Research in Space (was: Robber Barons in Space)

Good response, Ryan. Thanks for clearing up your points. I respond
below.

> 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