“Venture capitalists always want something out of the ‘partnership’ for the pleasure of their investment.”

You still don’t understand what Venture Capitalists are, and what they do. They invest other peoples money on the premise that they will return a profit. They are not “partnering”, nor are they doing it for pleasure. VC’s will also take positions on the company’s Board of Directors so they can oversee their investment, and they may also insist on the company hiring specific personnel for the same reason. It’s business, and a cut throat one at that (I know a few VC’s, and I know people with VC investments).

And no, NASA is not acting as a VC to any of the COTS or CCDev participants.

“So too WH/NASA via Space Grant process.”

Why do you feel the need to make up terminology when the correct terminology has already been pointed out to you? NASA is using Space Act Agreements, not “NASA Space Grants”.

“Tell me, if Space X goes belly up, do they owe NASA anything?”

If you had read what Space Act Agreements are, and how the CCDev program is structured (i.e. milestone payments), then you would already know that all CCDev work is pay for performance – NASA only pays for work completed in the agreed upon way.

That being the case, no, a failed CCDev participant would not owe NASA anything if they stopped work on the CCDev program, for whatever reason. And NASA would not owe the CCDev participant for uncompleted milestones.

“Tell me, if Space X goes belly up, do they owe NASA anything?”

It’s getting a little tiresome to tell over and over again.

SpaceX, when it comes to COTS or CCDev, just like the other contenders, do not owe NASA anything. The reason is that they are being paid for a service, a service that takes place BEFORE they are paid. They launch an F9 they get cash, they resupply ISS they get cash. If they do not perform the service they do not get paid. If they go belly up then NASA does not pay them – modulo some legalities I would assume.

What do you think they might owe NASA?

BTW it is not called “Space Grants”. They are called Space Act Agreements. There are differences between a grant and an agreement. Run some search. SAAs are used all over NASA, not just HSF.

Venture capitalists want a return on their investment. NASA wants transportation services.

Space Grants are the way to go as a cheaper alternative of typical ‘cost plus development’ processes. Lets see if the rest of NASA starts using them the way HSF is now using them for COTS and CC

Neither COTS nor Commercial Crew utilize Space Grants. They use Space Act Agreements.

Tell me, if Space X goes belly up, do they owe NASA anything?

No. But it’s kind of ignorant to imagine that would even happen, given their launch backlog.

Nothing illegal going on. Space Grants are the way to go as a cheaper alternative of typical ‘cost plus development’ processes. Lets see if the rest of NASA starts using them the way HSF is now using them for COTS and CC

Tell me, if Space X goes belly up, do they owe NASA anything?

I don’t have a problem with either approach ( the DOE or commercial space approach) although you should at least have the intellectual horsepower to acknowledge that they are different.

the role of the government is by its actions and laws and regulations is to promote things which are deemed by the political leaders in power and who are responsible at the ballot to the people….is to do things in the national interest.

It is perceived in the national interest to have “family farms” ie ones not owned by big corporations so there are a lot of things the federal government does to help keep those going.

I believe, you might not that it is in the national interest to promote things like distributed solar power. And I regret the efforts that fail and cost the government and the people money BUT that amount is nothing compared with what even Cx wasted just wasted much less boondoggles like the Iraq war….which most who are crapped at the DOE efforts supported and have no regrets for.

I think it is in the national interest to promote human space flight and national space industries outside of the government space industrial complex…you might not but on that we just disagree.

Part of what makes me reject the comments of people like you as uninformed is that you draw comparisons where one is not valid.
,
What DOE did is not like the Commercial crew/reapply. You and Whittington and wind and all the other pro big government people can say it is…but like saying Saddam was Hitler…it did not make it so

Don’t be an intellectual Dremel tool

RGO

PS Happy New YEAR

Merchandise, advertisements, licensing products and media rights are all legitimate revenue sources for a human spaceflight enterprise, suborbital or otherwise.
If one breaks even or even takes a slight loss in operations, but other revenue sources compensate with a healthy profit, whats wrong with that ?

The Obama administrations fancy towards Commercial Space, via NASA Space Act grants, is nothing more than the federal government playing venture capitalist. Not a role for the government as the Energy Dept has so painfully learned.

Just curious … Did you raise a complaint about this in 1985 when the Reagan administration amended the National Aeronautics and Space Act to require NASA to prioritize commercial space?

Section 102c:

The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

Or how’s about in January 2006 when the Bush administration began seeking proposals for commercial cargo and crew:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18791

You seem quick to heap blame on Obama for complying with a Reagan-era law and continuing a Bush-era program.

“The Obama administrations fancy towards Commercial Space, via NASA Space Act grants, is nothing more than the federal government playing venture capitalist.”

I think you should look into what the Space Act Agreements are and what Venture Capitalists do, because you are wrong.

As a refresher, this is what Space Act Agreements are:

“The term “agreement” in its broadest context includes any transaction the Space Act authorizes the Agency to conclude (i.e., contracts, leases, grants, cooperative agreements, or other transactions). Agreements establish a set of legally enforceable promises between NASA and the other party to the agreement, requiring a commitment of NASA resources (including personnel, funding, services, equipment, expertise, information, or facilities) to accomplish stated objectives.”

Since money is only transferred when agreed upon work is finished, then the current round of CCDev SAA’s would not be grants. And since NASA does not retain an ownership position in the companies based on the money they are paying the companies, they are not providing venture capital.

If you look at what is motivating both sides (NASA and the CCDev participants), then it’s easier to see that what they are doing is more like a partnership than anything else. NASA needs reliable and redundant access to the ISS for their personnel, and the participating companies want to offer crew transportation services for not only NASA, but anyone needing to get to LEO. This happens all the time in the commercial world, so bending over backwards to define it as something nefarious is pretty silly.

No, it’s not. There are no loan guarantees involved. It is nothing like what DoE has been doing.