in fact make a lot of sense, Tom.

  • Tom,
    The product roadmap was developed at the request of some of the groups we were working with who wanted to understand how our planned initial vehicle and market related to the bigger picture of space transportation. It is one page out of many on the website, all the rest of which focus on our primary market and the work we’re doing to address that primary market. As I’m not an officer in the company, and not in business development, that’s about all I feel I can say at this point.

    What? An alt.space/new.space firms consorting with the evil old aerospace firms? What is the world coming to?

    As for your belief that somehow working with the big boys is anethema to alt.space…I don’t even know where to start. Have you read anything I’ve written on my blog in the past year and a half? I’m fully supportive of alt.space firms working with big space firms. It often makes a lot of sense. Established firms and entrepreneurial firms have different strengths and weaknesses, and it’s just stupid to not try and find projects where mutual benefit is possible. I’m sure that there are some “alt.spacers” out there who haven’t figured that out, but your arguments appear more and more to be strawmen of what’s really going on in most of the industry.

    ~Jon

  • Al Fansome

    RAND: People might take you more seriously if you provide more analysis, and less amateur psychoanalysis and irrational dyspepsia.

    Rand,

    I agree.

    For somebody who likes to flaunt his credentials, DR. Matula certainly does throw a lot of emotion around, and make unsubstantiated assertions and claims.

    Policy heavy-weights focus on facts, and solid analysis, and leave the antagonism and cynicism to others.

    Let everybody be clear, Matula wrote the following:

    MATULA: So yes, I am antagonistic

    MATULA: So, yes, as a result of seeing only hype and repeated poor business decisions I am cynical

    It is a fact — based on analysis — that over 90% of the companies in any new high-tech industry fail. It is a fact that even the large majority of venture-back companies fail (They generally look at somewhere between 100 and 1000 business plans for each investment, and then most of them still fail).

    Matula gets overworked about “hype”. Of course there is hype. All companies resort in hype, otherwise known as “marketing spin”. Other industries are filled with “marketing spin” (hype) too. Show me the high-tech industry that is not filled with hype.

    The fact that hype exists, and the fact that over 90% of the companies are failling, is not proof that the industry is a failure.

    I am not upset at Dr. Matula. Is he a bad guy … of course not. He should be heard, and his proposals need to be considered. We just need to understand what his biases are, when we listen to what he has to say. I assert that Matula’s now admitted cynicism and antagonism has made him very “European” in outlook.

    America as it stands today was built on the entrepreneurial spirit. 95% of Americans know this, and celebrate the entrepreneurs who are willing (again and again) to put their lives and their fortunes on the line, to charge the barbed wire. We celebrate them, even though we know most of them will fail. We celebrate them, because we know that the “risk taking attitude” and “commitment”, of the American individual, is what counts. We know this is a fundamental discriminating feature of American culture,

    Thomas Friedman said it well:

    FRIEDMAN: America is the greatest engine of innovation that has ever existed, and it can’t be duplicated anytime soon, because it is the product of many factors: extreme freedom, an emphasis on independent thinking, a steady immigration of new minds, a risk-taking culture with no stigma attached to trying and failing, a noncorrupt bureaucracy, and financial markets and a venture capital system that are unrivaled at taking new ideas and turning them into global products.”

    Perhaps the most dangerious part of what Dr. Matula is saying … is that he appears to want to attach a stigma to trying and failing.

    I suggest that we not allow him to do that.

    – Al

  • Al Fansome

    At the core of Dr. Matula’s argument is an attack on “hype”. On the surface, appears to be a fair & reasonable position to take (even though every industry and company engages in hype at some level.)

    However, the road to hell is paved on “good intentions”.

    Therefore, I think it is required that I analytically demonstrate the deep flaws in Dr. Matula’s mind-set and attitude.

    I will now do so using Dr. Matula’s own words above:

    MATULA: What you call antagonistic, and cynical is what is called being a rational business person. Perhaps that is why I am not drinking the kool-aid or buying into hype of the Alt.space, New Space or whatever SFF plans on calling the movement next week when this name is discredited by failure.

    There is a way companies are built in the space industry. It’s the way Orbital Science was built, Spacehad was built, SpaceX is being built.

    This statement displays a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the entrepreneur, and most damaging to Matula’s argument — to the factual histories of these specific companies.

    At the helm of every successful entrepreneur is a successful hypster, who learns and moves on, to eventually become successful.

    The three founders of Orbital Sciences (Thompson, Ferguson, Webster) would have to plead guilty to hype. They received their first serious angel investor by selling him on the most hyped space business of the 1980s — commercial microgravity. They promoted their initial orbital microgravity business plan to win a “Houston Space Business Roundtable” prize — their first angel investor heard their pitch in that audience.

    After that plan failed, they then hyped a business plan based on selling orbital payloads using what was called Transfer Orbit Stage to launch out of the Shuttle (another overly hyped system.) This too failed, as it dependent on Shuttle flights that were available for commercial payloads (another major piece of policy hype).

    Eventually, Orbital overcame all the obstacles, learned from their mistakes, changed their business plan, and eventually found a real business in (guess what) –> orbital launch. They did NOT start with millions or even billions (like Matula would argue is the only way you can succeed.) In fact, they were just out of business school. More specifically, their friends thought that they were crazy.

    http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4703.html
    At the Space Foundation awards ceremony earlier that day, Webster had heard featured speaker Ben Bova quote from James Michener’s novel Space, and in that moment, he knew he had to work in the space industry. “The quote was about how each generation is presented with a frontier,” he says now. “And if you didn’t find a way to work on your generation’s frontier, you would miss the meaning of your own epic, your own age. Our frontier was, and is, space, and I wanted to be there.”

    Webster’s alacrity was the notable exception (and even Webster gave the project weeks of careful consideration before he officially signed on). The other MBAs in the room engaged in some serious hemming and hawing. Finally, one of them asked the question that seemed to be on several people’s minds: “Dave, are you crazy?”

    Thompson and Ferguson did not feel crazy. They had been bouncing ideas off each other all summer, and they were convinced that they had hit upon an idea that could work. Winning the Space Foundation prize, traveling to Houston—this simply fanned the fires that were already smoldering.

    True, their first concepts for a space company were mostly duds.

    The next successful company that Dr. Matula mentions as an example that we should use as a model is SpaceHab.

    What Dr. Matula fails to mention, perhaps he does not know, is that SpaceHab was founded as a “space tourism company”. Not only a “space tourism company”, but an orbital space tourism company. Bob Citron started the company with putting a module in the back of the Shuttle that would carrry passengers.

    That hyped business plan failed.

    Then SpaceHab jumped on to the next most hyped business band wagon of the day — microgravity research. SpaceHab actually raised many millions of dollars on the hype of an orbitla microgravity research facility.

    That hyped business plan failed.

    Citron has publicly spoken about the process. He has spoken about how he mortgaged his house, and how his passion and commitment to creating SpaceHab resulted in his divorce. By Matula’s definition, he was crazy. During this process, many people were throwing stones at SpaceHab … just like Matula is doing to the SpaceHab’s of today.

    Eventually, SpaceHab persuaded NASA to sign a contract with SpaceHab, which was in turn used to justify a $200M private investment.

    It was the 1990s equivalent of COTS (another program that Matula apparantly despises.)

    MATULA: The key problem with raising funding for COTS is who would be qualified to receive it?

    It that is not enough, then we have the hard data on SpaceDev — another company which Matula does not understand.

    MATULA: Now with that said, there are entrepreneurial space firms, I won’t disgrace them with the term Alt.Space or New Space, like Spacehab, SpaceDev and SpaceX.

    Anybody who was around for the early years of SpaceDev will recall that Jim Benson’s business plan was to mine an asteroid and sell the processed resources. Benson gave speeches, and interviews, for years talking about the TRILLIONS of dollars in value that were available from mining platinum-group metals from asteroids. Talk about hype. Benson is great at it.

    He eventually changed his focus (as do all good entrepreneurs), and succeeded. SpaceDev is now building “orbital spacecraft”, and technoloy pieces for others building spacecraft.

    NEXT –> DIAMANDIS

    Do I have to say it? Peter Diamandis is a great hypster. He has half a dozen businesses he is involved with, at any one time, and he will sell (hype) you on any of them if you give him the chance. Ballyhoo for him.

    SUMMARY:

    According to the attitude espoused by Matula, neither Orbital Sciences nor SpaceHab nor SpaceDev nor Diamandis should have been allowed to exist, let alone succeed.

    If Matula’s thinking had reigned, none of these these companies (Orbital, SpaceHab, SpaceDev) would exist today. And the Xprize would have failed.

    I suggest that we learn from the real facts of history. We should celebrate the entrepreneurs of today, we should do what we can to help them, we should always be a little skeptical (not cynical) about what they are currently selling.

    But we also know that the best of them will learn from trying, and figure out a way.

    Please, Dr. Matula, stop throwing the stones.

    – Al

  • Thomas Matula

    Hi Jon,

    Its good you are focused on one product and one strategy as that is the best hope for success, provided there is a solid market for it. I hope you are going after the aeronomy and educational market as that is where the near term value is for a firm like Mastens.

    Also my statement on Lockheed was sarcastic as alt.spacers often talk about the evil giants like Boeing and Lockheed being the enemy of space access, although it’s interesting how the rhetoric against then is less since started funding some of the alt.space conferences :-)

    Actually there is really little that alt.space promises to do which the majors couldn’t do as well, if there were a real market or RFP for it. Do you really think Boeing couldn’t build a small, cheap space tourist vehicle like the alt.space firms are proposing if there was a significant market and the liability issues were addressed? Remember the lesson of IBM and Apple.

  • Thomas Matula

    Rand,

    Yes, that is the argument made for the Shuttle in a nutshell. The key is how to make the larger and more complex manned vehicle cheaper then a smaller unmanned one with a lot fewer systems.

    Or address the risk that if your manned one crashes your business is grounded for years at a minimum while if the unmanned one crashes it only takes a few months to get back into launching?

    As for Bigelow you might want to track down a tape of his internet by Art Bell.

    http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/03/17.html

    Art asks him why he is launching on Russian vehicles. He talks about how he hoped to launch on a U.S. vehicle, but firm, which never built a launch vehicle before constantly kept slipping the launch date “playing hell with my schedule” and he just went to Russians as a result as it was easier to deal with ITAR.

  • Yes, that is the argument made for the Shuttle in a nutshell.

    Ummmm…what is the “argument made for the Shuttle in a nutshell”?

    Or address the risk that if your manned one crashes your business is grounded for years at a minimum while if the unmanned one crashes it only takes a few months to get back into launching?,

    That’s not a problem intrinsic to launch systems. It’s one unique to government-funded ones. And historically, there is little difference in standdown times for crewed versus uncrewed launch systems. (Do have some actual data to indicate otherwise?)

    And regardless of what Bigelow told Art Bell (wow, what a credible source), I doubt that he was “disgusted.” I suspect that he was merely skeptical.

  • Thomas Matula

    Rand,

    Yes, what Bigelow said live on the radio in response to Art Bell’s question is not a creditable source for what Bigelow said…..

    As for you belief that private launch accidents that involve humans pilots will be different than NASA ones, while just keep clicking those slippers…. NASA never though it would be dragged through the wringer on Challenger until it happened…. Never underestimate the ability of Congress to stick its nose into things that will generate PR as the great protector of public interests…

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    So that is your shot at analysis?

    Actually your history outlines of Orbital Sciences and Spacehab really proves the point I am making about alt.space and hype. While these firms were in the hype stage they couldn’t raise funds and did get anything done. Its only when they stop hyping ideas like space tourism and other atl.space ideas and focused onproviding a specific for a specific market.

    In short they stop acting like alt.spacers hobbyists and started acting like real business firms. The press releases and conferences appearances dropped off and they started focusing on filling out their contracts.

    Xcor is going this route now having got the matching funds needed for the Phase II SBIR and I expect they will ease out of the conference scene and drop the volume of hype while they work on the Phase II SBIR.

    Its interesting you skipped firms like the several Gary Hudson ran (remember Phoenix? Orbital tourism in 1986 or bust.) or the long list of lunar failures.

    Yes, many firms do go bankrupt as start-ups are risky, especially when the firms ignore the basic principles of business and management.

    But those entrepreneurs don’t go crying to Washington that the government should buy their products instead of established contractors with a track record because of free enterprise like alt.spacers do. They don’t suffer from the fantasy that a half-dozen engineers who have never built an orbital launch system are more qualified then the teams at Boeing and Lockheed that have been building operating launch vehicles for decades. They don’t expect they will get billions from the government to build the next generation of launch vehicles, not the firms that have the track record and experience. Or argument that NASA’s job is to ensure their success. That is the core fantasy of alt.space.

    All the alt.space/new.space hype does is raise expectations among the minority who are spacefans and distract folks from the policies and work needed to really open space. It only delays the expansion of the Earth’s economic sphere beyond GEO, not accelerates it. And as wave of failure builds it drive off the young people and those with money, indeed it has driven many off, to industries and markets that are real.

    Prizes are great for hobbyists to create minor advances. but AMCs build an industry. Putting humans in the launch loop may feed egos and fantasies of star trek, but unmanned systems are far more likely to turn a profit and generate ROI. And NASA is not out to get anyone. If my pointing this out to you is raining on your parade, but perhaps that is what you need to see that the alt.space emperor has no cloths. But I expect it won’t as the group think is a cult is just to strong for reality to overcome.

    Still, the email I have received encourage that other alt.spacers are getting it and moving beyond the new space hype to start thinking how to really expand the space commerce industry beyond GEO.

  • Its good you are focused on one product and one strategy as that is the best hope for success, provided there is a solid market for it. I hope you are going after the aeronomy and educational market as that is where the near term value is for a firm like Mastens.
    Tom,
    Its good you are focused on one product and one strategy as that is the best hope for success, provided there is a solid market for it. I hope you are going after the aeronomy and educational market as that is where the near term value is for a firm like Mastens.

    I can’t go into any real detail in public (you’d have to contact Michael for a copy of the business plan), but those two markets are part of our main focus. There are some other suborbital research and technology development markets that we’re working with, but once again, I can’t really give any details–it isn’t my place.

    As for the more glamorous stuff like space-diving and space-tourism, we’d all love to fly eventually, so I’m sure there’s a good point at some point in the future we’ll do a vehicle rev that includes stuff for a pilot and passenger or pilot and diver…but those aren’t on our critical path so-to-speak.

    Also my statement on Lockheed was sarcastic as alt.spacers often talk about the evil giants like Boeing and Lockheed being the enemy of space access, although it’s interesting how the rhetoric against then is less since started funding some of the alt.space conferences :-)

    Well, I actually used to be in the “big aerospace is evil” crowd, and I’m sure a lot of alt.spacers still are. My turning regarding opinion about Boeing and Lockheed was the Luncheon address by Paul Eckart of Boeing at the RTM VI conference. He laid out a solid case for big aerospace, NASA, and alt.space companies working together to acheive what no individual group could pull-off by themselves. Even if NASA doesn’t want to play ball very much, a lot of what he said has gotten me thinking. There’s a lot of potential there.

    Actually there is really little that alt.space promises to do which the majors couldn’t do as well, if there were a real market or RFP for it. Do you really think Boeing couldn’t build a small, cheap space tourist vehicle like the alt.space firms are proposing if there was a significant market and the liability issues were addressed? Remember the lesson of IBM and Apple.

    While that is true, there are also many cases where the Boeings and Lockmarts can get significant benefit out of partnering with a small aerospace firm. I really can’t go into too many solid examples at this exact moment, but sometime after I’m done defending my thesis (tomorrow morning), and getting it polished/fixed/revised/published, I’ll try to write some more.

    ~Jon

  • Ferris Valyn

    Thomas (and Rand too a little bit),

    The system with which you are arguing with Rand (which was Armadillo, although it applies somewhat to other companies, but the discussion was really originally about Armadillo) isn’t man depedent – at least, thats not how it seem that Carmack and AA are presenting it – IMHO, its more like a modular system like Soyuz – say what you want about Soyuz, but it has a very good track record. Its been a manned transfer vehicle, a manned research outpost, an ummanned cargo provider, and an unmanned lunar probe (and nearly became manned lunar system, and still may if Space Adventures has its way). But the key point in that is modularization. And thats what Armadillo is planning on doing. So the comparison to The Space Shuttle isn’t really a good comparison. It really should be compared to Soyuz.

    Now, I admit there is a legitamate question when it comes to non-modular systems and horizontal integration (IE switching between payloads) for launch providers, but I really think that modularization has already proven itself, with soyuz, as cost effective.

  • Its only when they stop hyping ideas like space tourism and other atl.space ideas and focused onproviding a specific for a specific market.

    In short they stop acting like alt.spacers hobbyists and started acting like real business firms. The press releases and conferences appearances dropped off and they started focusing on filling out their contracts.

    Xcor is going this route now having got the matching funds needed for the Phase II SBIR and I expect they will ease out of the conference scene and drop the volume of hype while they work on the Phase II SBIR.

    As far as I know, XCOR continues to raise funds, and they are continuing to fund the Xerus, which is a space tourism vehicle. They are certainly not disavowing space passenger travel as their market goal. I’m afraid that you’re going to have to find a different example to support your flimsy thesis.

  • Al Fansome

    MATULA: Actually your history outlines of Orbital Sciences and Spacehab really proves the point I am making about alt.space and hype. While these firms were in the hype stage they couldn’t raise funds and did get anything done. Its only when they stop hyping ideas like space tourism and other atl.space ideas and focused onproviding a specific for a specific market.

    In short they stop acting like alt.spacers hobbyists and started acting like real business firms. The press releases and conferences appearances dropped off and they started focusing on filling out their contracts.

    Dr. Matula,

    I am not going to discuss or debate the business plans of individual companies. I find flaws with the plans of lots of companies, sometimes deep flaws, but I start with the presumption that the good ones will learn (and I am not smart enough to know who all the good ones are). Also, nobody elected me as judge, jury and executioner, so it is not my place to take on the role of trashing companies in public. If this type of industry warfare starts becoming acceptable, then everybody in the industry would be quickly trashed, as we all live in glass houses. Including you.

    IT BEARS REPEATING — If people in industry had your attitude, then neither Orbital, nor SpaceHab, nor SpaceDev, nor the XPrize would have ever succeeded. Everybody starts with a weak business plan, and then learns by doing. But your approach would have us kill them off before they have a chance to learn.

    If all you are (now) saying is that entrepreneurial companies should learn from their mistakes, and adapt to the realities of the business environment, then you should have said that.

    That simple point certainly does not justify the antagonism and cynicism you are displaying, the long screed you wrote, or the public attacks on individual companies.

    If you now want to make yourself feel better by publicly criticizing the business plans of individual companies, that is quite easy (as there are always easy examples to make in any industry).

    But it is the mentality of a bully to attack others just to make yourself feel good/better/smarter.

    For the third time, please stop throwing stones at the industry.

    – Al

    PS — That said, it is legitimate and appropriate to criticize specific initiatives or proposals being put forth by some in the industry, assuming the criticism is based on fact and reason. When you do that (as you have in the past), it is a welcome contribution.

  • Thomas Matula

    Ferris,

    Yes, modular designs have a better change of working and the Russian Soyuz is a good example. If John Carmack uses an unmmaned one for the 50 lb aeronomy package that would make sense. No point in rsiking a human just to measure a few aeronomy variables.

  • Thomas Matula

    Rand,

    And Kistler-Rocket plane is still displaying its space tourist vehicle although nearly all its efforts are now on its COTS contract so its not surprising the Xcor is still showing its space torurist vehicle. SpaceDev still had NEAP on its website for years after the firm started getting real by focusing on real products and markets. It takes time for firms to make the transition.

    Again the futre will show is Xcor will follow your path or if I am right and they will become another contractor to DOD and NASA – space tourism long forgotten as with Spacehab.

  • Thomas Matula

    Al

    One way you are able to tell a cult from an industry is that cults react violently to criticism by attacking the folks doing it, just like you are now. Industries by contrast actually welcome such criticism as a way to identify and eliminate weakness. The reason is that cults reacts so violently is that they operate as a form of group think around basic assumptions the group has accepted on faith. They a re based on Axions accepted with examination. The focus of a cult is to ensure everyone keeps accepting these basic principles without question or criticism as an element of faith. Dissenter must be purged.

    The basic assumptions of the New Space Cult are…

    1) A group of individuals working alone who have extremely limited experience, if any, with orbital spaceflight or larger rockets are more qualified then NASA or the major aerospace firms with it comes to designing and building large spacecraft like those needed to return to the Moon. Unlike NASA and the aerospace majors they don’t need to follow a learning curve or establish a track record.

    2) NASA should turn over its spaceflight budget to these start-up firms without question as they re more likely to build a successful replacement to the Shuttle then existing firms.

    3) Building spacecraft is easy, anyone may do it in their workshop. NASA and the aerospace industry only make it seem hard to get more money from the tax payer.

    4) Spaceflight is cheap – its only aerospace majors who conspire with NASA to keep it expensive so they have a monopoly of spaceflight.

    5) NASA and the aerospace majors are conspiring to keep new space firms from being funded or from succeeding

    6) That fifty years of NASA procurement practice is worthless. Instead NASA should throw the procurement manual out and put itself completely at the mercy of new space” firms for all is spacecraft needs. They are the only ones really able to development the technology needed to return to the Moon. Forget the aerospace majors, they are “old” space and don’t get it.

    7) That prizes are linearly scalable. The best way to get to the Moon and Mars is to offer billion dollar class prizes. Corporations will race each to win. Note, the literature list I posted a while back showed the opposite id true, there is an inverse relationship, the smaller the prize goal the more individuals are able to compete with self-funding, the more like an innovative solution is found. The space suit glove was a classic example of this relationship.

    8) That enormous profits await in space, if only the NASA and the aerospace majors would stop blocking the New Space firms from pursuing them.

    9) That the Outer Space Treaty is a barrier to creating space commerce, despite the fact that 75 percent of all space spending last year was for commercial activities. It must be abolished with the rest of the regulation on space flight.

    10) And don’t bother us with strategic management, marketing or basic finance. We are rocketeers and know those don’t apply to our business, investors just need to feel our passion for spacecraft – if we build them they will come… Doesn’t everyone have the dream?

    Have I covered them all or did I miss some?

    Which brings us back to the focus of this thread. The alt.space/new.space belief that the only way to close the spaceflight gap is not to provide more funding to VSE, or better still replace it with a system designed to fly on the EELV as was planned before Dr. Griffin. Instead its just to rain money on COTS and stand back.

    COTS is an experiment, a very risky one based policy makers buying the principles of new space hype listed above without question. To pretend its anything else is “drinking the kool-aid” as the saying goes. Its odds of producing anything of substance are long at best. Its not something you should gamble nation space policy on.

    If pointing this out is “throwing stones” so be it. National space policy has been run down enough dead ends, witness the Mars Underground undermining space exploration research by crating a myopia at NASA on Mars. We now know far more about Mars then the Moon, even though its will be generations, and probably 2-3 technical generations of spacecraft, before astronauts ever make it to Mars. Now New Space hype is threatening the same thing in regard to the VSE by making it seem a trivial undertaking to go there if ONLY alt.space firms were in charge and funded by NASA.

    By if my pointing out the emperor has no cloths bothers you so then I will stop posting on this thread. You may continue the hype with no further interruptions by reality to the group think of new space…

  • […] space? Well, Gagnon says the two will “get to play hardball once again” because of Martinez’s recent pledge to minimize the Shuttle-Orion gap. Gagnon claims that he really understands what’s behind NASA’s plans to return to the […]

  • And Kistler-Rocket plane is still displaying its space tourist vehicle although nearly all its efforts are now on its COTS contract so its not surprising the Xcor is still showing its space torurist vehicle.

    Those are wo different vehicles, for two different markets, and they are working on both, Tom, with entirely different funding sources. Rocketplane XP for suborbital tourists, Kistler K1 for orbital cargo delivery. For someone who proclaims himself a consultant and an expert, you don’t seem to know what’s going on.

    Again the futre will show is Xcor will follow your path or if I am right and they will become another contractor to DOD and NASA – space tourism long forgotten as with Spacehab.

    Yes, it will. XCOR is using government money to fund its own R&D, which is aimed at building space passenger vehicles. Anyone working there will be surprised by your foolish assessment of their business goals and strategies.

  • Al Fansome

    MATULA: One way you are able to tell a cult from an industry is that cults react violently to criticism by attacking the folks doing it, just like you are now. Industries by contrast actually welcome such criticism as a way to identify and eliminate weakness. The reason is that cults reacts so violently is that they operate as a form of group think around basic assumptions the group has accepted on faith. They a re based on Axions accepted with examination. The focus of a cult is to ensure everyone keeps accepting these basic principles without question or criticism as an element of faith. Dissenter must be purged.

    Dr. Matula,

    I have explicitly asked that you should continue posting your criticism of policy and political initiatives … and to back up your criticism with facts and reason.

    Attacking individual companies, and publicly declaring “cults” and “hype” and “kool-aid” is not fact-based analysis. Doing so is not an attempt to provide constructive feedback.

    Let me give you a specific example. In a previous thread you went on an emotionally-laden rant trashing the concept of prizes. You did not discriminate. It was only after I substantively responded to your rant that you admitted that small prizes can work, and that it might be possible for a prize in the neighborhood of $100M to work. You could have said this from the beginning, but you did not.

    I know a lot of space policy experts, and I don’t need to go to such extent to pull the substantive content out them. They know how to communicate in a substantive manner, and to influence policy, when they want to.

    Again, in your own words, you are “antagonistic” and “cynical.” Making these emotional attacks on a political blog — “spacepolitics.com” — makes it clear that you are not attempting to help the industry by providing substantive feedback.

    You are actively engaging in an “antagonistic” political campaign, not a policy discussion to improve the substance of policy.

    Please don’t dress up your agenda as something else.

    – Al

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    You are the one attempting to dress up your “new space” agenda as something else other then hype and a blog as something more then simply a moderated discussion board focused responses to news articles.

    My public space policy work is out there, in referred conference papers and journal articles which is the appropriate venue for policy work. Just do a google and you will see them. The purpose of a blog by contrast is for frank discussions on policy much as you would have in a coffee house. Not a substitue for workshops, conferences, studies or work groups as you are inferring.

    Yes, billion dollar prizes are crazy. Even a 100 million dollar one is pushing the envelope. And the case is still out if the X-prize actually have created an industry or only short-circuited its birth. 2-3 years should tell the story on that one.

    In business you take off the rose colored glasses and look long and hard at what is reality. The field of dream approach only works in the movies. Viewgraphs are not hardware. Duplicating something done 40 years ago is not a breakthrough. And alt.space/new space “industry” is only a minor fraction of the $110 billion dollar space commerce industry. These are realities that you continue to ignore when defending new space.

    And you ignore how the hype of new space has caused states and local governments to waste millions in taxpayer dollars chasing after it. Have you tried to go to Kern County to get an industrial bond for a rocket company recently? If you have they will probably show you an old “new space” rocket they are looking to get rid of… Or approach states like Texas on spaceports? Those waters have been well poisoned by buying into new space hype and learning the reality the hard way.

    That is why I see new space as its currently promoted doing far more harm then good to the efforts to expand the space economy. And why I see a need to speak against it instead of keeping silent and letting it continue to do its damage.

    Tell me. Do you believe that transatlantic suborbital cargo service will begin in 2011 or North Carolina will have a campus in orbit in 2020? Both were presented to North Carolina policy makers as possible scenarios by the Space Frontier Foundation in this 2004 policy analysis.

    http://www.ncsu.edu/kenan/ncsi/Docs/AeroSpaceEconomyInNC.pdf

    Those predictions are on page 22. The Space Frontier Foundation is listed on the title page. I. Yes, if you only believe… I wonder if North Carolina still believes them? I wonder what would be the reaction of the state to a legitimate spaceport proposal following this introduction to “space commerce”.

    I have seen other similar “policy analysis” by new space groups causing states to go off on wild gooses chases.

    The late Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport is another good example. The new space hype passed through there about 6 years ago via a firm called Space Access which argued it would get billions from NASA to build a SSTO for tourism. The state spent about 1.4 million on studies and pre-licensing activities in Brazoria County before it realized that it was hype and the reality of what markets a spaceport there would actually serve. Raised expectations dashed it just pulled the plug, killing off any chance for a realistic spaceport which could have benefited the region. Wasted taxpayer dollars. Sad to say that new space hype (actually I guess you would call it CATS hype since that was the term of the day for New Space…) basically poisoned the waters for any legitimate plans for a coastal spaceport in Texas because they would never measure up to the expectations caused by the hype.

    I know “buyer beware”. If these states invested in new space hype its their fault, not the new space advocates that came through with their viewgraphs… But is it really? Ask yourself that honestly? Are the “raised expectations” of the “New Space” PR machine actually doing far more damage to expanding space commerce then helping it?

    Yes, I have seen first hand the damage new space hype has done and how hard it is to clean up after the raised expectations. How hard it is to overcome the cynicism they created among the policy markets. Which is why I think you need to see if the COTS experiment actually works before pushing it as the answer to all of NASA’s problems, bringing us once again back to the point of this BB thread. And why I have become antagonistic and cynical about alt.space 3.0, AKA “New Space”.

    Tom

  • Duplicating something done 40 years ago is not a breakthrough.,/em>

    If you can do it for a tiny fraction of the cost that it was then, it in fact is.

    Of course a digital computer isn’t a breakthrough–we’ve been doing that for over half a century. But making one that people can afford to have on their desks is.

  • Dang, I wish this had a “preview” feature.

    Last two grafs of the above were mine, the first one was Dr. Matula’s.

  • Al Fansome

    MATULA: Tell me. Do you believe that transatlantic suborbital cargo service will begin in 2011 or North Carolina will have a campus in orbit in 2020? Both were presented to North Carolina policy makers as possible scenarios by the Space Frontier Foundation in this 2004 policy analysis.I have seen other similar “policy analysis” by new space groups causing states to go off on wild gooses chases.

    Again, you keep harping on alt.space/NewSpace as if they are the only ones who do this.

    Maybe we should invent a hype scale — and hypometer — and compare the hype?

    What about what Lockheed did in the late 1990s? They persuaded about a dozen potential launch port states that “they had a good chance” to be the home location of VentureStar. I talked to a number of them — they all believed that it was down to them and one or two other states. It was sad. The New Mexico spaceport of today is a descendent of the team that wanted to land the VentureStar deal. The same goes with the existing Oklahoma spaceport.

    More specifically, if you look at the general history of “port” deals, and local/state economic development in general, states and local communities shovel huge amounts of money into attempting to bring some industry or company to their state. It is almost always a bad investment, on average, for the taxpayer. But the average taxpayer does not understand this, and it is good for the politicians who bring home the “big visible public win.”

    But back to the space industry …

    OldSpace helped NASA sell the Shuttle as flying 50 times per year, at $10 million per flight. That was complete hype, and it cost the American taxpayers 50 BILLION dollars and we lost 30 years and and entire generation of possibility.

    QUESTION: Where would you put the “Shuttle marketing campaign of the 1970s” on the hype scale?

    OldSpace helped NASA sell the nation on a space station that was supposed to only cost $8 Billion, and do everything for everybody, but whose true cost is now over 100 BILLION DOLLARS, and at a small fraction of its original planned capability.

    QUESTION: Where would you put the “Space Station marketing campaign of the 1980s/1990s” on the hype scale?

    More recently, Mike Griffin made a speech justifying >$100 BILLION investment in the Constellation program, based on the fact that we built cathedrals hundreds of years ago.

    QUESTION: Where would you put that speech on the hype scale?

    What you keep harping on …

    1) Is not unique to the charlatans in the NewSpace industry. As I previously illustrated, the successful NewSpace entreprenuers (David Thompson, Bob Citron, Jim Benson) do it too.

    2) Is NOT special to NewSpace. OldSpace does it too.

    3) Is NOT even special to the space industry. Every industry does it.

    4) It is NOT even special to industry. Government agencies do it too.

    Big companies and small companies, new companies and old companies, private industry and government agencies … do exactly what you are complaining about.

    You are taking a problem related to human nature — and over generalizing it as some sort of problem that is unique to NewSpace.

    Meanwhile, there are many companies in the NewSpace industry who do not resort to “hype” — many who are doing hard and quiet work … many who are taking a Clayton Christiansen approach — and you are not doing them any favors by trashing the industry as a whole.

    Therefore, when you say you are doing us all a favor, I don’t buy it.

    If you really wanted the industry to succeed, you would be a teensy bit more selective … and a teensy bit more focused … in your criticism.

    Since you refuse to do that, I can only conclude that you don’t want the industry to succeed.

    – Al

  • Al Fansome

    MATULA: My public space policy work is out there, in referred conference papers and journal articles which is the appropriate venue for policy work.

    Dr. Matula,

    Do you really believe that “referred conference papers and journal articles” is how real policy work gets done?

    – Al

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    Again as you your example shows, you prove the point of about alt.space being a cult, not a industry. Instead of saying yes, that some alt.space folks are just “charlatans” ( to use your word) and should not be considered part of the industry you embrace them all. And attack the person pointing them out as pure hype. And of course following the partyline you bring up the favor whipping boys of new space, the ISS and VentureStar while neglecting the role atl.space 1.0 and CATS (alt.space 2.0) thinking (and hype) played in them.

    The ISS costs as much as it does because the original $8 billion dollar 1983 design was never built. Instead it was, at the request of Congress, redesigned and redesigned for over 15 years. And then in 1992 redsigned and placed in a new orbit to accommodate Russia. As you should know if you had any knowledge of space policy as you claim. Comparing the 1983 design to the ISS is comparing apples and oranges.

    And VentureStar failed because NASA bought into the CATS route (atl,space 2.0 hype…) instead of simply funding it 100% as a Shuttle replacement as you are proposing for COTS. Remember the Launch Services Purchase Act? Alt.space 1.0 crowning achievement?

    http://www.cwo.com/~davida/

    If NASA just funded a Shuttle replacement at 100%, as you are proposing for COTS, it probably would have been built. Or a more likely one of the other X-33 contenders. The technical issues could have been solved with more money, but oh wait, NASA was only allowed to contribute so much with the rest coming from industry because of the huge commercial demand for CATS… After all X-33 was only a technical demonstrator to help industry…

    In short, VentureStar it was a experiment built on alt.space hype as you well know if you were around at the time. And because it was seen as a technical demonstrator (X-33) NASA also selected the most technically difficult of the three options. Which is what you do if you are building an X-craft as you learn the most that way. If instead NASA had pursued it as a Shuttle replacement the vehicle selected would have likely been much different and less of a technical risk. Its also possible it would had replaced the Shuttle years ago if NASA has viewed it as a simple Shuttle replacement, not a radical commercial technology.

    And BTW I and a number of folks involved with the SRS Task Force advised New Mexico to past on VetnureStar. But the alt.space “road show” kept talking up all the benefits of CATS (I remember one meeting where flyers were passed out pointing out Paris was 45 minutes from WSMR by suborbital flight…) and the state bought into it hook line and sinker. I hope they haven’t made the same bad deal with VG. Also the spaceport effort in New Mexico didn’t start with the VentureStar, it started with the DC-X. But then I never saw you around at any of the early planning meetings so I guess you wouldn’t know first hand.

    And which brings us back to this thread. If New Space is so important to you why do you defend the “charlatans” and group them in with the serious firms? Why don’t YOU care about the image of New Space and work to weed them out?

    Individuals and organizations that make outrageous claims or prediction are the ones hurting the creditability of the New Space industry far more then someone who is willing to point out some firms are real and others just vaporware – beware. Or that a 20 billion dollar Mars prize is shear nonsense.

    Or do you actually believe DHL will be providing sub-orbital transatlantic package delivery in 2011? That if NASA rained 4 billion on a start-up with no experience with orbital vehicles it would get a cheap SSTO RLV in a few short years? That if a 20 billion dollar Mars prize was offered as a replacement to VSE corporations would line up to compete and investors would line up to fund them? If you don’t why don’t YOU speak up instead of attacking those that do?

    Allowing the “charlatans” (to once again use a word you introduced) the same right to use the New Space name, and defending their hype and viewgraphs simply drags the image of the entire industry to their level.

    You are the one doing the New Space industry a disservice by saying there is no different between the “hype” firms like Spacehab and SpaceX and the “hype” of the viewgraph firms claiming they will revolutionize spaceflight if only someone gave them a few billion. Or the “prophets” claiming that transatlantic suborbital cargo flights and orbital college campuses are only a few years away. All you are doing is giving them a free ride and creditability on the accomplishment of firms that are actually helping to expand space commerce.

    Let’s see first if suborbital tourism actually amounts to an industry before using it as an example or calling the X-Prize a success. As Alan Boyle points out it always seems to be about 2 years in the future…

    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/23/201976.aspx

    Again, think about it. Who is the real threat? The person who points out the Emperor has no cloths or the ones assuring him how beautiful they are? Which one is really serving the Emperor interests best? Who is really best serving the interests of “New Space”? Ask yourself that question…

    Tom

  • Al Fansome

    Tom,

    While we both agree that hype exists, we differ on how much of a problem it is. You want to punish the entrepeneurs who engage in it, even though almost all successful entrepreneurs engage in hype (including Elon Musk, Bob Citron, Peter Diamandis, David Thompson and Jim Benson). My proposed alternative is to help them see if & when & where they are not being effective, and to help accelerate their learning process so that they can succeed.

    Next, while we both agree that charlatans exist, that is highly charged “distinction” that must be backed up by *proof* before being thrown at any individual or company. Furthermore, I suspect that we have significantly different definitions of “charlatan” and how many charlatans are out there.

    Based on your prior statements, I suspect that you would list a large number of existing entrepreneurs as “charlatans”. In my opinion (and this may not be your intention) but if you got your way I believe a witch hunt would ensue as we start debating who the charlatans are, and whether we should drown them, or burn them at the stake. If this became the modus operandi, everybody would be pointing their fingers at everybody else, trying to encourage the witch hunters to look the other way.

    I suspect that many of the people you would call “charlatan”, I would call enthusiastic and passionate entrepreneurs who may be naive and ignorant at the moment, but who will learn from their mistakes, or who will fail and give up. These Americans are in the process of learning the most important lessons of being an entrepreneur … by actually starting a business … by trying, by failing, by learning, and hopefully then improving their plans and trying again and eventually succeeding.

    You see bad people who are doing bad things and who need to be stopped.

    I see good people who should be given a chance to learn (just like we gave Thompson, Citron, Benson and Diamandis a chance), who deserve to be respectfully coached (in private), and who deserve our help and encouragement because they are doing something that is quintessentially American and honorable at its core.

    I don’t know if there is anything else for us to talk about on this subject.

    I think we should just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

    – Al

  • Thomas Matula

    Al,

    No, there doesn’t seem to be any common ground. You seem to believe that when someone makes a crazy statement like DHL will start suborbital transatlantic cargo service in 2011, or when some suggests that a $20 billion Mars prize we should all say All right! Great Idea! Instead of being honest and saying, you have got to be kidding…

    To you all hype is the same and its ALL good. I bet if some new space firms came out hyping a form of anti-gravity system you would welcome them with open arms as new space firms.

    And so you feel the serious firms should be forced to climb a much higher creditability barrier with investors, regulators and the business community rather then censure those who haven’t a clue about space, business or marketing. That those firms and individuals who haven’t a clue should continue to be allowed to poison the waters and make it harder for the rest to do business in states where the hype masters passed through first.

    Yes, I do think we need to disagree as we are on different paths to the future.

    I am interested in helping build the creditability of entrepreneurial space firms to lower the barrier for them. You seem just interested in undermining their creditability by grouping them in with the hype masters and viewgraph firms which may up such a percentage of new space. You seem interested in allowing those hype masters to free ride on the efforts of those trying to actually build legitimate space enterprises.

    So yes, lets tolerate the new space hype masters and praise them as New Space pioneers and spokespeople. Let’s agree by our silence when they make outrageous claims and statement.

    And lets allow them to drag the entrepreneurial space firms down to the level of the New Space “industry” …

    And you wonder why folks have a problem with seeing New Space as nothing more then another run of the failed hype of “old” alt.space and CATS? And why legitimate firms have such a high barrier to overcome with investors?

    Yes we must disagree. You just seem intent on associating firms like SpaceX and Blue Origins with viewgraph firms and the hype masters of New Space, dragging them down to that level. You seem intent on undermining the industry you claim to support rather then ruffle a few feathers.

    Tom

  • Al Fansome

    Tom,

    Yes, we will just have to agree to disagree.

    I have said all that I am going to say on this subject.

    – Al

  • […] has previously said that he wants to reduce the gap, although his statements yesterday set him apart from Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), who wants to extend […]

Leave a Reply to Al Fansome Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>