--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Zelnio wrote:
> Jack,
>
> There was substantial effort in the 1980s to
> explore commercializing microgravity research. This
> is well documented in an excellent book by Joan Lisa
> Bromberg called "NASA and the Space Industry". I
> recommend this book to anyone looking at plans to
> develop in space.

Sounds like a book I need to add to my library. Thanks for the
recommendation.

> Unfortunately I don't have the book in front of me
> as its in my library at home but in essence the
> government pushed to privatize micrograv research and
> a company was formed to do this. Just as they were
> getting underway the challeneger accident occured and
> the carpet was pulled out under the company and they
> were dissolved. I believe the name of the project was
> the Industrial Space Facility and it was a project
> backed heavily by McDonnell-Douglas with research
> partners with 3m. Astronautix has put together a good
> synapses of this debacle at:
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/indility.htm.

I am familiar with the ISF - it wasn't the Challenger accident, it
was the market. Another problem with the ISF was it was man-tended
requiring significant interactions with NASA astronauts for servicing.

> Currently to my knowledge, there has been only one
> semi-successful microgravity commercial product. That
> was Japanese Hemoglobin replacements. There was also
> some talk a year or so back on a pure optical fiber
> cable called Zblan and on an extremely lightweight but
> strong structural aerogel. As for medicines, the only
> advantages microgravity has identified use for is in
> protein formation and crystal growth. Neither of
> these have yet to pan out though.

This is simply untrue. I would urge all to do more research into the
potential of space-based R&D (microgravity research). Aerogel and
ZBLAN are two examples with some potential, though aerogel has little
commercial viability and ZBLAN would be great if we can ever create
the network hardware to support the high speed capacity of ZBLAN.
It's been a while since I researched those specific products, so
someone with more knowledge may be able to shed some light on them. I
don't consider either likely in the near-term.

Please read up on NASA commercial space centers to hear more about
what has been accomplished and what sectors stand to gain from on-
going, long-term research.

[The following is excerpted from Dr. Richard Crews excellent work
on "MULE Research" that I will post separately. Dr. Richard Crews is
my editor and co-board member of LUF and SEE.]

Here are some examples of commercial space research and development
projects. Although all of these have an Earth-bound foundation and
ongoing ground-based support aspects, the emphasis in the projects
selected here is the use of the space environment -- as, for example,
would be available aboard a MULE module.

Example 1 -- BioServe Space Technologies is working with Amgen to
study the effects of OPG, a natural human protein being developed for
the treatment of osteoporosis. BioServe developed a model that
incorporates aging mice with spaceflight. A BioServe scientist
determined that certain strains of aging mice demonstrate a
consistent pattern of bone loss. However, the time period it takes
to observe this loss presents a challenge for preclinical trials due
to the expense of administering a test drug and the reaction of
antibody development in mice towards human-based therapies. Space
flight provides an opportunity to observe changes on a 1-2 month time
period that would normally take 6-12 months on the ground.
[www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe/biomedicine.html]

Example 2 -- BioServe Space Technologies has examined the effects of
space flight on antibiotic fermentation processes. They have
demonstrated increases in antiobiotic production up to 200% over
ground-based controls. A more efficient fermentation process -- even
by a small percentage -- could potentially save millions of dollars
in production costs. They have also noted that the development of
drug resistance in pathogens is often significantly retarded in
microgravity.
[http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe/biomedicine.html]

Example 3 -- The Center for Macromolecular Crystallography (CMC)
located at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has used the low-
gravity environment of space to grow protein crystals for use in drug
design. The CMC has attempted to crystallize hundreds of proteins in
space, each with a potential product. One product that is working
toward market readiness is a treatment for influenza. Neuraminidase
is a protein crucial to the flu's ability to infect the body. The
CMC was able to grow neuraminidase crystals in space, leading to
structurally purer crystals and thus more accurate crystallographic
analysis. The resulting structural data led to improvements in a
neuraminidase inhibitor that began clinical trials in 1998. Another
product resulting from improved X-ray diffraction analysis of
crystals grown in microgravity is an inhibitor to Factor D. Factor D
is a naturally occuring protein that causes problems for heart attack
and stroke victims, and for heart surgery patients.
[http://microgravity.nasa.gov/pegBiot.html]

Example 4 -- The Medical Informatics & Technology Applications (MITA)
at Yale University has used the space environment to develop improved
commercial applications of medical informatics and telemedicine, and
enhanced electromechanical interfaces connecting a health care team
with patients. [http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm]

Example 5 -- The Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and Robotics
(WCSAR) in partnership with other organizations established that
microgravity stimulates the rate of Agrobacterium tumefaciens-
mediated transformation over 10-fold in soybeans. This method could
be useful in obtaining transgenic plants from recalcitrant crops.
The WCSAR has used similar techniques to produce plant metabolites
used for environmental decontamination, synthesis of antibiotics and
edible vaccines, and the producction of biodegradable plastic.
[http://wcsar.engr.wisc.edu/activities.html]

Example 6 -- The Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center in Houston, Texas is
developing new techniques to use the ultra-vacuum of space for
processing ultra-pure, thin-film materials for improving electronics
and computers. In space they have used a vacuum environment that is
up to 10,000 times more pure than the best vacuum chambers on Earth.
[http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm]

[end of excerpt]

> As for my 2c on the MULE, I have to agree with
> Tango in that we are just not ready for private
> industry in this sector.

Please do provide specific evidence for this contention. Many, many
people disagree. I have three books on my desk right now, two by
Roger Handberg (Space Policy Institute - George Washington Univ) and
another by Lou Dobbs (MoneyLine and Space.com) that suggest a great
future for microgravity research. I'm not saying that there aren't
detractors as well, nor am I saying microgravity research is our
savior. I am merely suggesting that it can provide some incentive for
increased activity in space. And it is doable now.

> All the funding is
> government based and no private companies are willing
> to take this risk right now and back a private
> initiative. Regardless of the merits of the
> engineering details, the demand is not there.
> Investment money will not come without a clear demand.
> Until then its a nice solution just looking for the
> right problem to come around.

The demand is not there? So nobody is doing research in space? Wrong.
There is some demand, not much, but some. The more important point is
that what little demand there is can be met more cheaply with the
MULE than with the ISS or other means (this applies to on-going, long-
term research).

I'm curious:

If there is no future in this why were the international partners
upset by NASA's ISS cuts? Specifically cited by numerous reports at
the time was the fact that the cuts reduced station population and
significantly hampered research efforts (most of the research
required man-tending and with so few astronauts the manpower was not
available for the research). Why would the international partners be
so upset by this reduced ability to conduct meaningful research if
there was no gain to be made from it?

Let me put this all another way. Imagine where our civilization would
be if all basic and applied research conducted throughout history was
conducted in a manner akin to the way microgravity research has been
conducted:

A laboratory is set up, research is conducted over the course of say
one day or one week. At the end of that time, the laboratory is
closed, the scientists are removed, all data is returned to a central
location and analyzed by different scientists, and all research is
halted. Three months later research is resumed only to be halted at
the end of the day or week. Three months later research is resumed
only to be halted at the end of the day or week. Etc, etc.

How great would our scientific knowledge be if all research to date
had been conducted in that manner? What would conducting research in
that manner do to technology development?

This is the manner in which microgravity research has been conducted
the last 30 years. In fits and starts. The ISS was to mark the
beginning of on-going, long-term microgravity research in space, but
due to politics and poor budget management (or whatever reason you
want to give) the cutbacks imposed resulted in limiting the ability
to conduct ON-GOING, LONG-TERM research in space.

Am I really that far off base, folks? Is there anyone willing to
admit that there is some potential here? And that some potential in
any industry in space COULD have a positive collateral effect on
other industries in space? Do you really want your space advocates to
throw up their arms and say, "we're at the mercy of big government
and big business - it's hopeless!" I sure hope not. I hope we haven't
gotten that cynical.

Jack

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Zelnio wrote:
Jack,

I think you misunderstood me partially. There is
demand for the government sector to provide the means
for commercial applications to be developed in
microgravity. However, I do not believe there is a
demand for a commercial operation to provide this
infrastructure.

The main competition here is the government itself.
If nothing else, the Space Launch Initiative has
shown how hard it is to compete agains the government.
Groups like Beal Aerospace failed miserably when
competing with their own money (yes I know there are
other factors out there but direct competition w/ gov
was a major factor). Out of all those companies in
the 90s who were trying to provide pure commercial
means of space transportation, the only new player
left is Kistler and they survive because they won some
government money.

It is unfortunate right now that wall street is
still smarting from space activities due to the large
flare-ups of the LEO constellations like Globalstar
and ICO. At the AAS conference in San Jose a few
months back, John Higginbotham the CEO of space vest
(a venture capital company devoted to space
businesses), told the audience that he believes it
will take until 2006 for Wall Street to once again
have the confidence to invest in large, commercial
space projects. The outgoing CEO of Boeing Space
Systems has made similiar comments in talking about
people's reluctance to invest in space over the next 3
years. There are a number of other groups who also
feel the same, I've read reports put out by Carmel
Group also citing problems with financing space
ventures as well as some recent doubts put out by

In the report you posted by Dr. Richard Crews
you've pointed out several excellent areas in
microgravity research. Most of which are fundamental
scientific endeavors. Fundamental science is
traditionally government funded. NASA promotes these
projects as they help show a need for services that
NASA itself provides. Take away the need for NASA
services and you'll probably also see NASA quit
promoting it.

Dr Crews also points out the Space Act of 1998
which states (ad lib) that the government shall
acquire commercial services whenever they are
available. Right now is very interesting time as
remote sensing is pushing the boundaries of this law
in that they are providing imagery that the US must
use instead of its own spy satellites which are
perfectly capable of getting that imagery. Thanx to
this law, the government is an anchor customer for
this service.

However, several of these companies have gone
bankrupt (see orbimage) in the process of trying to
put together such an enterprise with a business plan
based off such an anchor customer. Bottom line, the
government is not a great anchor customer.

So to pull all these thoughts into a coherent end
statement, if MULE's business plan is similar to that
of RS in that you want the government to be an anchor
customer, then that is valid. Though you should
probably learn from remote sensing companies the good
and bad of this type of plan.

From previous posts it sounded more like you were
looking towards a purely commercial venture with all
revenue obtained on the commercial marketplace. It is
this plan in which I was being more cynical about and
that is the one in which I personally have a hard time
seeing it come to pass. I base this opinion purely on
the fact that you will be competing with a government
entity that can outspend you whenever they feel like
it, just like they have in the launch business.

Ryan

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
Good response, Ryan. Thanks for clearing up your points. I respond
below.

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Zelnio wrote:
> Jack,
>
> I think you misunderstood me partially. There is
> demand for the government sector to provide the means
> for commercial applications to be developed in
> microgravity. However, I do not believe there is a
> demand for a commercial operation to provide this
> infrastructure.

So the demand is not based on cost at all? In other words, if that
demand could be met more cheaply than the government does now by the
commercial sector, there'd still be no "demand for a commercial
operation to provide this" service?

> The main competition here is the government itself.
> If nothing else, the Space Launch Initiative has
> shown how hard it is to compete agains the government.
> Groups like Beal Aerospace failed miserably when
> competing with their own money (yes I know there are
> other factors out there but direct competition w/ gov
> was a major factor). Out of all those companies in
> the 90s who were trying to provide pure commercial
> means of space transportation, the only new player
> left is Kistler and they survive because they won some
> government money.

I think comparing developing a new launch system to developing an
unmanned orbital laboratory for commercial and science R&D is a
little like comparing apples and oranges. You make a valid point, but
the analogy doesn't hold up, in my opinion. Competing against NASA's
launch service is CONSIDERABLY different that competing against
NASA's short-term and expensive microgravity research.

> It is unfortunate right now that wall street is
> still smarting from space activities due to the large
> flare-ups of the LEO constellations like Globalstar
> and ICO. At the AAS conference in San Jose a few
> months back, John Higginbotham the CEO of space vest
> (a venture capital company devoted to space
> businesses), told the audience that he believes it
> will take until 2006 for Wall Street to once again
> have the confidence to invest in large, commercial
> space projects. The outgoing CEO of Boeing Space
> Systems has made similiar comments in talking about
> people's reluctance to invest in space over the next 3
> years. There are a number of other groups who also
> feel the same, I've read reports put out by Carmel
> Group also citing problems with financing space
> ventures as well as some recent doubts put out by

You didn't finish this sentence.

Regardless, more good points. Now I have a good timeline to shoot
for . . . 2006!

> In the report you posted by Dr. Richard Crews
> you've pointed out several excellent areas in
> microgravity research. Most of which are fundamental
> scientific endeavors. Fundamental science is
> traditionally government funded.

There's no market for the commercial sector to do fundamental
scientific research in the space environment? Universities, for
example, aren't a good market for the MULE?

> NASA promotes these
> projects as they help show a need for services that
> NASA itself provides. Take away the need for NASA
> services and you'll probably also see NASA quit
> promoting it.

I'm not sure what you mean - please clarify.

> Dr Crews also points out the Space Act of 1998
> which states (ad lib) that the government shall
> acquire commercial services whenever they are
> available.

Explain what you mean by "acquire", please.

> So to pull all these thoughts into a coherent end
> statement, if MULE's business plan is similar to that
> of RS in that you want the government to be an anchor
> customer, then that is valid. Though you should
> probably learn from remote sensing companies the good
> and bad of this type of plan.

I disagree. Whether the government is a customer of the MULE is up to
the government. They want to pay, great. I can't believe there is no
commercial application for space that doesn't require the government
as a customer.

> From previous posts it sounded more like you were
> looking towards a purely commercial venture with all
> revenue obtained on the commercial marketplace.

Whoever wants to pay for access to the MULE infrastructure can.
Unless, of course, it's some terrorist wanting a lab to concoct some
new deadly weapon.

> It is
> this plan in which I was being more cynical about and
> that is the one in which I personally have a hard time
> seeing it come to pass. I base this opinion purely on
> the fact that you will be competing with a government
> entity that can outspend you whenever they feel like
> it, just like they have in the launch business.

I think NASA and the US Government is a convenient scapegoat for
space advocates, but I think they have little to do with the poorly
organized and poorly implemented business plans of these so-called
space statups. And I really don't think you can compare the launch
business to microgravity research.

Jack

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 02:52 PM, jdr7181 wrote:

> The main competition here is the government itself.
> If nothing else, the Space Launch Initiative has
> shown how hard it is to compete agains the government.
> Groups like Beal Aerospace failed miserably when
> competing with their own money (yes I know there are
> other factors out there but direct competition w/ gov
> was a major factor)

Considering that the SLI never launched anything, or even got close,
and had no plans to launch anything for a decade or more, it's a little
hard to see how they competed with anyone.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 02:52 PM, jdr7181 wrote:

> Out of all those companies in
> the 90s who were trying to provide pure commercial
> means of space transportation, the only new player
> left is Kistler and they survive because they won some
> government money.
>

They all thought they'd be launching hundreds of low-Earth-orbit comm
sats, but when Iridium went under that potential market disappeared,
followed closely by the new launch companies. Even the established
launch companies are in serious trouble because there's not much
business. If not for massive government subsidies and military
contracts most of the current launch provides would go under very
quickly.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.