I have put my suggestions for the Presidents commission and congress up at:
http://www.InnerTransit.net/~mejames/NASAPrinciples.html

I have sent this to the commissions web site and all the congressman on
the house committee on science by snail mail.

Mitchell James
mejames@...
www.InnerTransit.org (home base for collaborative engineering on the web)

Hi Mitchell

I am broadly in agreement with the 10 principles, but have a couple
of comments, questions and caveats.

1 - agreed
2 - I would add that NASA should purchase science data rather than
build spacecraft to collect data.
3 - agree, similar to 2
4 - agree, however, this conflicts with ITAR regulations. I
suggested to the committee that ITAR should be repealed. ITAR
prohibits US space technology from being released into the public
domain
5 - This is already a problem, and there is already a legal
mechanisms for this. Source code and technoogy can be placed into
escrow, such that if the supplier company goes bankrupt, the customer
will aquire ownership of the technology/source. It is not necessary
for the item to be released into the public domain, and the paying
customers might well object to that idea.
6 - agreed
7 - agreed
8 - the stated principle appears to conflict with the stated
rationale.
Stated Principle:
"After completion, off-earth manufacturing and infrastructure shall
be turned over to a nonprofit organization. Further utilization of
these resources shall be on a fee for service basis contracted for
after turnover of resources."
Stated Rationale:
"The same reasoning applies for not having NASA run anything as
applies for not building anything. NASA running what should be a
commercial operation creates a jobs program that relies on continued
support of the government. If all of the previous NASA programs had
been defined has not belonging to NASA the moment they be came
operational, we would have had a much different result. "
==
My comment:
Why should it be a non-profit ? It would seem more appropriate to be
a "for profit", indeed "publicly traded" corporation. Nonprofits are
subject to behind the scenes manipulation, they are not required to
disclose anything. A publicly traded corporation has to file
public reports.

9 - In short - privatise NASA ?

10 - I would suggest that small business setasides and SBIR programs
should be expanded to support this objective.

Good work.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

> I have put my suggestions for the Presidents commission and
congress up at:
> http://www.InnerTransit.net/~mejames/NASAPrinciples.html
>
> I have sent this to the commissions web site and all the
congressman on
> the house committee on science by snail mail.
>
> Mitchell James
> mejames@...
> www.InnerTransit.org (home base for collaborative engineering on
the web)

Charles F. Radley wrote: Hi Mitchell

I am broadly in agreement with the 10 principles, but have a couple
of comments, questions and caveats.

1 - agreed
2 - I would add that NASA should purchase science data rather than
build spacecraft to collect data.
I put this in 3 as the example and didn't want to repeat myself
3 - agree, similar to 2
4 - agree, however, this conflicts with ITAR regulations. I
suggested to the committee that ITAR should be repealed. ITAR
prohibits US space technology from being released into the public
domain
I wasn't aware of this. Seems to be a left over of the cold war.
5 - This is already a problem, and there is already a legal
mechanisms for this. Source code and technoogy can be placed into
escrow, such that if the supplier company goes bankrupt, the customer
will aquire ownership of the technology/source. It is not necessary
for the item to be released into the public domain, and the paying
customers might well object to that idea.
I am aware of this. However I wanted to go beyond the example which may not be the best. I also wanted the reuse rate to go up. By forcing everything into the public domain then everything is reusable without delay or reinvestment. I tried to cut a clear line so that if a company sold map data to NASA than the map data is public but how the company obtained the data can be proprietary as possible.
6 - agreed
7 - agreed
8 - the stated principle appears to conflict with the stated
rationale.
Stated Principle:
"After completion, off-earth manufacturing and infrastructure shall
be turned over to a nonprofit organization. Further utilization of
these resources shall be on a fee for service basis contracted for
after turnover of resources."
Stated Rationale:
"The same reasoning applies for not having NASA run anything as
applies for not building anything. NASA running what should be a
commercial operation creates a jobs program that relies on continued
support of the government. If all of the previous NASA programs had
been defined has not belonging to NASA the moment they be came
operational, we would have had a much different result. "
==
My comment:
Why should it be a non-profit ? It would seem more appropriate to be
a "for profit", indeed "publicly traded" corporation. Nonprofits are
subject to behind the scenes manipulation, they are not required to
disclose anything. A publicly traded corporation has to file
public reports.

I had problems with the non vs for-profit. I settled on non-profit because of visions of a contractor like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing being given an unearned plum paid for by public money. With a privatised NASA, how do you give away products that have been paid for by NASA? The NASA I would like to see wouldn't have the man-power available to run a hot dog stand and the products need to go to somebody that will use them.
9 - In short - privatise NASA ?
yes! Very difficult, but the USA tells all sorts of nations that they need to privatise their industries and for many of the same reasons NASA needs privatised.

10 - I would suggest that small business setasides and SBIR programs
should be expanded to support this objective.

Good work.

Thanks. Nice to get some feedback. It is usually very silent when I post.
Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

> I have put my suggestions for the Presidents commission and
congress up at:
> http://www.InnerTransit.net/~mejames/NASAPrinciples.html
>
> I have sent this to the commissions web site and all the
congressman on
> the house committee on science by snail mail.
>
> Mitchell James
> mejames@...
> www.InnerTransit.org (home base for collaborative engineering on
the web)

Hi again Mitchell,

>

> > 4 - agree, however, this conflicts with ITAR regulations. I
> > suggested to the committee that ITAR should be repealed. ITAR
> > prohibits US space technology from being released into the public
> > domain
>
> I wasn't aware of this. Seems to be a left over of the cold war.
>

ITAR is firmly entrenched and is a big problem for US commercial
space companies. It is enforced in a draconian manner, with multi-
$million fines and serious jail time for violators. The "war on
terror" has if anything strengthened enforcement.

> > 8 - the stated principle appears to conflict with the stated
> > rationale.
> > Stated Principle:
> > "After completion, off-earth manufacturing and infrastructure
shall
> > be turned over to a nonprofit organization. Further utilization of
> > these resources shall be on a fee for service basis contracted for
> > after turnover of resources."

> I had problems with the non vs for-profit. I settled on non-profit
> because of visions of a contractor like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing
being
> given an unearned plum paid for by public money. With a privatised
> NASA, how do you give away products that have been paid for by
NASA?

I see no advantage to have a non-profit, and a lot of disadvantages.
The main advantage is that a for-profit entity is motivated to expand
the system, increase revenues, and generally expand out into the
solar system.

Without the profit motive I am concerned that a "non profit" would
tend to sit on its laurels and stagnate.

I tend to think more of the future than the past. Regardless of who
paid for the development (taxpayer), who is the best player to move
it forwards into the private sector ?

> >
> Thanks. Nice to get some feedback. It is usually very silent when
I post.
>

The issues you have raised need a wider discussion.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley