Research in Space (was: Robber Barons in Space)

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