The Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill reviews the concerns about the gap in US government human spaceflight, arguing that “[a]erospace companies are using memories of the Cold War and the prospect of American astronauts having to hitch a ride on a Russian rocket” in an effort to increase NASA funding. The article profiles both SpaceX, which is seeking additional money to fund COTS Capability D (the crew transport option), and United Space Alliance, which wants additional funding to accelerate Constellation.
What’s noteworthy is that these companies are drawing increasingly on big-name lobbying firms in their efforts. SpaceX, the article notes, has hired the Podesta Group to lobby for additional NASA funding, while USA has hired the new Breaux-Lott Leadership Group (founded early this year by former senators John Breaux and Trent Lott) in addition to its existing lobbyists.
It’s about time. Microsoft didn’t send its lobbyists to offer homage/cash, and paid the price in their antitrust suit. Or so one theory goes. The problem of course is that if you’ve got a federal government sticking its nose into everything (baseball steroid use?), then whatever you do, you need lobbyists and lawyers to protect your interests. Would that it were not so.
SpaceX, the article notes, has hired the Podesta Group to lobby for additional NASA funding,
While I support greater government funding for SpaceX, so much for the “new space” funding our way to the Solar System. Before they even manage a successful launch, SpaceX looks increasingly like they are headed down the same road well-traveled by Orbital Sciences.
Interesting article in this week’s AvWeek about China investing in the infrastructure to support human spaceflight for the long term. I like the argument, but the only evidence offered appears to be some paintings and the deployment of TDRS-like relay spacecraft.
— Donald
DONALD: While I support greater government funding for SpaceX, so much for the “new space†funding our way to the Solar System. Before they even manage a successful launch, SpaceX looks increasingly like they are headed down the same road well-traveled by Orbital Sciences.
Donald,
So SpaceX should unilaterally disarm, and not buy “equivalent access” to get their message across to national decision-makers? Are you suggesting that Elon should let others (like Griffin, Kranz, USA, Lockheed, Boeing) dominate the conversation on Capitol Hill, and define the debate?
Hiring a lobbying firm does not mean you are “headed down the smae road well-traveled by Orbital Sciences”. In fact, Orbital Sciences could learn a thing or two from Elon. The OSC leadership generally disdains the lobbying strategy, and OSC is known for having a comparatively small lobbying effort.
It means that Elon learns fast, and that SpaceX is not making the same mistake as those made by Beal, and MirCorp, and many other internet millionaire’s who get into space — who generally bring the blind spots of their industry’s with them.
Space is one of the most political of industries, and politics always wins.
Finally, Elon is NOT in the same wealth class as Jeff Bezos, who can afford to ignore all this political. Elon needs to leverage federal funding as part of his strategy. Bezos does not. (That said, even Bill Gates learned that he could not ignore politics. Bezos may be OK for the moment, but he needs to be careful as he proceeds to the next phases of his strategies.)
FWIW,
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
Before they even manage a successful launch, SpaceX looks increasingly like they are headed down the same road well-traveled by Orbital Sciences.
I don’t have any idea what you mean by that, but until they become a cost-plus contractor, I see no danger of that.
Al, I do not think SpaceX should disarm. I was just pointing out that, apparently, it is only by abandoning much of the “new space” ideology of gritty independence from the government that new space can go forward. \
In other words, while people like Rand belittle my argument that the ISS is the market we need, that is in fact the market many of these companies are going after. Yes, Mr. Elon leaned fast; he went after the one market that could fulfill his manifest — NASA and the ISS — and hired a lobbying firm to try to make that market larger . . . and I respect him for that.
Rand, give them time!
— Donald
Good Lord, how can anyone seriously consider Breaux as a “leader” in the space context – his office was the one shopping those ridiculous loan guarantees back in the VentureStar days because it protected jobs in his territory (at Michoud), even though they made NO economic sense.
Donald.
Let’s see. Orbital tourism, maybe a billion dollar market if all the stars align.
CRS – 3 billion for cargo already on the table, maybe a couple more for astronauts in very near future. Plus a couple hundred million to build your rocket.
Now which market would I go for if I was SpaceX?
Elon, like a true capitalist, is going for the biggest, faster ROI. The govenrment. Go Elon!
Yes, Mr. Elon leaned fast; he went after the one market that could fulfill his manifest…
Nonsense. He went after any potential market he could find. He had many customers prior to COTS, and he has many customers that are not COTS. The fact that he wants COTS business as well simply means that he’s not a stupid businessman, not that he can’t make it without COTS.
Rand. He may well be able to make it without COTS. It would just take far, far longer. I believe that he has stated himself that he would not yet be working on the Falcon-9 or the Dragon if it weren’t for the COTS money.
Stop dreaming about future markets and worry about the ones you have. That’s what Elon is doing and it is the correct decision. If you supply the existing market with a good rocket, future markets (i.e., tourism) will take care of themselves.
— Donald
If you supply the existing market with a good rocket, future markets (i.e., tourism) will take care of themselves.
Sorry, Donald, but that is simply not true, unless by “take care of themselves” you mean “not be satisfied by your vehicle.” If one is going to go after the tourist market, one has to develop and field a vehicle that is capable of satisfying it. Existing markets cannot justify such a development. Elon may be successful at satisfying existing markets, but his vehicles are not going to be for most space passengers. The vehicles for that market will almost certainly emerge from the suborbital industry.
Rand: The vehicles for that market will almost certainly emerge from the suborbital industry.
If that is so, than I think we have a long time to go before we see a viable orbital tourism industry. Evolving from suborbital reusable vehicles to orbital vehicles is anything but a casual job. Fortunately, I think the Russians and Space Adventures have proven you wrong. There is more than one way to skin this cat, and I expect that it will be approached from both ends — super-rich continuing to fly on existing rockets (especially if SpaceX, et al, succeed in significant cost reductions) and evolve “up” from any suborbital industry. That said, the advent six person ISS crews, if it happens, creates a barrier, but Space Adventures has shown great resiliancy and I suspect they’ll find a way around it. If you are an investor, it is certainly worth noting that the orbital market, however small, exists today, while even the suborbital market, however large, remains for the future — maybe for the near future . . . but possibly not.
— Donald
I agree that it will be approached from both ends, but the cost reductions and mass market will come from the low end. Orbital tourism will remain a novelty for now, and is far too small to justify dedicating a launch vehicle development to it. The smart money is building the market from below.
He had many customers prior to COTS, and he has many customers that are not COTS.
Yep, all government related for the Falcon 1.
As for Falocn 9, it was only after COTS a handful of comsat customers appeared, piggy-backing on the COTS work.
Really, the SpaceX manifest is no different then that of Boeing/Lockheed in terms of the mix of government/comsat business.
Really, the SpaceX manifest is no different then that of Boeing/Lockheed in terms of the mix of government/comsat business.
So?
What’s your point? That was always their business plan.
So wasn’t New Space suppose to be different? Or is that the old New Space view?
SpaceX is following the same route as Orbital Science because that is the most likely path to commercial success. The New Space firms that survive over the next few years will look much like the Old Space firms, for the same reason, that is the business model that works best for commercial space. And for that business model to work you need your Washington sales staff – aka lobbyists.
So wasn’t New Space suppose to be different?
Who said that SpaceX was New Space?
SpaceX is following the same route as Orbital Science because that is the most likely path to commercial success.
No, they’re not following the same path as OSC. Sorry, but they’re largely spending their own money. And they aren’t doing cost-plus.
Rand,
Who said that SpaceX was New Space?
So Elon is no longer New Spacer? I guess that makes SpaceX Old Space?
As for Orbital Sciences, some history…
http://satjournal.tcom.ohiou.edu/issue12/slides/pdf/Carl_Marchetto_Orbital.pdf
Slide 6
A Big Concept: that a small, entrepreneurial company could do things better
and faster than lumbering aerospace giants
And
http://www.orbital.com/About/
Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) was founded in 1982 with the goal of making space technology more affordable, accessible and useful to millions of people on Earth.
SpaceX is where Orbital was before it lost the TOS. It learned how the game is played in commercial space, Elon is learning as well.
Also, the government went to cost-plus contacting to reduce the risks associated when contractors needed to deliver at a specific price, including using lower quality material to cut costs, or not pursuing future contracts due to losses from previous fixed priced contracts. So there is really nothing evil about cost-plus contracts despite New Space hype. They are just a practical solution to situations involving new technology. where it is difficult to estimate costs. SpaceX will move to cost-plus as well after its been burned a time or two as the older firms have. So will Xcor.
SpaceX is where Orbital was before it lost the TOS.
So?
That doesn’t mean that SpaceX will “lose the TOS.”
Still awaiting actual evidence that SpaceX is “following the path of OSC.”
But not holding breath.
Orbital got funded by oilmen and then the reagan administration (Bush as vice president an oilman himself) through nasa gave orbital money to fund additional propulsion for shuttle launched satellites.
Yes they were a small company in the right place at the right time alright.
Rand,
First, I recognize that no amount of evidence will convince a true believer in the New Space myth. That is what happens when individuals replace science (economics) with philosophy (libertarianism). Look at all the evidence for global warming that is dismissed by the believers who feel man’s activities are too unimportant to impact the climate. This is for the lurking third parties.
The parallels are strikingly similar to us old timers in commercial space. Both started out with the belief that small entrepreneurial firms would be better capable of accomplishing this then the old space dinosaurs. Both believed in the Mantra of CATS – build it cheap enough and they will come. And both learned that beyond the government and Comsats their was no viable markets for space launch. And both government and comsat were more sensitive to the reliability of a system then its cost, which is why New Spacers are now calling CATS, CRATS.
Now that Elon has hired his own lobbyists the only step left in the transformation is the move to costs-plus contracts. That will likely come after the SpaceX IPO, once Elon has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to not risk SpaceX money away on high risk practices like a fixed price government contract.
When that happens in the next year or two I expect you to acknowledge it.
First, I recognize that no amount of evidence will convince a true believer in the New Space myth.
This is kind of an idiotic statement, since I don’t necessarily consider SpaceX “New Space.” I’ve actually never been that big a fan of SpaceX. I’m just trying to keep it real.
[rest of irrelevance from irrelevant anonymous commenter snipped]
“Now that Elon has hired his own lobbyists the only step left in the transformation is the move to costs-plus contracts. That will likely come after the SpaceX IPO, once Elon has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to not risk SpaceX money away on high risk practices like a fixed price government contract.”
Not going to happen. All this talk of costs-plus contracts is bunk. They don’t exist WRT launch services. All NASA launch service contracts are fixed price. Been that way since after Challenger.
Spacex just recently onramp to the NLS (NASA Launch Service) contract and will be held to fixed prices.
“Both believed in the Mantra of CATS – build it cheap enough and they will come. And both learned that beyond the government and Comsats their was no viable markets for space launch.” — someone
Do you think if the propert rights issue for the moon was a limiting factor. What is the point of private exploration if you could not claim and own anything that you found? Why invest in a civilian lunar habitat that does get to own the land it sits on when it gets there? If you want to see capital invested there has to be an incentive to go. Free lunar land and all the mineral rights attached is that incentive.
Me,
All NASA launch service contracts are fixed price. Been that way since after Challenger.
Gasp! You mean old space firms like Orbital, Boeing, etc. are doing FIXED price contracts for NASA… What is this world coming to
What will the New Space faithful say?
Seriously, my reference was not to launch contracts, but to the some of the suggestions that NASA use the Dragon as a substitute for the CEV to missions to ISS, perhaps even for lunar missions and other similar projects involving new hardware, or systems specifically designed for NASA/DOD missions, the same situations where old space firms receive the same “infamous” cost-plus contracts.
To put it simply, if SpaceX is offered a NASA or DOD cost price contract for a job it would be “poor” business decision for them to turn it down, and I would be surprised if they do. Especially if they have become a publicly traded corporation accountable to shareholders. And the same will be true for any other “new space” firm that has an IPO.
Which again brings up the question. What is the difference between New Space and Old Space? Other then the length of time of they have been in business..
I think it would be well for the space advocate community to stop creating these false divisions (Moon/Mars, New Space/Old Space), and strawmen like the “evil” cost price contract and instead start looking at how to work together to create a favorable environment for creating a space infrastructure suitable both private and government space.
“but to the some of the suggestions that NASA use the Dragon as a substitute for the CEV to missions to ISS,”
Still would be fixed price, see CSR (COTS II)
Me,
I was not referring to the CRS, but to the 100% replacement of the CEV if the ESAS is cancelled. If the ESAS is cancelled NASA will likely put out a RFP to replace it with a new system manned space access. Politically its difficult see NASA being 100% dependent on private space systems. Dragon would put SpaceX in a good position to bid on building the replacement spacecraft for NASA which will likely be owned by NASA.
However we are drifting from the core topic of my post, namely there really is no basic difference between New Space and Old Space, other then the time the firms have been in business. The key point is if NASA point out a RFP for a system and awards the winner a cost-plus contract a New Space firm will take it just as a Old Space firm takes a fixed price contract when offered, as for launch services and CRS. So saying New Space out works on Fixed Price contracts and Old Space only works on cost-plus is one of those strawmen that seeks to divide the space community needlessly.
Typos
point = put
out = only
The key point is if NASA point out a RFP for a system and awards the winner a cost-plus contract a New Space firm will take it just as a Old Space firm takes a fixed price contract when offered, as for launch services and CRS.
Go tell it to XCOR. They consistently refuse to work on a cost-plus basis. Including development contracts.
Except that the Defense Contract Auditing Agency makes you run your business with the same metrics as is the case for a cost plus contract. You have to have your G&A rates, overhead, and profit margin verified by the government and it is part of your scoring for future contracts. Fixed contracts are more risky for contractors is that losses are not covered but profits are still capped. If XCOR made 20% profit on a contract you can bet your last government dollar that their next negotiation would force that number down.
The reason that XCOR refuses to do cost plus is precisely so that they don’t have to report their costs to the government. Dan DeLong has said on more than one occasion that the if they had to implement the accounting procedures required to do a DCAA audit, it would dramatically increase their costs of doing business. And as far as I know, they don’t. I’ve never heard of DCAA complaining about it.
“I was not referring to the CRS, but to the 100% replacement of the CEV if the ESAS is cancelled. If the ESAS is cancelled NASA will likely put out a RFP to replace it with a new system manned space access.”
There is no such thing as the “ESAS” being canceled. ESAS is a study. If the lunar missions are canceled, the CEV can exist without Ares I, or Ares V. There is no reason to “replace” it with another RFP.
Me,
Perhaps CEV will survive, perhaps it will join the OSP. TIme will tell. But I only used it as an Example of a Potential opportunity that MAY produce a chance for a cost-plus contract for SpaceX to bid on. There are many more I could have used.
The ley point is that if a RFP for a NASA (or DOD) cost-plus contact comes up which SpaceX is in a good position to compete for it will likely do so, especially if that have become a publicly traded company with shareholders (and Wall Street analyists) to respond to.
Rand,
Go tell it to XCOR. They consistently refuse to work on a cost-plus basis. Including development contracts.
Then they are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. A luxury they will not be allowed when and if they go IPO. Markets don’t care about philosophy, just earnings.
XCOR is doing just fine with its earnings, as far as I know–they think that going cost-plus would both damage their earnings and their strategic goals. And I’m not aware of any plans on their part to go public. Their current investors seem quite happy with their approach.
You don’t seem to understand that XCOR (like SpaceX) is in business to reduce the cost of access to space (while making money), not to maximize earnings. If the latter were their goal, they wouldn’t have gone into the business in the first place. There are lots better ways than the space business to maximize earnings.
That, in fact, could be described as the most useful distinction between “old” space and “new.”
Yes, I do. I see biotech and computer companies like that all the time. The idealist researcher struggles for years, then makes a breakthrough after which they are scooped up by a organization that is much better managed financially. The researcher get a small return while the firm that bought them out gets rich.
Think of Micosoft and DOS. (know the story?)
Which may well be the best explanation of the relationship of New Space to Old Space I have seen. New Space are the hobbyists that do it for a passion amd lifestyle, while old space are the professionals who do it as a business.
Yes, and the people who actually open up the frontier will be those who combine their passion with business sense. XCOR seems to be doing a pretty good job of that, so far.
Someone wrote: “New Space are the hobbyists that do it for a passion amd lifestyle, while old space are the professionals who do it as a business.”
Your views on this subject, along with those on Global Warming skeptics, prove to me that you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.
So what if so-called NewSpace ventures start out as “hobbyists” and, if successful, get copied or bought out by OldSpace companies. The plain fact of the matter is that, if this happens, they will have succeeded in moving us forward in a way that the current status quo will never be able to!
If you’re so knowledgeable about these things, stop belittling the efforts of NewSpace ventures an please explain to me how OldSpace will move us forward in a more effective manner than has it’s demonstrated these past 40 years?
The people who argue the inevitability of New Space companies eventually either going cost plus, or belly up, reminds me of when I was at Rockwell back in the early nineties, trying to help American Rocket work with Rocketdyne. The discussion went something like this:
Rocketdyne Exec: So let me see if I understand how this company works. You raise money from investors?
AmRoc: That’s right.
Rocketdyne Exec: Then you take the money, and you develop a rocket with it?
AmRoc: Right.
Rocketdyne Exec: And then you sell launches to customers, both commercial and government, at prices greater than your costs? And you take a profit?
AmRock: You got it.
Rocketdyne Exec: [scratches head for a while] Why don’t you just go out and get a government contract? You people don’t understand business at all!
Rand,
Proves my point.
American Rocket went under in 1996.
Meanwhile Rocketdyne division is still in business, although it was sold to United Technologies a few years back, part of one of the reshuffling of the space industry. They just received a 1.2 billion contract to build the J2X.
So the Rocketdyne knew what he was talking about.
Your views on this subject, along with those on Global Warming skeptics, prove to me that you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.
Says the guy who gets his global warming and climate change information from fossil fuel industry funded right wing shill websites, and hasn’t actually read any peer reviewed scientific literature or white paper on the subject.
That may make you look good to your redneck steroid addled friends, but among those who actually have some education, training and experience in mathematics, physics and the engineering sciences, you look real stupid.
Proves my point.
Your point being what? That real businesses have no business in the space industry?
That the space business is the same as other business – it about ROI, not libertarian philosophy.
The Rocketdyne executive understood the business, the American Rocket people you were working with did not.
That the space business is the same as other business – it about ROI, not libertarian philosophy.
It doesn’t make that point in any way. I’m not surprised that you missed the point, though.
Obamasooner, I have no problem with you wishing to post under an anonymous name – anonymous.space gave a very understandable reason and, more importantly, makes excellent contributions to any debate – but you ought to post in a more rational manner if you really want people to take you seriously.
Do I detect the spirit of Elifritz behind this post… and maybe several others?
Now Dave, why would I care to have a bunch of steroid addled rednecks like yourself, who cite fossil fuel industry funded right wing shill websites as global warming science, and continually spew libertarian dogma as if it had anything to do with reality, when I’m perfectly capable of searching out the internet for scientific and peer review literature, white papers and gray literature alike, on the subject. I’m a mathematician, physicist and engineer, I’m quite comfortable with reading about complex subjects.
At the mathematical and computational level, not at the political level.
It’s clear that people like you are not going to change your minds about anything, let alone any fundamental physics like global warming and greenhouse gases. It’s not you who I care about, it’s the people who must continually put up with you cranks and crackpots who are at risk.
You know, your children and grandchildren. You are the problem not them.
Surely you can read past the spelling and grammer errors, I’m not about to make much more of an effort here with people like you. Just the minimum.
Yes, Dave, it’s obviously Eliloon. Who is unaware that you are a Brit, living and working in Germany (he idiotically assumes that anyone who disagrees with him must be an American, and particularly a “redneck” American). Of course, he’s unaware of almost everything pertaining to reality.
Rand,
Than what was your point. The Rocketdyne executive suggested that if they wanted to make in the space business American Rocket needed to go for a government contract.
Today American Rocket is ancient history while Rocketdyne is still making billions building rocket engines?
So if that’s not the point what is? That its better to be a bankrupt idealist then a wealthy capitalist?
Dave
If you’re so knowledgeable about these things, stop belittling the efforts of NewSpace ventures an please explain to me how OldSpace will move us forward in a more effective manner than has it’s demonstrated these past 40 years?
First, to set the record straight, lets just look at the “ineffective†accomplishments of Old Space over the last 40 years (1968).
Since the 1960’s old space provided robotic missions that have mapped the Solar System and highlighted the resource potential of the Moon, Mars, NEOs, Comets.
And lets, not forget the six lunar missions, mankind’s first steps on another world.
Or the three Skylab missions, including the salvage and repair of Skylab.
The Hubble Space telescope, Solar Max, Soho,
Then the dozens of weather satellites, remote sensing satellites, military intelligence systems, GPS satellites.
Hundreds of comsats delivered to space by Old Space firms that form the backbone of today global communication systems. And make international phones calls, the Internet, and live reporting from the most remote location too commonplace to think about.
Then come the accomplishments of the Space Shuttle. Although true believers in New Space like to belittle the Shuttle it demonstrated the potential of launching, servicing, orbital repair and recovery of satellites. It demonstrated in-orbit assembly and construction. It flew the first non-professional astronauts long before the Russians discovered space tourists demonstrating you didn’t need to spend years training to fly into space. And is responsible for taking about 75% of all humans that reached orbit since the dawn of the space age to orbit. This year alone it will take 35 astronauts into orbit compared to 6 on Soyuz, perhaps 2 from China and none for New Space. It demonstrated how humans could work in space, fly free of tethers (MMU) and in general the skill set that will be needed to build large structures in space. And built the largest human structure in space, the ISS.
Actually quite an effective effort by any measure.
Now the accomplishments of New Space over the last forty years…
Three sub-orbital human flights that barley passed the legal definition of space for a couple of minutes in 2004., basically replicating the Old Space X-15 flights from 50 years ago. Two civilians earned astronauts wings compared to the hundreds of astronauts who earned them as a result of Old Space.
A couple dozen or so flights of low speed/ low altitude Xcor’s EZ- Rocket and Rocket Racer in the last few years compared to the hundreds of rocket plane flights by NACA/NASA since the 1940’s.
Some demo-hops for the lunar lander challenge (but no winners…). Some rocket tests.
So given that, and given that New Space makes up less then a quarter billion of the $251 billion global space industry, who would you think is most likely to move the industry forward the next forty years? And where the focus of space policy should be?
And as for the next forty for Old Space? A lunar base will be a good start, and the first missions to NEOs. Leveraging the ISS for orbital assembly of satellites, fuel depots, He3, Lunar mining, etc. Note that the leading team for the Lunar X Prize, CMU, is not going with a New Space firm to build the lander, but an Old Space firm with a wee bit of experience in that area – Northrop-Grumman.
As for New Space over the next forty years? It will stay on the fringe, thrill seeking for the super rich (space tourists, space diving, rocket racing and other stunts…) but the real progress will be driven by the Old Space firms.
Really comparing New Space to Old Space is like comparing homebuilt aircraft to the aircraft of Boeing, Lockheed, EADS. Which make more of an impact on the world’s economy?
No, my point was that Rocketdyne doesn’t understand anything about how real business is done–they are a hothouse plant that couldn’t survive outside of a coddling government-contracting environment, and they have very little prospect for doing anything revolutionary in space, in terms of cost reduction and vast increases in activity levels.
That AmRoc died (partly as a result of bureaucratic chicanery against it in which Rocketdyne was participating with Marshall and Thiokol) doesn’t mean anything in the context of thousands of businesses that succeed following their “strange” business model. To think it does is to fall victim to the fallacy of hasty generalization (the same idiocy that causes people to conclude that reusables can’t be built because Shuttle was a failure).
While he over-states his case, I think Someone has it closer than Rand. The point is not that “old space” does not act as a proper business. No one disputes that. The point is that proper businesses as defined by Rand require existing markets, not markets that we all hope will appear in the possibly near future. Outside of comsats, where it has already happened, the transition from “old space” to “new space” will not — cannot — happen until we cross over that threashold. Until then, the Rocketdynes of the world can succeed, and, unless they have something like a personal fortune with an exploration ideology that insulates them from the requirements of a market (e.g., SpaceX), the AmRocs of the world cannot succeed.
To blame the failures of “new space” so far on NASA conspiracy theories misses the point, and in fact blinds us to the point. If there were a real market, and NASA were causing trouble, these companies could simply leave the United States. It is the very fact that there is not yet a market for their products that gives NASA any power that it may be using to hurt new space companies. Businesses with real markets (comsats and to a much lessor degree orbital tourism) have largely left the country and / or are riding off giant government projects, respectively, and are doing just fine.
I think it is becoming clear that new space can happen, but it still needs a lot of help — read artificial markets like the Space Station — before we get there. Ideologues who pretend otherwise and want to kill everything that is not something they define as “new space” risk never getting over that threashold, especially if their impending markets take a little longer to realize or the job turns out to be harder than they expected.
— Donald
To blame the failures of “new space†so far on NASA conspiracy theories misses the point, and in fact blinds us to the point.
In the case of AmRoc, I was personally involved with the “conspiracy,” albeit unhappily, Donald. I’m not proud of it.
If there were a real market, and NASA were causing trouble, these companies could simply leave the United States.
Apparently you’ve never heard of ITAR.
Rand,
I’m sorry, I am tired of hearing New Spacers use NASA/Old Space conspiracy theories to cover up bad business decisions, bad business models and bad management by New Spacers.
I suppose SpaceshipTwo has been delayed because of the NASA conspiracy against private human spaceflight? And not because of bad decisions on engine selection? And is that why RpK failed at COTS?
American Rocket failed because they didn’t want to play by the rules of the game in the industry they selected. That is always a bad business decision. The Rocketdyne executive tried to education them, but seem to know too much to listen.
I suppose SpaceshipTwo has been delayed because of the NASA conspiracy against private human spaceflight? And not because of bad decisions on engine selection? And is that why RpK failed at COTS?
Of course not. Those were bad business decisions. People in business sometimes make bad business decisions. It’s stupid to say that the entire business model is worthless because some fail at it. What fantasy world do you live in?
Rand,
The is no universal business model. Different industries have different rules of the game. If you don’t familarize yourself with those rules you don’t survive. A business model that works in the auto industry will not work if you are selling sialing boats.
Elon has learned the rules of the game. That is why he is not using lobbyists. Firms like XCor haven’t. They will struggle as a result.
The is no universal business model.
There is under capitalism. If you’re saying that space doesn’t work that way, that may be one of the reasons that we’ve made so little progress there. And you seem to cheer lead that flawed (and fascist) model…
Who is unaware that you are a Brit, living and working in Germany (he idiotically assumes that anyone who disagrees with him must be an American, and particularly a “redneck†American).
If you reread the posts, you will notice that nowhere did I use the term ‘American’ in describing Dave Salt and his scientific sophitication.
Ok, then, der Prolet, you know, knobs, jocks and skinheads.
Religious fre@ks. The same people that brought you the Ares I.
It’s not that I disagree with Dave, its that Dave disagrees with fundamental physics. Michael Griffin also has a problem with fundamental physics.
Hence, the Stick.
Rand,
If there were a single size fits all universal business model than firms would not be taking theirs to the U.S. Patent office for patent protection..
I think you are confusing perfect market competition with the term business model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_model
Perfect competition only exists when you have a large number of independent sellers, a large number of independent buyers, perfect information and perfect substitution. If this a good description of the market for rocket engines?
Different industries have different business models. What works for selling cars does not work for selling commercial jets. If you apply the wrong business model you will go out of business, fast. Individuals that have worked in management in more then a single industry know this.
This I think is the biggest problem with most space advocates, a limited world view resulting from the isolation of a career in a single industry. This is also why I believe many fall into the trap of buying into fringe philosophies like libertarianism as well as using conspiracy theories as an explanation when policies and businesses based on their universal philosophy fails to work.
Since you are a believer in the “one truth†it is useless to argue further since it is impossible to use rational evidence to defeat a belief based on faith. I wish you well with Xcor, but its unlikely things will work out as well for them as it did for Roark. Business is not a novel.
Obamasooner/Obinmanknobe/Hillary Billary/Thomas Lee Elifritz(?) or whichever of your multiple personalties has the upper hand today, why do you bother posting such inflammatory remarks when you know that no one with any sense is going to take them seriously?
The old saying about “shooting yourself in the foot” seems quite apt for what you’re doing.
Rand: There is under capitalism. If you’re saying that space doesn’t work that way, that may be one of the reasons that we’ve made so little progress there. And you seem to cheer lead that flawed (and fascist) model…
Rand, with all due respect, that is, frankly, religious nonsense, comparable to Religion-X saying that everyone who does not subscribe to Religion-X is a heathen doomed to failure. In the real world, there is no one truth, particularly in something as complex and little understood as economics. Our models may be flawed, and that may indeed be why we have failed. Most likely, both of those statements are at least partly true. But by definition, you, I, and nobody in this forum, can know what will work until we have actually colonized the Solar System.
I do believe that we can learn lessons from vaguely comparable tasks humanity has achieved in the past (as I have tried to do with humanity’s successful achievement of learning how to travel over the world’s oceans), but space exploration and colonization is NEW, truly and utterly new to human experience, and it is most likely that no ideology from our past will work as it did (or did not) in the past. Indeed, I have argued that this is the principle reason for doing it — to create, and even force, change and invention on human society.
Note in proof: right now, today, it looks increasingly likely that future human-related space hardware will primarily be derived from hardware developed in the decidedly non-capitalist Soviet Union, whose designs are rugged and (relatively) cheap, are still being used, and are being copied around the world. Because of their high costs, and political stupidity like ITAR, designs developed in the ostensibly capitalist United States are being ignored. If humanity does have a future in the Solar System, and the hardware evolves from Soviet designs, where does that put your pure and perfect capitalism?
— Donald
ostensibly capitalist United States
That’s the key word, Donald.
There’s nothing magical about space that makes it unamenable to markets, Donald. It’s just a new niche that will be opened up by technology. We can continue to do so slowly, and haltingly, on a failed model, or we can try something else. Our current model for government manned spaceflight is indeed fascist (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Someone wrote: “First, to set the record straight, lets just look at the “ineffective†accomplishments of Old Space over the last 40 years (1968).â€
I believe your post simply reinforces my original opinion (i.e. that you don’t really understand what you’re talking about). To me, the term NewSpace represents a way of doing business and is not just a label to be placed on young start-ups. As a result, it’s actually possible for those you label as OldSpace to act in a NewSpace manner – consider the way Lockheed are working with Bigelow.
Put simply, it places the emphasis on commercial rather than government markets but recognises the fact that they are current too small, insufficiently diverse and inelastic too to deliver the sort of return on investment that institutional investors would typically expect (e.g. at least a 20%-30% ROI after 3-5 years). As a result, NewSpace seeks to leverage existing systems and technologies in niche markets with the aim of stimulating their growth and, at the same time, fostering the development of new ones (Cf. The Innovator’s Dilemma by C.M. Christensen).
Someone wrote: “So given that, and given that New Space makes up less then a quarter billion of the $251 billion global space industry, who would you think is most likely to move the industry forward the next forty years?â€
That’s a very interesting number because it’s a little less than the annual turn-over of successful commercial companies like Wal-Mart and Exxon. More importantly, the underlying growth of space markets to date have been, to a large extent, tied to government spending and so hold little prospect for increase in the foreseeable future – your dreams of a lunar base and NEO missions are very likely to remain just that.
No one is saying that NewSpace will succeed in boot-strapping itself into orbit and beyond in the next decade or so, but it does hold out a prospect that is unlikely to be met by the OldSpace approach (i.e. cost-plus contracts servicing government programmes). Of course, there’s always a chance that a good old Cold War space race could break-out sometime soon… but I sort of doubt that.
I wrote: “That’s a very interesting number because it’s a little less than the annual turn-over of successful commercial companies like Wal-Mart”
It may also be worth noting that Wal-Mart was founded in 1962, and so went from zero to around a quarter of a trillion dollar annual turnover in about 40 years.
Okay, I’m NOT claiming NewSpace will deliver such spectacular growth, but it does hint at the potential of a commercially driven venture… given the right markets.
DONALD: Rand, with all due respect, that is, frankly, religious nonsense, comparable to Religion-X saying that everyone who does not subscribe to Religion-X is a heathen doomed to failure.
Donald,
I agree with your point, but you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. “Someone” has been making the unsupported assertion that unless NewSpace companies start adopting Old Space practices … like accepting “cost plus” cost-plus government contracts, that they were doomed to failure.
Rand is saying this is not true — that you can ALSO take another path to success.
As an example, “Someone” effectively argued that AmRoc died because it would not accept cost-plus contracts.
Rand responded that he has **hard** evidence that there was a conspiracy against AmRoc — not as a matter of “belief”, but as a matter of “fact”, because he was part of the conspiracy. Rand says he was there (presumably working at Rocketdyne.)
Now, you can ignore what Rand said if you like, but it does not change the facts.
– Al
why do you bother posting such inflammatory remarks when you know that no one with any sense is going to take them seriously?
I haven’t said anything inflamatary, you cited a right wing fossil fuel industry funded shill website and a scientist in the pay of the fossil fuel industry with respect of global warming and climate change, that makes you a crackpot, not me. You thus join the ranks of the usual suspects, Rand, Wingo, Michael Griffin etc, as complete nutcases. It is so reassuring that our prestigious national science institutions are in the hands of scientific crackpots and retired admirals and generals, and our nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a dry drunk country bumpkin, who doesn’t know his ass from a smoking hole in the ground. You disagree you say? I present the Ares I as exhibit A.
It’s so easy for you and Rand and the rest of you to label me as the nut and the crackpot, but I assure you, the scientific community is listening very closely to what I have to say, and not you and your camaraderie anymore. After seven and a half years of your nonsense, finally they see through it.
You may now return to your good old boy backslapping routine, Senator Inhofe is so proud of you boys, yer doin a heckava job, just a heckava job.
Actually, I was working in Downey. And it wasn’t so much a conspiracy against AmRoc per se, as a conspiracy to get Marshall to pay Rocketdyne and Thiokol to redevelop what AmRoc had already developed with their own money (i.e., NASA business as usual). I’m operating on memory here–this was over fifteen years ago.
AmRoc was trying to develop a booster that it could use to replace the solids on the Delta. They were talking to Rocketdyne (with my help, regrettably) about using the LOX pump from the J-2, because they still had some laying around, and were capable of going back into production (I remember digging through boxes in Canoga Park). But the big guys were arguing that no one would trust a rocket engine that hadn’t been blessed by entities like Marshall and Rocketdyne. Their solution to this “problem” (what a shock!) was to redevelop it with government money, so they set up a new hybrid development program to do that, and “invited” AmRoc to participate, despite the fact that AmRoc had already successfully tested a 250Klbf engine with (I think) autogenous pressurization (which is what they wanted to replace with the J-2 pump). AmRoc was, in a sense, forced into a competition against its competitors in which their proposals were funded by the government on B&P, while it had to fight with its own money. I don’t recall exactly how it all ended (George Whittinghill would know), but I think that the investors finally got disgusted and pulled the plug shortly thereafter.
Al: NewSpace companies start adopting Old Space practices … like accepting “cost plus†cost-plus government contracts, that they were doomed to failure.
Assuming you mean me, I never said that. What I have said is that “new space” companies should use the markets created by the “old space” governments (e.g., the ISS) as that is just about the only market they have. They should then leverage that market to introduce new launch vehicles with hopefully lower costs, which hopefully will produce “real” NewSpace markets..
What Rand has been saying (as I under stand it; he can correct me if I’m wrong) and that I dispute is that we should forget the “old space” products and rely solely on suborbital tourism to bootstrap subrobital vehicles into orbital vehicles.
I also tried to say that, in today’s global market, any NASA conspiracies are irrelivant. NASA cannot prevent NewSpace from succeeding since they will only go to another country or succeed in another country (as has happened with a lot of the post-ITAR comsat industry we used to dominate). Only NewSpace can prevent NewSpace by happening by letting their ideology blind them to the markets they demonstrably do have today in favor of a “market” that may or may not exist or be large in the future.
— Donald
Assuming you mean me, I never said that.
He didn’t say you did. He said that “Someone” (i.e., the pseudonym of the person who has said that it is futile to attempt to be successful in the space business without taking cost-plus contracts from the government) said that. Which he (or she…who knows?) did. I agree that your statement about “religious belief” is much more applicable to…it…than me.
I also tried to say that, in today’s global market, any NASA conspiracies are irrelivant. NASA cannot prevent NewSpace from succeeding since they will only go to another country or succeed in another country (as has happened with a lot of the post-ITAR comsat industry we used to dominate).
Again, I agree that New Space can in theory succeed off shore, but because of ITAR, it will be non-American New Space that does so. While that’s better than no one doing it, I think that it would be suboptimal in terms of expanding human freedom into space.
What Rand has been saying (as I under stand it; he can correct me if I’m wrong) and that I dispute is that we should forget the “old space†products and rely solely on suborbital tourism to bootstrap subrobital vehicles into orbital vehicles.
You are wrong.
What I have been saying is that this is the most likely route for the levels of activity required to reduce the costs of access to space. And that the balance of resources between NASA’s approach and that one is insane, given the performance of the former in terms of giving us access to space and making us spacefaring. Mike says that he is buying Orion/Ares as an “insurance policy” against the potential for COTS and the private sector delivering. What kind of “insurance policy” spends a hundred (or more) times as much on the policy as on the primary hoped-for strategy?
Rand, well that depends. The “insurance policy” is known to work — it has produced vehicles that take humans into space. The COTS policy is not yet known to work, although, along with everyone else here, I strongly hope that it does and I do believe that it should get a lot more government money.
And that the balance of resources between NASA’s approach and that one is insane, given the performance of the former in terms of giving us access to space and making us spacefaring.
I don’t necessarily dispute this, but that is what the political sausage has given us. A complete reversal of course is politically unlikely in the extreme. Thus, my argument that we should utilize that the government has produced to start the feedback relation between growing markets and cheaper access. I am not arguing that the ISS should be the end of the road, or that tourism doesn’t have a place in the overall market (I think it may have a very large place indeed), but the ISS exists, for better or worse it’s probably not going away, so use it.
— Donald
The “insurance policy†is known to work — it has produced vehicles that take humans into space.
OK, apparently you’re as unfamiliar with the concept of “insurance policy” as Dr. Griffin is. An insurance policy is something that is a backup–not the primary means, that takes most of the resources.
The fact that Mike wants to play these word games is disingenuous, and an attempt to justify why he wants to spend tens of billions on a NASA-owned-and-operated system, and a pittance on a private system.
I wouldn’t mind as much if he didn’t play these Alice-in-Wonderland games, where words mean whatever he (and apparently, you) want them to mean, and just called things what they are.
“I strongly hope that it does and I do believe that it should get a lot more government money.”
I agree with more money, but not just tossing money down a rat hole. In my opinion it should be tied to and intergrated with a long term incentive strategy. Granted, money is an incentive, but there are others. If the USA would agree to recognize individual and corporate property rights OUTSIDE of LEO/GEO, which have already been settled, I believe it would be a better long term strategy.
The satellite industry recognizes orbital slots as “real estate” and as you move farther out of the gravity well of earth there is other areas of space that will, in effect, be classified as real estate also.
“Hot Orbital Slots: Is There Anything Left?”
http://www.satellitetoday.com/via/features/22108.html
All the earth sun lagrange points, Earth Moon LPs, Mars LPs, Lunar orbital slots and Mars orbital slots. Why not create the same regulated arena for all those points and start auctioning them off or giving them away as incentives? Long term we know these areas will be developed as the moon and mars get their own nanosat weather and GPS systems for ground systems.
If a company puts something in the slot it is like a quick claim deed and they retain the user rights to the slot for 10-20 years, they now have a tangible asset on the books, it can be used as collateral for loans or for boosting ratios. The google prize for a lunar lander could be extended for a lunar nanosat constellation system, design them around a base set of communication standards and they can all link once they are there.
When you are exploring, it doesnt matter the mode of transportation, walking, driving a car, flying a plane or a boat, when you get there, you want to have the mechanisms in place so you can own what you find at the end of your journey. Why explore for gold, titanium, oil et cetera, on earth if there is not a mineral claim you get to exercise when you make a discovery? No one would, so why would a business invest and try and make the discovery on the moon if there isnt any mechanism in place to make a claim? A company spends 300 million and finds ice on the moon and then does not get to claim it? Does not get to add the claim to the assets side of the ledger? They can not sell or lease the claim? They can not use the claim as collateral for a loan? They can not sell off non productive acres of the claim? They can not sell or lease secondary mineral rights claims on their land claim?
We have to provide REAL incentives that you can hold in your hand when you finish your journey. The sooner we deal with property rights in space, the sooner we will see REAL movement in the coming space boom.
Dave,
To me, the term NewSpace represents a way of doing business and is not just a label to be placed on young start-ups.
So basically if an aerospace company does something you approve of its New Space
And if it does something you don’t approve of its Old Space.
I guess that makes sense if you are a true believer in the faith.
As a result, it’s actually possible for those you label as OldSpace to act in a NewSpace manner – consider the way Lockheed are working with Bigelow.
The way a private individual like Bigelow procures something is different then how the government is required to procure it. So you need to use a different business model for that market.
Ask your local car dealer how they sell to a major corporation, the local government and to individuals. Look at how Ford and GM sell cars to the federal government. Each market requires a different business model. And pays a different price for a car. Again, there is NO such thing as a universal business model. Tell that to a professional investor or industry analyst and they will wonder if you also believe that the Earth is flat.
More importantly, the underlying growth of space markets to date have been, to a large extent, tied to government spending and so hold little prospect for increase in the foreseeable future – your dreams of a lunar base and NEO missions are very likely to remain just that.
READ THE REPORT – Over $175 billion of that $251 billion is Private corporations selling to Private corporations. And this has been increasing for the last 40 years in terms of both real dollars and percentage of the industry. It is NOT dependent on government space spending, only the global marketplace for the products and services it provides.
Government space spending makes up only about 25% percentage of the global space industry, and the parts that space advocates fight policy battles over, human spaceflight and planetary mission, make up only 5% at the most.
So who cares if government space spending is flat? Except of course New Spacers who depend on it for their business models.
And private space has been a commercial industry since the 1960’s. And you wonder why space industry professionals shake their heads over claims that “New Space†invented space commercialization? I guess you also believe that Al Gore invented the Internet.
Rand,
You know what is so funny about your praises of the wisdom of the management team at AMROC is that their former Director of Engineering, Mike Griffin, is now running NASA.
I wonder if he knows it was a NASA conspiracy that put his old firm out of business
Can you point out where I praised the wisdom of the management team of AmRoc? I must have missed that.
Or is your reading comprehension problem kicking up again?
And Mike had long gone by the time this all happened.
And you wonder why space industry professionals shake their heads over claims that “New Space†invented space commercialization?
Another straw man. Who made such a claim? Can you provide a citation?
New Space is not about space commercialization, which, as you point out, has been going on since the privatization of Comsat. It is about enabling commercial space enterprises that provide revenues via actual products with mass, versus photons, and dramatically reducing the cost of space to allow people (including non-governmental people) who want to go to do so.
Donald “I strongly hope that it does and I do believe that it should get a lot more government money.”
I agree with more money, but not just tossing money down a rat hole. In my opinion it should be tied to and intergrated with a long term incentive strategy. Granted, money is an incentive, but there are others. If the USA would agree to recognize individual and corporate property rights OUTSIDE of LEO/GEO, which have already been settled, I believe it would be a better long term strategy.
The satellite industry recognizes orbital slots as “real estate” and as you move farther out of the gravity well of earth there is other areas of space that will, in effect, be classified as real estate also.
“Hot Orbital Slots: Is There Anything Left?”
http://www.satellitetoday.com/via/features/22108.html
All the earth sun lagrange points, Earth Moon LPs, Mars LPs, Lunar orbital slots and Mars orbital slots. Why not create the same regulated arena for all those points and start auctioning them off or giving them away as incentives? Long term we know these areas will be developed as the moon and mars get their own nanosat weather and GPS systems for ground systems.
If a company puts something in the slot it is like a quick claim deed and they retain the user rights to the slot for 10-20 years, they now have a tangible asset on the books, it can be used as collateral for loans or for boosting ratios. The google prize for a lunar lander could be extended for a lunar nanosat constellation system, design them around a base set of communication standards and they can all link once they are there.
When you are exploring, it doesnt matter the mode of transportation, walking, driving a car, flying a plane or a boat, when you get there, you want to have the mechanisms in place so you can own what you find at the end of your journey. Why explore for gold, titanium, oil et cetera, on earth if there is not a mineral claim you get to exercise when you make a discovery? No one would, so why would a business invest and try and make the discovery on the moon if there isnt any mechanism in place to make a claim? A company spends 300 million and finds ice on the moon and then does not get to claim it? Does not get to add the claim to the assets side of the ledger? They can not sell or lease the claim? They can not use the claim as collateral for a loan? They can not sell off non productive acres of the claim? They can not sell or lease secondary mineral rights claims on their land claim?
We have to provide REAL incentives that you can hold in your hand when you finish your journey. The sooner we deal with property rights in space, the sooner we will see REAL movement in the coming space boom.
Someone wrote: “So basically if an aerospace company does something you approve of its New Space
And if it does something you don’t approve of its Old Space.
I guess that makes sense if you are a true believer in the faith.â€
Again, your post simply reinforces my original opinion (i.e. that you don’t really understand what you’re talking about).
Someone wrote: “Look at how Ford and GM sell cars to the federal government.â€
Are you saying that they use cost-plus, as opposed to fixed price, contracts? Surely you’re not suggesting that the US government funds their R&D?
Someone wrote : â€READ THE REPORT – Over $175 billion of that $251 billion is Private corporations selling to Private corporations.â€
Yes, but most of the R&D needed to field the systems that provide those space-based services (i.e. the satellites) were funded, either directly or indirectly, by government. For example, the next generation of European comsats is being funded by ESA and every body knows that all the navigation satellites are entirely government funded.
Sure, private ventures have been very successful at exploiting these systems and technologies once the government had proved their viability. However, I don’t believe any of these service providers is planning to develop the sort of space-based infrastructure that would enable the development of more diverse and sustainable space-based markets. So, the question is; if governments are either unwilling or unable to do this, how is it ever going to happen without changing the current (i.e. OldSpace) business paradigm?
Someone wrote: “And you wonder why space industry professionals shake their heads over claims that “New Space†invented space commercialization?â€
I don’t believe anyone with any standing has ever made such a claim. However, since you believe Global Warming sceptics simply “dismiss evidence†and never subject it to critical thought, this really doesn’t surprise me.
By the way, just out of idle curiosity, are you involved in the space business in any professional way, or is this something you do as a hobby?
Dave,
I work in the business, which is why I don’t use my name. I know how New Spacers work to discredit non-believers. Look at the words Rand is already using, like fascist, in response to my pointing out there is no single universal business, something every business professional knows. The sad thing is how those very beliefs are actually preventing them from accomplishing their goals.
Just ask yourself. If government spending on space stopped would comsats and remote imaging systems disappear? I don’t think so. Sure it leverages off of government research, but hey, if your lobbyists are able to get the government to cover your R&D you are a fool not to take. Especially if other countries like ESA are subsidizing your competitors.
As for the government using fixed-price contract to buy cars, that is standard with any Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) purchases. Yes, that is what COTS stands for outside the New apace community. Again cost-plus is where there is technology risk that makes cost estimation impossible.
Look at Elon, he originally planned to spend $50 million on developing Falcon 1, its now over $100 million and still climbing. IF he wasn’t a multi-millionaire, able to burn that much money and HAD signed a fixed-price contract for $50 million to develop it, while he would be hurting bad right now. As it is I expect he will be wishing COTS was cost plus by the time he is finished with it.
But either way, those that have business models that include the government need to have lobbyists, which bring us back to the original topic of this post.
Rand,
If Griffin was long gone then Amroc was already in the death spiral following the launch failure of Aquila. If I recall it was some minor issue, a frozen LOX, but resulted in loss of the vehicle and investor confidence. They had burned through about $20 to get to that point and their investors were tapped out. So your NASA conspiracy was really only a mercy killing allowing those still clinging to Amroc to move on with their lives.
Actually, what I suspect was really going on was that NASA saw promise in the technology and was just trying to get the technology into the hands of firms with both the technical and financial competence to get it to operational status. Pity they couldn’t do so as it was good technology and I was glad to hear when SpaceDev bought it’s IP. I hope they do more with it than just use it for SpaceShipOne.
If Griffin was long gone then Amroc was already in the death spiral following the launch failure of Aquila.
While AmRoc was probably in a death spiral at the time, it had nothing do to with the departure of Griffin (as often seems to be the case, you seem to confuse cause and effect).
So your NASA conspiracy was really only a mercy killing allowing those still clinging to Amroc to move on with their lives.
While it may have had that effect, it’s lunacy to think that was the intent. And I’ve never used the word “conspiracy.” That is the word of the straw-man constructors. Why do you continue to lie about this?
While AmRoc was probably in a death spiral at the time, it had nothing do to with the departure of Griffin (as often seems to be the case, you seem to confuse cause and effect).
You are inferring cause and effect, while I am merely stating a timeline. Funding dried up after the launch failure of Aquila with many key individuals leaving as a result. The die hards stayed on, but after losing key individuals it is was all downhill for the firm, much as is the case with RpK today.
“conspiracy” – Ok we will call it an “aggressive” business strategy then based on their long and successful relationship with NASA.
Someone wrote: “I work in the business, which is why I don’t use my nameâ€.
That’s perfectly understandable; I have no problem with that.
Someone wrote: “I know how New Spacers work to discredit non-believers.â€
However, I do have a problem with that since you’re effectively labelling everyone who supports NewSpace as zealots, which is both unfair and just not true. Certainly, those who are actually in the business (Jeff Greason, John Carmack, Elon Musk, etc.) take a more level-headed approach and acknowledge that their efforts do not offer a cast iron guarantee of success, even though they are fully committed to the approach.
Someone wrote: “Just ask yourself. If government spending on space stopped would comsats and remote imaging systems disappear? I don’t think so.â€
Of course not; but how much investment are the companies behind them prepared to put in expanding their markets and, more importantly, fostering new ones?
To me, NewSpace is best viewed as an experiment. It’s an attempt to break the current paradigm, based upon the belief that significant improvements in the cost/safety/availability of access to space will foster significant new markets and lead to a virtuous circle of investment and expansion of our spaced based activities. It’s also based upon the belief that it’s better to have lots of small companies, driven by commercial forces, taking small/frequent steps instead of a few big companies, driven by government programmes, taking large/infrequent steps.
Of course, some (I guess this includes you?) still believe that the current paradigm will deliver these things in the fullness of time and so the NewSpace approach is either just not needed or bound to fail.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one and let future history show who’s right and who’s wrong.
Funding dried up after the launch failure of Aquila with many key individuals leaving as a result.
Griffin was gone even prior to that. He left before Koopman was killed, IIRC. He had a cultural clash with the company early on after being hired.
Rand,
Yep, and the people left when you were working with them were the die hards, not the cream of the crop, which, again, is why NASA probably was pushing to have some qualified take over the technology.
Dave,
Entrepreneurial Space, which has been around since the early 1980’s is and has been pioneering new markets and management practices. Look at Orbital Science, SpaceHab, SpaceX. Look at NG teaming with CMU for a lunar lander. Or Lockheed with Bigelow.
NewSpace by contrast is a cult of hobbyists and libertarians who act like there is a NASA/Old Space conspiracy to keep private enterprise out of space. People like Beal who believe they wouldn’t be allow by the NASA conspirators to launch from the U.S. and so nearly start a war in South America over their launch site selection. Or Walt Anderson who acted like he was a character out of an Ayn Rand novel. Or the vast majority of the X-Prize teams who thought they could build sub-orbital tourists rockets for a few million. Remember that group with the plan for launching a V-2 clone from a balloon? Its easy to see who the NewSpacers are, just go to the SFF or Space Access conventions and you will see them in droves talking how NASA/Old Space is stopping them from being financed. Or the need for lunar property rights. If I recall, the SFF group was the first to start using the term for the companies run by space libertarians.
Venture financing is not a problem IF you have a good business model AND a good management team. Orbital Science, SpaceHab, and even Amroc demonstrated that decades ago. It’s the fringe element, the NewSpacers who claim that with $10 million they will be providing one hour package delivery to England that don’t get the financing. And claim its NASA’s fault.
BTW a good touchstone to tell the difference is to ask when the first private launch into space was made.
Yep, and the people left when you were working with them were the die hards, not the cream of the crop, which, again, is why NASA probably was pushing to have some qualified take over the technology.
What business was it of NASA’s? They never gave a damn about hybrids before. This was no doubt due to lobbying by Thiokol, who was an opportunity to get some (more) money out of Marshall (i.e., fascism).
It’s the fringe element, the NewSpacers who claim that with $10 million they will be providing one hour package delivery to England that don’t get the financing.
We continue to be amused, but not enlightened or persuaded, by your cartoon notion of New Space.
I would not expect you to be as a true believer in the one faith.
While the real space firms establish their presence on K street as they move forward
I would not expect you to be as a true believer in the one faith.
You mean like the one faith that the only way to make money in the space business is with cost-plus government contracts?
Someone wrote: “Entrepreneurial Space, which has been around since the early 1980’s is and has been pioneering new markets and management practices. Look at [snip] Lockheed with Bigelow.â€
Yes, I know; recall that I highlighted your latter example in an earlier post. Call it what you want – Entrepreneurial Space, NewSpace, alt.space – the rationale behind them is the same: to use commercial forces to drive space activities forward in an evolving and sustainable manner.
Someone wrote: “NewSpace by contrast is a cult of hobbyists and libertarians who act like there is a NASA/Old Space conspiracy to keep private enterprise out of space.â€
Well, that may be your opinion, but I’m afraid I have to disagree with you.
Someone wrote: “Its easy to see who the NewSpacers are, just go to the SFF or Space Access conventions and you will see them in droves talking how NASA/Old Space is stopping them from being financed.â€
Having been a regular attendee of the Space Access conference since 1995, I think I’m qualified to comment on this statement. Yes, some – a minority – do have extreme views but most are more level-headed. And the fact that many have tried but only a few have succeeded, to date, in establishing functioning ventures does not invalidate their approach; it just shows how difficult their task really is.
Someone wrote: “the NewSpacers who claim that with $10 million they will be providing one hour package delivery to England that don’t get the financing. And claim its NASA’s fault.â€
Now this is just utter nonsense! You’re being just as silly as all those NewSpace zealots that you complain about.
Dave,
I guess you haven’t heard about the V-Prize.
V-Prize
The exact amount hasn’t been released yet, but my understanding is its the X-Prize range. You will probably be seeing all the viewgraph teams at those conferences next year.
As for those conferences. Yes, many that go there are normal space entreprenuers, I have even presented there myself. But the density of New Space zealots is pretty high as are the New Space beliefs among many of the organizers.
Rand,
The one faith in that there is a universial one size fits all libertarian approved business model
Really, that is also one way to id a fringe group, simplist universial answers to complex problems. And simplex slogans – Spaceshipone, Government Zero. And this from a firm that built its wealth on government contracts.
I don’t expect you to see the light, but hopefully some of the lurkers here will
The one faith in that there is a universial one size fits all libertarian approved business mode.
If you’re referring to me, you can’t provide a single cite to back it up (except, of course, under actual capitalism). My “libertarian approved business mode” is simply how business works under capitalism. A system of which you apparently you disapprove.
But I can provide numerous quotes, in this post’s comments alone, to back up your faith-based belief in cost-plus contracts.
But we’ve already observed that neither reading comprehension, or logic, are your strong suits…
Rand,
Yes, you are a true libertarian. You use capitalism like it’s a magic word and attack those who don’t believe in your one true faith. And seem to believe that the ONLY way traditional space firms deal with the government are with cost-plus contracts.
And you wonder why space libertarians had to start calling their movement New Space to hide its connections to a fringe cult that worships novels that make terrorists into heroes. And claim only they understand how capitalism works. Only their capitalism resembles nothing taught in economics textbooks.
That is why more and more professionals in the real space industry are distancing themselves from New Space and its faith based business models and policies.
And why more and more entrepreneurial space firms like SpaceX are adopting real world business models that include K Street lobbyists, the purpose of this thread. They have learned the bankruptcy of faith based business models. Like true American capitalists, they are in it for the money, not idelology.
Someone wrote: “I guess you haven’t heard about the V-Prize.”
Yes, I’ve heard about it and believe that it’s far too ambitious for any first or even second generation vehicle. However, given sufficient resources (i.e. a large enough budget/purse and timescale), I’m sure it could be won.
It sort of reminds me of ESAS (i.e. it’s a poorly thought through concept), but at least there’s still time to correct it.
You use capitalism like it’s a magic word and attack those who don’t believe in your one true faith. And seem to believe that the ONLY way traditional space firms deal with the government are with cost-plus contracts.
And you wonder why space libertarians had to start calling their movement New Space to hide its connections to a fringe cult that worships novels that make terrorists into heroes. And claim only they understand how capitalism works. Only their capitalism resembles nothing taught in economics textbooks.
That is why more and more professionals in the real space industry are distancing themselves from New Space and its faith based business models and policies.
Do you have any evidence at all for these delusions about me, New Space and “more and more professionals in the ‘real’ space industry”?
You’re not only faith based, but you seem to live in a reality all your own.
Rand,
Your posts are the only evidence lurkers on this discussion need to see the New Space libertarian faith base approach to the commercial space industry.
Dave,
However, given sufficient resources (i.e. a large enough budget/purse and timescale), I’m sure it could be won.
Sure, the Shuttle could do it now as a transatlantic abort. But it it reasonable for a New Space firm to do it and still make a profit? And would you invest in a New Space firm that said it could?
Your posts are the only evidence lurkers on this discussion need to see the New Space libertarian faith base approach to the commercial space industry.
If you say so. I think that the lurkers will judge for themselves. You’re the only one here who says there’s only one true way–government contracting.
“Or the need for lunar property rights”
The Russian government put a 5 million dollar a gram value on their lunar samples. The USA placed a value of one million per gram on our national treasure of moon rocks.
Gosh, that means if I OWNED an acre of lunar land I would be a BILLIONAIRE at those rates. If I owned the land on the moon that had the 40% plus of titanium deposits, as found and reported by apollo astronauts how much would that land be worth?
One ton of titanium processed into ingots would be worth how much? I would get to value that asset for accounting purposes at a fair market value. If NASA had a habitat set up on the moon and wanted to purchase that one ton of titanuim I would charge them the going terrestial rate for titanium PLUS I would also charge the going rate of transporting a ton of ore to the moon from earth. Roughly 200,000 kg or 181,000,000 and change per ton.
If Nasa wants to pay my 200 million a ton fine, if they do not that is also fine because I STILL get to carry the titanium as an asset on the books whether it sells or not and to carry all unprocessed ore as an asset too.. I can sell my mineral claim, lease my mineral claim, use my claim as collateral for a loan to expand operations. I can sell any acres not being mined, or lease that land or use the land as collateral for a loan. I can sell or lease any secondary mineral claims or use them as collateral for a loan. I can sell, lease the rights to the regolith for oxygen production, or use it as collateral for a loan. If there is any ICE in a crater, I can sell it, sell the land, sell just ice claim, lease the ice claim, or use it as collateral for a loan. copper, iron, silicate, gold, silver, et cetera. It doesnt matter what you mine and pile up on the moon, you still get to add the CURRENT cost of transportation to it’s fair marker value. As new transportation develops prices will reflect that change and stockpiles will be devalued.
If you set up a small oxygen from, regolith production facility, how much would you charge NASA per ton for oxygen? You would charge the going terrestrial rate plus add on the 180 million per ton NASA would have to spend to have it shipped from earth themselves.
If you OWNED 500,000 acres of lunar regolith, and one ton of oxygen is worth 180 million a ton, how much is the 1000 tons of it you still have to process worth?
The moon is a NINE BILLION acre UNCLAIMED asset, the sooner that “UNCLAIMED” fact sinks into your head the sooner you realize that property rights should be established so PRIVATE owners can start working THEIR claims.
Vladislaw,
Newsflash. You don’t need Real property rights, you may go there now and start collecting your billions. All you need to do is get there
Rand,
Right now the only markets for space launch that you are able to make a profit at are government and PRIVATE comsats/remote imaging sats as I have pointed out numerous times. Wishful thinking doesn’t close a business plan. Or attract real investors.
Like a true libertarian you are replacing logic with rhetoric. No wonder the only space experts libertarians are able to get to speak at their politcal convention are UFO nuts like Richard Hoagland. Wonder if the Libertarian candidate will have him write their space policy?
In any case you have wondered off the deep end so this debate is over.
Right now the only markets for space launch that you are able to make a profit at are government and PRIVATE comsats/remote imaging sats as I have pointed out numerous times. Wishful thinking doesn’t close a business plan. Or attract real investors.
Your endless repetition of your religious beliefs doesn’t render them true. Somehow, despite your belief in the One True Way, companies doing other things are attracting “real” investors. Including XCOR.
Like a true libertarian you are replacing logic with rhetoric. No wonder the only space experts libertarians are able to get to speak at their politcal convention are UFO nuts like Richard Hoagland. Wonder if the Libertarian candidate will have him write their space policy?
You confuse Libertarians with libertarians. No surprise.
FWIW, I will not be attending the party conference, and I won’t be voting for Bob Barr. And I haven’t been a member of the party for almost two decades.
But please, continue in your delusional state.
Rand,
Somehow it dosen’t surprise me that libertarians don’t even agree with themselves.
As for XCor, the main reason they have investors now is because they have an USAF contract. And I am still waiting for them to reach space.
Somehow it dosen’t [sic] surprise me that libertarians don’t even agree with themselves.
And somehow, it doesn’t surprise me that you confuse Libertarians with libertarians.
As for XCor [sic], the main reason they have investors now is because they have an USAF contract.
People who are informed would know that they had investors prior to their Air Force contract. And prior to their NASA contracts.
But continue to live in your dream world.
Rand,
And you don’t know the difference between investors and Investors
There is a much bigger difference between libertarians and Libertarians than there is between “investors” and “Investors.” In fact, that latter distinction is arbitrary and another one of your strange delusions.
Rand,
Yes, like a true libertarian, when people don’t agree with you, you call them delusional. Only the libertarians know the truth.
The distinctions between “3 F” Investors, Angel Investors, Venture Capitalists and Institutional Investors are well know in the business community and among industry professionals. As for the distinctions between libertarians, I guess that is something only libertarians would understand, or care about, just as with the difference between sects in any other belief system. To the rest of the world they are all just another fringe group.
But you really have to wonder how much more successful XCor would be if they knew how to play the game, and had links to a lobby group, then trying to stay ideologically pure. They have some good engineers and ideas, they just need a good business model that will generate the investment needed to move them forward. Hopefully their new Angel investors will move them along in that direction. .
But I guess this thread has highlighted another difference between New Space firms and Real Space firms. Real Space firms have a Washington presence.
The distinctions between “3 F†Investors, Angel Investors, Venture Capitalists and Institutional Investors are well know in the business community and among industry professionals.
They are well known to me as well (speaking as an industry professional). It has nothing to do, however, with “investors” versus “Investors.” You can’t even keep your own story straight.
And who has ever said that New Space firms don’t have a Washington presence? XCOR has always had one. They have also always had links to a “lobbying group.” Or two.
Why do you insist on continually flouting your ignorance here?
someone, newsflash, general accounting methods do not allow you to claim property without a clear ownership chain. You can not claim mineral rights claims as an asset, lease them or sell them without a clear ownership chain.
Granted someone COULD just go there, but your 1000 tons of oxygen would not have a LEGAL ownership chain so you could not claim all that reolith as an asset on your balance sheets.
It would be preferable to make land grants that the USA recognized as clear ownership THEN they can claim 100 billion in assets and get the loans they need to go after it.
Rand,
And the new investors are going to be looking at ROI, not the passion of their vision as was the case with their original investors. That is one of the consequences of the transititon from “3 F” investors to Angel investors, which was the point you seem to miss.
Also don’t their links to Washington lobbyists make them Old Space? Afterall, isn’t the foundational value for New Space firms a focus on commerical markets. Why does a New Space firm need lobbyists to generate government markets if the free market is supposed to supply them with all the customers needed?
And the new investors are going to be looking at ROI, not the passion of their vision as was the case with their original investors.
No one has said they wouldn’t be looking at ROI. But you seem to think that they will be looking at nothing else, thus again revealing your ignorance of both this investment field, and investors.
Afterall, isn’t the foundational value for New Space firms a focus on commerical [sic] markets. Why does a New Space firm need lobbyists to generate government markets if the free market is supposed to supply them with all the customers needed?
They don’t need lobbyists to generate government markets. They need lobbyists because they have to get launch licenses from the FAA to operate at all. Among other reasons (e.g., ITAR), of which you’d be aware if you weren’t so utterly and embarrassingly ignorant of the field.
My recommendation to you is to stick to Old Space, where you may be able to scrape out a living, from people who aren’t interested in competence, or knowledge, as long as they can keep the government contracts flowing, and the congresscritters happy.
Rand,
So the New Space firms are trying to get the regulations protecting the public watered down so they are able to make more money. Nothing new about that. Really New Space looks a lot like Old Space when you strip off the hype, especially with their lobby strategy.
Yes, I will continue to work to advance Real Space while you stick with your New Space cult.
Meanwhile my recommendation to you is to learn a bit about how business models work in the real world, not the libertarian one. The people I work with on space policy are still laughing about your universial business model
Got any more good ones?
Vladislaw wrote:
This is factually wrong, please have a look at, page 8, 9, 10, and 11 of this pdf. I’ll recommend the rest too of course, while I disagree with their conclusion in respect to the need for claims as a prerequisite (I think that part is fatally flawed and even counter-productive) it is a very good and interesting paper.
Even better; material already imported from Luna and elsewhere has established a solid legal precedence: take a rock and it’s yours to keep (and defend).
To Someone: when one posts anonymously one ought to try to keep on the straight and narrow and to put it politely your 20-or-so posts make highway cloverleaf interchanges look straight… how about stepping off the merry-go-round? ^_^
“This is factually wrong, please have a look at, page 8, 9, 10, and 11 of this pdf. I’ll recommend the rest too of course, while I disagree with their conclusion in respect to the need for claims as a prerequisite (I think that part is fatally flawed and even counter-productive) it is a very good and interesting paper.”
Actually, that is factually correct. You can not claim ownership to something for tax and accounting purposes if you do not hold a registered deed that the taxing agent holds valid.
You goto the moon and set up a habitat and pile up some rocks and say you are establishing a land claim. Unless the United States officially recognizes it as a LEGAL claim you can not use it in accounting nor depreciate your equipment et cetera. A bank will not loan money out on a claim not recognized because it would be worthless as collateral.
I have already read that article and both treaties. It is one thing for a country not to sign a treaty banning private ownership but for legal accounting purposes it is quite another by NOT saying you WILL recognize and will repect private lunar land claims.
From that link:
“Nations could recognize land ownership claims made by private
space settlements without being guilty of national appropriation
or any other violation of the Treaty. Land claims recognition
legislation would, therefore, be perfectly legal under existing international
laws. Such legislation would be the best way to promote
privately funded space settlement, and in fact, may be the
sine qua non for the expansion of the habitat of humanity beyond
the Earth. This is not an arcane discussion of legal theory, but rather a
call for immediate action—a single enabling act that will cost
nothing but will act to lever the opening of the new frontier.
The U.S. Congress should, in its next session, consider a bill like
The Space Settlement Prize Act181 to legitimize the property
rights of individuals in space and create the financial reward system
(at no cost to the government) that will make true space
settlement actually happen.”
Nations “COULD” recognize. The US has not done this. I am just saying okay then, LETS recognize land claims and see what happens. If no one pursues it, it cost nothing. Business wll not make a move unless they know they will be granted ownership and can legally deduct their expenses and sell off land and claims, they could be tied up in international courts for a century as every country sues them for mining their land. If the business understands that the US government is recognizing their claim OFFICIALLY those claims become LEGAL tender, something impossible until it has that stamp on it.
So the New Space firms are trying to get the regulations protecting the public watered down so they are able to make more money.
No, they weren’t trying to get regulations “watered down.” They were trying to (and succeeded in) getting them to exist. More flaunting of your ignorance.
Meanwhile my recommendation to you is to learn a bit about how business models work in the real world, not the libertarian one.
I have described how business models work in the real world. It is not just “libertarians” who raise investment, develop and market products, and make profits from them. The anomaly is the “old space” government cost-plus model. The notion that you think that your world is “real” and mine (and Silicon Valley’s) is “libertarian” is, like much of your nonsense, hilarious.
Rand,
I have described how business models
So you finally admit there is no “Universial Business Model”. Progress is being made. But are IP driven models from the software industry the correct ones for the hardware based space industry? The Space Industry is not the Software Industry. Elon has definitely had a steep learning curve in that regard.
The anomaly is the “old space†government cost-plus model.
But it has been pointed out that launch contracts are “fixed price”. And these contracts were executed by Boeing, Lockheed, Orbital and other “Old Space” firms. So “Old Space” is not only ‘Cost-Plus” contracts. Cost-Plus contracts are only used when the technology being developed is so new its difficult to estimate the costs of developing it.
Look at X-33. It was not done on one of those evil “cost-plus” contracts and when they ran into a development problem, the Composite Tank, there was no simple way for NASA to provide the extra funds, only a couple of hundred million if I recall, to fix it. The result, the entire 1.2 Billion dollar project was scrapped and NASA lost its best chance for a replacement for the Shuttle. What a waste for the want of a nail.
If the X-33/Venturestar had been developed under the same contract model that worked for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo/Saturn and Shuttle it would have been completed and flying today. No spaceflight gap. No dependence on the Russians, No billions wasted returning Shuttle to flight after Columbia. And no 60’s retro capsules.
But of course there would be no government demand for New Space “solutions†so its easy to see why you hate cost-plus contracts. Because they might actually allow a technical breakthrough or two. Instead NASA now has a choice of a private Capsule (i.e. Dragon) or NASA Capsule (CEV) or a Russian Capsule (Soyuz) for manned spaceflight for the foreseeable future.
Of course its easy to see why New Space has lobbyists in Washington. It has a vested interest in see policys are put in place to ensure NASA fails in human spaceflight. If NASA succeeds then the money pipeline to New Space in the form of projects like COTS, CRS, responsive space access, etc. is cut off. So its understandable New Space firms are hiring lobbyists to steer space policy in a way to insure NASA’s failure. Look at the misinformation campaign underway now on ESAS to destroy Congressional support and starve if of the money needed to actually finish it. And that is why individuals like you must be engaged, so you don’t further derail the national space program for your own vested interests.
BTW the GAO investigation on Zero-G should be interesting in this regard. I do hope they look at the entire picture of New Space advocating for NASA buy from New Space firms something NASA is much better off doing in-house.
Habitat.
Unfortunately “Grasshopper†is a slow learner, handicapped by his ideological beliefs. But ideological driven space policy has been a factor in how we got into the current space crisis. Its important that its replaced with results based space policy as was in the 1960’s. And that means making sure individuals understand the negative impact of their ideological views as a barrier to developing effective space policy.
As noted in the post above, if NASA had just done a traditional development contract for replacing the Shuttle with a new spacecraft, instead of the contract experiments of X-33, SLI, COTS, it would had been in operation already. NASA would not be forced to replace the Shuttle with a throwback 1960’s era capsule, either a politically correct private one (Dragon) or an evil cost-plus NASA one (CEV).
Space policy needs to move beyond the ideologically driven policy of the baby boomer old guard “New Spacers†and ideologically driven organizations like the Prospace, Space Access and the Space Frontier Foundation to more pragmatic ones like Action for Space run by post-baby boomers if we are ever going to move forward again. Its long past time for a leadership change in the space advocate movement, putting the old guard baby boomers out to pasture.
So you finally admit there is no “Universial Business Modelâ€.
There is in capitalism. I described it.
Progress is being made.
Apparently not. You remain obtuse.
But are IP driven models from the software industry the correct ones for the hardware based space industry?
There was nothing in my description about IP. Must be that reading comprehension problem again.
As noted in the post above, if NASA had just done a traditional development contract for replacing the Shuttle with a new spacecraft, instead of the contract experiments of X-33, SLI, COTS, it would had been in operation already.
Just because you note something doesn’t make it true. In fact, it’s my extensive experience, from this thread alone, that it substantially reduces the probability of that being the case.
Of course its easy to see why New Space has lobbyists in Washington.
I thought that your story was that New Space didn’t have lobbyists in Washington. Why can’t you keep your story straight? Why do you continue to beclown yourself?
BTW the GAO investigation on Zero-G should be interesting in this regard. I do hope they look at the entire picture of New Space advocating for NASA buy from New Space firms something NASA is much better off doing in-house.
Wow. You don’t just drink the NASA kool aid. You swim in it.
Unfortunately “Grasshopper†is a slow learner, handicapped by his ideological beliefs.
Yes, we understand your problem. We’re just not sure what to do about it.
The result, the entire 1.2 Billion dollar project was scrapped and NASA lost its best chance for a replacement for the Shuttle.
The notion that X-33 was NASA’s “best chance” for a replacement for the Shuttle is ludicrous. There were never good prospects for VentureStar to ever be built. X-33 was a disaster from the time that they let the contract to LM.
Vladislaw so in effect you end up saying that if I were a US citizen, launched a mission to Luna, returned 1 kg of lunar material and sold it then I wouldn’t be taxed on it by the IRS.
That seems to me to be the logical conclusion of what you’re saying but I don’t think you believe that. I don’t either.
Taxes would be due and thus my legal ownership of (in this case) that kilo of soil & rocks is officially and juridically recognized. The four pages referred to repeatedly state such ownership and more –property rights– as fact by numerous sources versed in space law and in addition the actions of former and current nations establish a solid precedent on the matter; all in favor of the existence of property rights beyond Earth.
So if you’re saying there are currently no such legal property rights you’re up against an awful lot of people not to mention the IRS ^_^ You could still be right but I don’t envy you your position and I think you need to provide some detailed thorough reasoning.
As for the separate issue of land claims they don’t seem to add anything but trouble if one makes them prerequisites, in fact strictly speaking having them as prerequisites would likely be illegal under the treaty as the legal validity is first and foremost derived from the occupation and use of the land. A piece of paper does not constitute such.
Think about that for a bit: any claim no matter who recognizes it will be legally void with the current international interpretation of the treaty unless you’re actually putting the land to use (and using the land only as collateral for borrowing does not qualify as use in this context). What’s worse (actually a good thing from my point of view) that very interpretation runs awfully deep into the basics of existing law on Earth: it’s actually congruent! (Wow!). This is the juncture at which I think the referenced paper veers off into a morass enthralled by the promise of what amounts to a dubious money-printing operation as relief from the slow hard (financial as well as technical) battle to get out of the gravity well at a reasonable cost.
If someone should desire prolonged legal battles then introducing the notion of lunar land claims as bits of paper is exactly the way to do it as they only introduce uncertainty when the current internationally accepted reading of the law is reasonably straightforward: as long as you do not represent an Earth nation and as long as you make use of and/or occupy the land then you can claim it as yours. No guarantees given (and all would be false anyway) but you have the starting slot available for free if you choose (and manage) to take it.
The more I’ve looked into and thought about the issue the worse an idea it looks like to in any way auction off or sell lunar (or martian etc.) land claims; the current situation looks far superior: the challenge is the same either way but this way once one reaches the goal one will arrive with far less unwanted baggage weighing down the future.
On the completely different topic: in case I was being too subtle I think Rand is right and that Someone has made “verbal doodles” that would make Jackson Pollock blush and Ludwig Wittgenstein autodestruct… ^_^
Habitat,
That is ok. I figured you were also one of the old baby boomer space advocates like Rand who are part of the problem, not the solution, for opening the space frontier. So its not important what you think. Its what Generation X and Y thinks. They will be the ones that will have to clean up after your “New Space” schemes and Washington lobbyists and restore America’s space programs. That is who my posts are aimed at, and why you don’t get them. You and Rand are part of the old paradigm that has about run its course.
You and Rand are part of the old paradigm that has about run its course.
Given that you are arguing for continuing the failed paradigm that we’ve had since Apollo, that’s the most hilarious thing you’ve written yet. That noise you just heard was a whole factory of irony meters exploding.
Rand,
You are funny. And have no understanding of what the issues of space policy are. The only failed paradigm has been the New Space one. All promises and no substance, except for a few stunts. You really need to go back to engineering and leave space policy to the professionals. And to the new generation.
You really need to go back to engineering and leave space policy to the professionals. And to the new generation.
Well, with inadvertent late-night material like this, we certainly understand why you post anonymously.
Worth a few chuckles. Most here lets it suffice with a chip on their shoulder but Someone must be in the middle of the forest somewhere pinned under a redwood tree shouting about saving NASA by reanimating the corpse of Von Braun ^_^
And by the way Someone I’m 34 and yes that makes me Gen X. I hope you cherish your merit badge in social engineering ^_^
All in good fun.
Habitat,
You may be 34 in age, if that is your true age, but you have Baby Boomer views on space policy. Guess it comes from hanging around too many boomer advocates.
I’m pretty sure that this is the first time I’ve ever heard of “Baby Boomer views on space policy.” And if I had heard of it, I would have thought it meant the opposite of “Someone”s bizarre delusions.
Who knew that “baby boomers” were the driving force behind New Space? Someone tell that baby boomer Mike Griffin.
The longer this thread goes on, the wackier it gets.
Who knew that “baby boomers†were the driving force behind New Space?
Let’s see, Walt Anderson, Rick Tumlinson, David Gump, Jeff Krukin, Charles E. Miller, Gary Hudson, Jeff Greason, Peter Diamandis… All boomers. Or are you saying these individuals aren’t the driving force behind New Space? If so then who do you think it is?
Charles Miller, Jeff Greason, and Peter Diamandis aren’t boomers. Neither is Elon Musk. Or Jeff Bezos. And even if they were, it just means that the people driving New Space are people old enough to have achieved accomplishments in their lives, and are now applying them to space. Do you think that there are no boomers involved with Old Space?
This is the nuttiest theory I’ve heard in a long time.
Rand,
Good try at misinformation but the facts disprove your claims.
The Baby Boomers were born from 1946 to 1964
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer
And Dr. Peter H. Diamandis was born in 1961
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Diamandis
So he’s Baby Boomer.
And Jeff Bezos was born in 1964
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos
So he’s a boomer too.
I suspect your information on Charles Miller and Jeff Greason is equally false as I know both of them are at least in their mid-forties.
Also you stated earlier in this thread that you don’t regard SpaceX as New Space. Sounds like you are changing your story again.
There are many young people involved in New Space (more than not, I suspect). That they’re not the leaders of the companies is because they are…young. There are many more baby boomers involved in old space than in New Space. The notion that New Space is a “baby boomer” paradigm remains idiotic. I’ve never heard it before. I expect I’ll never hear it again, other than from you.
Rand,
Typical. Catch you in providing misinformation and you change the topic. And then attack people. It shows there is no more substance to New Space then to the libertarian movement.
I didn’t attack anyone. Calling an opinion idiotic isn’t attacking the opinionator–it’s attacking the opinion. And the notion that anything I wrote about your asinine theory can somehow be generalized to prove anything about New Space is equally illogical. And idiotic.
Someone wrote: “If the X-33/Venturestar had been developed under the same contract model that worked for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo/Saturn and Shuttle it would have been completed and flying today.â€
And had this actually happened, it is highly likely that it would have been as big a failure as the Shuttle in terms of reducing launch cost and failing to meet its availability and reliability targets.
X-33 was originally intended to be as low a risk design as possible but NASA did a last-minute change and went for the most “technically challenging†option; effectively sowing the seeds for yet another government funded boondoggle.
The sad truth is that the demise of X-33 may have been one of the best demonstrations of the benefits of fixed-price over cost-plus contracts. If all you care about is maintaining the façade of a space programme and essentially throwing good money after bad, cost-plus contracts (i.e. paying for effort, not results) are surely the way to go. However, if you want to weed-out the good ideas from the bad and thereby foster an evolving and sustainable space economy, then a transition towards fixed-price contracts (i.e. paying for results, not effort) would seem like a much better approach.
“Typical. Catch you in providing misinformation and you change the topic”
More typical, you don’t read beyond the first sentence of the Wiki page you cite:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer
There are a lot more definitions of “baby boom” than just 1947-1964, and most have it ending well before 1964.
From Wiki:
Baby boomer is a North American-English term used to describe a person who was born between 1946 and 1964.[1][2] Following World War II, these countries experienced an unusual spike in birth rates, a phenomenon commonly known as the baby boom. The term is iconic and more properly capitalized as Baby Boomers. The terms “baby boomer” and “baby boom” along with others (e.g., “goomies” or “goomers”) are also used in countries with demographics that did not mirror the sustained growth in American families over the same interval.[3]
If the gross number of births were the indicator, births began to decline from the peak in 1957 (4,300,000), but fluctuated or did not decline by much more than 40,000 (1959-1960) to 60,000 (1962-1963) until a sharp decline from 1964 (4,027,490) to 1965 (3,760,358). This sharp decline resulted from millions of women using birth control pills, which were introduced in 1960 in the U.S., and widely used by 1964.[4] This makes 1955 a good year to mark the end of the baby boom in the U.S.[5] However, it is important to note that 1964 is a nationwide average. Although it is true that 1946 marks the beginning of the boom nationwide, the end of the boom (the year of baseline birthrates returning to pre-war levels) on a state-by-state basis varied a great deal spanning throughout the 1960s.
While 1945-1955 reflect the post-World War II demographic boom in births, there is a growing consensus among generational experts that two distinct cultural generations occupy these years. The conceptualization that has gained the most public acceptance is that of a 1942-1953 Baby Boom Generation, followed by a 1954-1965 Generation Jones. Boomers and Jonesers had dramatically different formative experiences which gave rise to dramatically different collective personalities. Other monikers have been sometimes used to describe the younger cohort, like “Trailing Edge Boomers”, “Late Boomers”, and “Shadow Boomers”, but the moniker “Generation Jones” has achieved far more popularity than any of these other terms, and is the only moniker for this cohort that is commonly used in the media.
In his book Boomer Nation, Steve Gillon states that the baby boom began in 1946 and ends in 1960, but he breaks Baby Boomers into two groups: Boomers, born between 1945 and 1957; and Shadow Boomers born between 1958 and 1964.[6] Further, in Marketing to Leading-Edge Baby Boomers, author Brent Green defines Leading-Edge Boomers as those born between 1946 and 1955. This group is a self-defining generational cohort or unit because its members all reached their late teen years during the height of the Vietnam War era, the defining historical event of this coming-of-age period. Green describes the second half of the demographic baby boom, born from the mid-1950s through the mid-1960s as either Trailing-Edge Boomers or Generation Jones.[7] In some cases the term Shadow Boomer is incorrectly applied to the children of the Baby Boomers; this group is more accurately referred to as Echo Boomers..
It can be argued that the defining event of early Baby Boomers was the Vietnam War and the protest over the draft, which ended in 1973. Since anyone born after 1955 was not subject to the draft, this argues for the ten years including 1946 to 1955 as defining the baby boomers. This would fit the thirtysomething demographic covered by the TV show of the same name which aired from 1987-1991. The cultural disaffinities of those born after 1955 (thereby missing the draft and being too young to be part of the 1960s) could be captured by the Gen X of Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. The term “X” has itself been transformed to cover a later cohort.
I’m not sure what the ‘Baby Boomer’ space position is. I’m a boomer, and my personal position is (1) I have not, and would not, invest my own money in space startups, and (2) NASA should cease to exist.
Dave,
At least there would be a SSTO operational if the X-33/VentureStar had been cost-plus. Versus what? A bunch of capsules? A prolonged Spaceflight Gap? Maybe Obama killing manned spaceflight?
Or do you prefer the current state of affairs?
.
The common term is 1946-1964 as noted and it is still the offical definition by the U.S. Census.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/006105.html
But being New Spacers I am sure you will find a way to eventually argue yourself into proving there never was a baby boom. Just as you argue yourself into thinking NASA is doomed to fail and only New Space will succeed.
At least there would be a SSTO operational if the X-33/VentureStar had been cost-plus.
Even assuming that is true (it’s nonsense–it would have died politically anyway, and technologically, it was highly unlikely to pay off), so what? It would have been another unaffordable white elephant, like the Shuttle.
But I guess if NASA does it, it’s wonderful, according to koolaid drinkers like you.
“Vladislaw so in effect you end up saying that if I were a US citizen, launched a mission to Luna, returned 1 kg of lunar material and sold it then I wouldn’t be taxed on it by the IRS.”
You would be taxed on the profits, if you sold it at cost or a loss then no taxes.
“as long as you do not represent an Earth nation and as long as you make use of and/or occupy the land then you can claim it as yours. ”
So your saying a company lands on the moon and occupies it, they can then CLAIM it? .. So HOW MUCH do you get to claim? 500.000 acres? 5000 acres? Can you have every member of the expedition make their own individual claims? How much can they claim or can only the company?
Who is the authorized registration agent? What country do you need to file your claim in? How much is the filing fees for a lunar claim? Do you have to have the claim assessed for tax purposes? et cetera et cetera et cetera….
I am talking about an clear ownership chain, not what many believe the treaty might mean. The US did not sign the moon treaty that would have banned private ownership that is not then a legal endorsement that private property rights are going to be INFORCED.
You land on the moon and find a rock that sparkles, bring it back to earth and another company, hearing of your find lands there and starts digging your gemstones,………. so you say that would be illegal because you were there first, but you were WHERE first, if a claim does not have parameters and borders how could you have claimed it?
One of our greatest achievements is our law codes and the shedding of lexus talonus “The Law of the Claw”
We have a century of mining law, why not take our law with us and have the mechanisms in place, clear cut and dried. Not a jumble of various interpretations.
Even assuming that is true (it’s nonsense–it would have died politically anyway, and technologically, it was highly unlikely to pay off), so what? It would have been another unaffordable white elephant, like the Shuttle.
So you don’t think the engineers at the Skunkworks would have been able to make it work? Interesting.
As for its impact, even if it costs were more then the $1000/lb goal it would have been a working example of a SSTO. Surely that would have made rasing capital for New Space RLVs easier. In any case it would have been a much better follow-on to the Shuttle then the capsules we are not stuck with.
But I guess NASA will never do anything right in your eyes, except maybe give New Space firms money.
As for its impact, even if it costs were more then the $1000/lb goal it would have been a working example of a SSTO.
No, it wouldn’t have been. It would have been a working example of SSTM (Single-Stage To Montana). It was not an orbital vehicle. And if Venture Star had been built, people would have pointed to it as proof that SSTO wasn’t cost effective. And illogically extrapolated from that false conclusion that reusable vehicles aren’t either. In fact, that has been the effect of X-33.
But I guess NASA will never do anything right in your eyes, except maybe give New Space firms money.
NASA does many things right. But not much in manned space. It’s not allowed to, politically.
Rand,
Even if VentureStar failed to achieve its cost goals its mere existence would have proven that SSTO was possible which means we would have been much further along the path to CRATS. Commercial space firms would no longer have to argue that SSTO was possible when pursuing investment, merely that they could do it cheaper.
Instead we are now stuck with capsules until when and if Burt Rutan does an orbital system. Given his delays in just building SpaceShipTwo, despite adaquate funding, one wonders when that will be.
Yes, XCor is a dark horse in the race, but it will need to really get a lot more DOD funding to move forward. Perhaps even an “evil” cost plus contract
Even if VentureStar failed to achieve its cost goals its mere existence would have proven that SSTO was possible which means we would have been much further along the path to CRATS.
You assume, without basis, that SSTO is the key to CRATS. But it may be a very long time before SSTO is lower cost to operate than a well-designed TSTO. Proving out technologies for it is all fine and good, but X-33 bit off much more than it could chew, putting several risky technologies in a single vehicle, which is a very poor approach to technology development, since it ended up proving none of them.
Commercial space firms would no longer have to argue that SSTO was possible when pursuing investment, merely that they could do it cheaper.
Very few firms argue that SSTO is possible when pursuing investment. Very few firms are proposing SSTO at all.
Yes, XCor is a dark horse in the race, but it will need to really get a lot more DOD funding to move forward. Perhaps even an “evil†cost plus contract
That’s your (uninformed) opinion. It doesn’t correspond to reality. They have private investment funds with which to move forward. When the vehicle gets built, they’ll have revenue from it to move forward from there.
Vladislaw wrote:
Yes and I’m not asking you to take my word for it so I referenced you to those pages of that paper (the pdf) in which people far more knowledgeable than me repeatedly make the point.
Vladislaw wrote:
As much as you occupy or use.
Vladislaw wrote:
If they individually occupy and use land then yes. If they do it collectively then not unless they make internal arrangements for it.
Vladislaw wrote:
Same as the earlier answer on how much and the answer above.
Vladislaw wrote:
It’s de facto self-authorized by their actions according to the existing international legal system because of the Outer Space Treaty. When it comes to non-Earth property they are sovereigns in the original and uncomplicated sense of the word. If they deem it fit to have an authorized registration agent they are free to create one for their land (and over time that will likely happen in some way).
Vladislaw wrote:
None but the Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit Earth governments from recognizing claims.
Vladislaw wrote:
Zero in the way that there is no filing fee as such. Millions, billions, or more in the way of current launch and operation costs which are required to occupy and/or use non-Earth land which is the only way to obtain a legal claim.
Vladislaw wrote:
If an owner is a citizen of an Earth country then such details will have to be worked out between the respective parties. It’s an interesting question in several ways because among other things Earth governments are not allowed to for example appropriate it in any way but these issues will be worked out as they happen just as continually happens with issues big and small, they’re not insurmountable in any way.
Vladislaw wrote:
It’s not belief but what amounts to international juridical consensus on the correct interpretation of a treaty and the clear ownership claim is proving that one is occupying and/or using the land. If the details of that are in question it will be argued in court (just as happens quite frequently with Earth land and property when disagreements arise).
Vladislaw wrote:
The Moon Treaty is completely irrelevant unless you’re a citizen of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, or Uruguay.
Under the Outer Space Treaty Earth nations can recognize non-Earth claims but they can not enforce them in the way you seem to be calling for because they do not have jurisdiction. I think that’s a very good approach with few disadvantages (if any) compared to the benefits.
It’s not a new situation in that respect as sovereigns on Earth (nations) do not have jurisdiction over/within each other except as by agreements. Same thing.
Under the Outer Space Treaty any owner would be a sovereign in respect to such land. That ought to be viewed as a tremendous boon. As for the challenges of being a sovereign human history is mostly nothing much but a very long description of just that ^_^
Vladislaw wrote:
Defend yourself by any means available that you see fit, no sovereign has ever existed for any substantial period of time that didn’t. No guarantees even so.
Vladislaw wrote:
You’re looking at that from the point of a citizen but the law of the claw is in full effect between sovereigns, always has been, always will be unless something unfortunate like a world dictatorship came about (and we’re hopefully a long way away from that as everybody is spying on everybody and looking after their own best self-interest).
Vladislaw wrote:
This part simply doesn’t bear any resemblance to reality, there isn’t “one single law” in our world and we should be thankful there isn’t. Even so what most closely approaches such a warped (in my opinion) ideal has decided that one shouldn’t do such a copy-paste maneuver and prohibits Earth nations from doing it –not exactly a jumble of various interpretations.
### Switching topic
Someone wrote:
Ok so you haven’t seen Burt Rutan’s (well not just his) orbital system; it’s a pleasure to inform you that it’s a capsule based on the Corona shape ^_^
That’s his and Scaled Composites influence on t/Space and their CXV, he might not be the only reason (I don’t know such details myself but I wouldn’t be the least surprised if Rand Simberg does) but I read Burt Rutan thinks highly of the solution (no link at the ready but I’m sure it must be somewhere here, if not then the t/Space pages or a Wired interview are good bets).
According the the people I know at t/Space Gary Hudson was behind the capsule design, not Burt. Burt’s contribution was just the aircraft launching Gary’s rocket. Burt’s not a fan of spam in the can.
BTW if you were at ISDC 2005 you would have gotten to tour the mock-up for the capsule, not just pictures. I expect t/Space may come together to pitch it to NASA for COTS D. I don’t see them succeeding.
You’re right about Gary Hudson as far as I know. I thought Burt Rutan had a part in the CXV choice of the Corona shape but I haven’t found what I was thinking of (only a mention of Scaled constructing the capsule) so I’m beginning to think I was wrong (it’s a bad indicator when Google returns my post above before any proof ^_^).
Habitat
Scaled Composite also constructed the X-38 for NASA in 1996.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-038-DFRC.html
Scaled Composite does a lot of contract work for NASA, DOD and aerospace firms. Basically they are the aerospace firm you go to for a composite spacecraft aeroshells.
If Burt does an orbital design it will probably have more in common with NASA’s X-38 then t/Space’s capsule system.