Different kind of securitization.

“please share with me from whom NASA should buy spaceflight services.”

I don’t know and it would be presumptuous of me to assume. NASA needs to develop requirements and evaluation criteria, release an announcement, and evaluate the proposals that come in.

FedEx (or its early 20th century equivalent) didn’t exist when what was then called the Post Office Department and the War Department contracted for airmail services.

NASA doesn’t need to wait for the full maturation of the commercial human space flight equivalent of a FedEx before NASA can begin buying human space flight services for government purposes.

FWIW…

Just because the suborbital test flights were conducted by the commercial industry does not qualify those flights as commercial human spaceflight. No seats on those flights were available for sale on the commercial market and no passengers flew on the flights. What is more, SpaceShipOne was not even considered to be a commercial vehicle by its own manufacturer Scaled Composites whom considered the spacecraft to be a test vehicle only.

And just for the sake of accuracy, there were actually 3 test flights of the SpaceShipOne, the first one took place on June 21, 2004 and reached 100.1 km altitude. The two that you mentioned took place at the end of Sept and beginning of Oct.

How is an activity that takes place entirely in the commercial sector not commercial?

Goofy…

“We were discussing deposits and investments into a developing industry. Those kind of investments and deposits typically fall under high risk categories.”

Securitization is typical in asset-intensive industries.

“I would assume that meant commercial spaceflight services.”

Don’t assume, think. The government is not a commercial entity.

Take Public Policy 101.

Sigh…

One flight reached 102.9 km and the other reached 112.0 km. Perhaps I should have phrased that as the two test flights reached just above the Karman line. That still does not change the fact these were test flights of a launch system and not true commercial human spaceflight. My statement that commercial human spaceflight does not exist in the United States at this time is still true.

Not only are you apparently an ‘expert’ on spaceflight now you are and ‘expert’ on lending. Lol. BTW, I was not talking about loans. We were discussing deposits and investments into a developing industry. Those kind of investments and deposits typically fall under high risk categories.

“NASA is not purchasing spaceflight services, they are purchasing manufacturing services.”

For the second or third time, the point is that NASA should do the former, not the latter.

This is an excerpt of your previous comment. You clearly indicated that NASA should be purchasing spaceflight services. I would assume that meant commercial spaceflight services.

Wrong. Both flights exceeded that altitude.

Don’t post patently false statements. It’s a waste of your time and a waste of other posters’ time to correct them.

Go away until you learn not to.

“One does not have to know the terms of a contract to understand that there is always a risk associated commercial enterprises.”

That’s simply not true. There are forms of lending and legal agreements that eliminate practically all risk. Senior debt. Secured loans. Collateralization.

Again, don’t post about things you know nothing about. It’s a waste of your time and other posters’ time.

Go away until you learn not to.

“You believe that NASA should purchase commercial crew spaceflight to LEO and ISS.”

No, I don’t and that’s not what I wrote. Learn the difference between commercial activities and government contracting for services before you post on this topic again.

Ugh…

It comes at no surprise to me that you would cite the two test flights of a suborbital plane that carried no paying passengers in the X-Prize competition as the only examples of commercial human spaceflight in the United States. The plane only reached the 100km altitude which is commonly called the Kármán line. However a new study that came out last April identified the true edge of space at nearly 118 km, 73 miles, altitude, here is the article Edge of Space Found. As the United States has no set official standard for geopolitical and security reasons, anyone can argue as to what constitutes real space. And there is still a debate as to whether suborbital flights can be defined as commercial human spaceflight. Given the fact that the total energy expenditure of suborbital flight is only 2-3% of the necessary energy to boost an object to sufficient escape velocity to reach LEO, suborbital flights are still Earthbound and offer little more than thrill rides.

You brought up the ticket revenue for commercial spaceflight generated in the last few years most of which is for suborbital flights. Tickets for suborbital flights have been selling for around $200K – $250K and most customers have probably made a deposit. So the total number of customers represented in the 2006-2007 is somewhere around 300 – 1000 people. While this indicates an increasing demand for commercial spaceflight services, there is still currently no supply in the US. A market is defined by demand and supply. So while there is a demand, without supply, a market truly does not exist. Because of the demand, there is potential market. And this is not to say that there is not an industry working to develop a supply. And in the case of commercial human spaceflight, of course, there is an commercial spaceflight industry.

There is also the issue of market maturity. The commercial aviation market has matured. I can purchase a airline ticket tonight for a flight tomorrow morning to Chicago, New York, or LA. On the other hand, in commercial human spaceflight, I cannot go out and buy a ticket at any amount of money and fly today to LEO or to ISS from any location or spaceport in the US. If I want to fly to the ISS, I would have to go to Russia where there is a limited commercial spacelfight market and pay a rather exorbant sum to RKK Energia. This is a market that is still embryonic.

How do you know? Have you made reservations? Have you read all the relevant legal agreements? Do you have access to the creditors’ agreements at each company?

Don’t make statements on subjects about which you know nothing.

This was a rather strange, boorish response. Anytime someone places a deposit or makes an investment in a new developing business there is a risk of losing their money. In commercial human spaceflight development over the last several decades there have already been a number of companies that failed or went bankrupt. One does not have to know the terms of a contract to understand that there is always a risk associated commercial enterprises.

You believe that NASA should purchase commercial crew spaceflight to LEO and ISS. I have simply stated that the commercial human spaceflight market is not developed or mature enough for NASA to do so. NASA is currently developing commercial spaceflight capabilities through COTS and developing their own new exploration program for beyond LEO. This seems to be a logical course and Augustine report acknowledges is a viable and executable program given the necessary funding increase.

There are two. The SpaceShipOne flights in September and October of 2004. They were privately funded, using a ship developed on private funds, to win a privately funded prize. No government money was involved.

“There are currently technological developments for commercial human spaceflight going on in the United States, but that is not the same as actual commercial human spaceflight.”

Even under that narrow, dogmatic definition, your statement is still patently false. See above.

And even then, tell it to the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, which recorded $29M in 2006 and $39M in 2007 in revenues for sales of
personal spaceflight services (and total industry revenue of $175M in 2006 and $268M in 2007) and nearly 50 employees engaged in directly providing those services (and over 1,200 employees for the total industry):

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/pressreleases/PSF%20Presentation%20Summary.pdf

Your can backtrack and qualify your original statement all you want, but it was still patently false. There is clearly a commercial space flight market and activity in the United States. It was either a blatant lie or a terribly ignorant statement to claim that there is no such market or activity in the U.S. “at all”.

Either admit that your original statement was wrong or go away. But don’t waste your time defending the indefensible and don’t waste my time correcting it.

“NASA is not purchasing spaceflight services, they are purchasing manufacturing services.”

Thanks, I didn’t know that.

[rolls eyes]

For the second or third time, the point is that NASA should do the former, not the latter.

“If those companies should go bankrupt or lose their source of development funds, then those customers will never receive their services and stand to lose their deposits.”

How do you know? Have you made reservations? Have you read all the relevant legal agreements? Do you have access to the creditors’ agreements at each company?

Don’t make statements on subjects about which you know nothing.

“If such scenario were to really happen, then US human spaceflight capabilities will be delayed beyond 2020.”

Whoop-dee-do. Ares I most likely won’t deliver before 2019.

“This quote is from your first comment responding to a comment that I made. And you claim that you are not being negative?”

How is giving the other poster the benefit of the doubt as to whether they know they’re stating a falsehood “being negative”?

And even if you consider that “being negative”, why does that entitle you to ad hominem and false attacks on the other poster?

For the umpteenth time, argue the post, not the poster.

And if you still can’t tell the difference, then go away.

Please, I’m begging you.

Lawdy…