…we have a problem. Thoughts from Jeff Foust on the latest congressional “compromise.”
10 thoughts on “Commercial Space”
‘”Consistently, everyone said that without any government support, there was really no viable way for them to get a return on their investment,” said Phil McAlister’
That right there is a problem. Can they not get return on investment because of market fundamentals, or because of the way the government has distorted the market? Or is this just a bad cross section of prospective launch providers, excluding those who think they can succeed if the government would just get out of the way?
History shows that government money always comes with government strings.
What this article basically shows then is that there is nothing commercial about “Commercial Space” (i.e. commercial crew) if the commercial demand is insufficient to support its development.
Which means that “commercial crew” is not commercial (at least nothing Wall Street would call commercial), but its merely about replacing one set of government contractors with another set. Or even the same set under a slightly different business model.
This is in stark contrast to the space commerce industry (i.e True Commercial Space) where both comsats and launch systems like Sea Launch were are developed and built with private investment dollars to serve real commercial markets. Or even to suborbital tourism which is also built on private funding for true commercial markets.
So perhaps its time to drop the “mask” of space commercialization of HSF and instead argue the merits of the new policy on what it really is, a new human spaceflight contracting model that shifts both costs and risks to the new government contractors in an attempt to save tax dollars. Really that will probably get New Space more traction in Congress then trying to confuse folks by misusing terms like commercial.
“The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers “
This may be good news. If the government isn’t going to pay for it, we will no longer have any confusion over what is commercial. Boeing is big enough to decide if they want to go after this market. SpaceX is in a good position to go forward with development with or without the government. Bigelow has a product ready for sale once anyone demonstrates the ability to move humans and supplies to orbit.
It may be time for the NASA farce to end.
Neil H.
I guess in Washington D.C. that would be considered commercial, but in the real world….
Awesome comments all.
The message to congress really should be “If you want to pay other countries to launch our astronauts to the ISS for the next 7 years, we won’t spend pennies to speed up US HSF launch providers. Instead we’ll spend billions to build a new LV to supplant what already exists, almost. Meanwhile we’ll send those pennies to other countries for launch services.”
It’s really stupid.
Thomas, could you elaborate on what sort of definition of “commercial” you’re using, and who else in the real world uses that definition?
I’m struck by the total lack of willingness on the part of SDLV proponents to discuss or even acknowledge the concerns of proponents of commercial spaceflight. Instead we are told that various SDLV proposals are really great for commercial development of space, or that it is the best we can do given the resistance of various convenient scapegoats such as “the” Congress and that it is best if we shut up and get with the program. This fits a wider pattern of dishonest advocacy such as hiding behind false technical reasons such as wide payload fairings or making waves over Russian engines. Have you ever met anyone who was concerned about wide payload fairings or Russian engines who wasn’t simultaneously an SDLV proponent?
Neil,
Just go to your local bank. Ask them what commercial is. They will tell you what it means in the business world. That is after they look at you as if you just walked out of the wilderness…..
‘”Consistently, everyone said that without any government support, there was really no viable way for them to get a return on their investment,” said Phil McAlister’
That right there is a problem. Can they not get return on investment because of market fundamentals, or because of the way the government has distorted the market? Or is this just a bad cross section of prospective launch providers, excluding those who think they can succeed if the government would just get out of the way?
History shows that government money always comes with government strings.
What this article basically shows then is that there is nothing commercial about “Commercial Space” (i.e. commercial crew) if the commercial demand is insufficient to support its development.
Which means that “commercial crew” is not commercial (at least nothing Wall Street would call commercial), but its merely about replacing one set of government contractors with another set. Or even the same set under a slightly different business model.
This is in stark contrast to the space commerce industry (i.e True Commercial Space) where both comsats and launch systems like Sea Launch were are developed and built with private investment dollars to serve real commercial markets. Or even to suborbital tourism which is also built on private funding for true commercial markets.
So perhaps its time to drop the “mask” of space commercialization of HSF and instead argue the merits of the new policy on what it really is, a new human spaceflight contracting model that shifts both costs and risks to the new government contractors in an attempt to save tax dollars. Really that will probably get New Space more traction in Congress then trying to confuse folks by misusing terms like commercial.
Thomas:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf
“The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers “
This may be good news. If the government isn’t going to pay for it, we will no longer have any confusion over what is commercial. Boeing is big enough to decide if they want to go after this market. SpaceX is in a good position to go forward with development with or without the government. Bigelow has a product ready for sale once anyone demonstrates the ability to move humans and supplies to orbit.
It may be time for the NASA farce to end.
Neil H.
I guess in Washington D.C. that would be considered commercial, but in the real world….
Awesome comments all.
The message to congress really should be “If you want to pay other countries to launch our astronauts to the ISS for the next 7 years, we won’t spend pennies to speed up US HSF launch providers. Instead we’ll spend billions to build a new LV to supplant what already exists, almost. Meanwhile we’ll send those pennies to other countries for launch services.”
It’s really stupid.
Thomas, could you elaborate on what sort of definition of “commercial” you’re using, and who else in the real world uses that definition?
I’m struck by the total lack of willingness on the part of SDLV proponents to discuss or even acknowledge the concerns of proponents of commercial spaceflight. Instead we are told that various SDLV proposals are really great for commercial development of space, or that it is the best we can do given the resistance of various convenient scapegoats such as “the” Congress and that it is best if we shut up and get with the program. This fits a wider pattern of dishonest advocacy such as hiding behind false technical reasons such as wide payload fairings or making waves over Russian engines. Have you ever met anyone who was concerned about wide payload fairings or Russian engines who wasn’t simultaneously an SDLV proponent?
Neil,
Just go to your local bank. Ask them what commercial is. They will tell you what it means in the business world. That is after they look at you as if you just walked out of the wilderness…..
Thomas, thanks for the non-answer.