You have one more day to call your Congressperson to get them to request full funding for commercial crew.
14 thoughts on “A Commercial Space Reminder”
Comments are closed.
You have one more day to call your Congressperson to get them to request full funding for commercial crew.
Comments are closed.
But I thought from the post above that government help for corporations marketing products to global markets is bad. Is New Space the exception? 🙂
Commercial Crew is not help for SpaceX from the government. It’s help for the government from SpaceX (which also benefits SpaceX). But please, continue with your delusions.
Rand,
You are the one with delusions its not a subsidy program to develop a U.S. alternative to the Soyuz. If it was a true market based program the government would just ask firms to bid of seats to the ISS and give it to the low bidder, not pay for the American firms to develop systems to compete against the existing Soyuz. Milestone payments are subsidies by any definition of the term. Just look it up in any economics textbook. Or don’t you believe what economics textbooks say?
Quote one. You’re the one making the claim that your definition of subsidy is correct.. quote an economics textbook that describes this arrangement. You can’t, you’re wrong and you know it.
Trent,
Once again…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Rand has often written about the advantages of have an American option over the Soyuz/Progress. COTS and CC are subsidies to help firms like SpaceX develop that capability. If it was a true commercial purchase the government wouldn’t be paying them anything, but only contract to buy seats when they were available.
What I don’t understand is why New Spacers are so afraid to use the word “Subsidy”. There is nothing evil about it, its just standard economic policy when the market fails to provide something in the qualities the the government feels is necessary for the public good. In this case its an American option to support ISS. But for some reason New Spacers are so scared of using it they come up with all types of spin to call it something else…
Trent,
Here is a more detailed discussion of subsidies from the WTO. Unlike textbooks its not copyright restricted. Page 58 is especially relevant to COTS/CCDev as it discusses how subsidies are used to reduce the start-up costs of firms in industries with high barriers to entry like the aircraft industry.
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/wtr06-2c_e.pdf
Yes, COTS is a classic example of a subsidy to a startup firm as NASA paid SpaceX hundreds of millions to conduct its develop program for the Falcon 9/Dragon, money that provided revenue to SpaceX prior to the systems being available for revenue generating flights…
I called mine earlier today.
More money for commercial crew means more regulations and NASA oversight over commercial crew.
Trent,
Of course. When the government is subsidizing you the government the government gets to tell you what to do.
Setting aside that you don’t have a clue what “subsidizing” means, because we’re all sick of that conversation and you refuse to pick up a dictionary.. and ignoring the slapdash way you wrote that sentence, and the implications of your haste on just how much you respect the people you’re talking to.. let me ask, are you aware at all what I’m talking about here? The only reason why NASA is still using Space Act Agreements is because they didn’t get enough money to fund a fixed-price contract with Federal Acquisition Regulations. Under such a contract, the contractors would be required to demand time sheets from their employees – which would absolutely decimate the corporate culture of all of them, except possibly Boeing, and eliminate any chance of a revolutionary improvement in how the US gets humans to orbit. So the Space Frontier Foundation asking people to go moan at the federal government to get more money for commercial crew demonstrates that they have not thought through the implications of success.
Trent,
I posted a link to a dictionary explanation above. How many times do you want me to do so before you realize both COTS and CCDev are a subsidy programs, subsidizing the government picked winners in the development of the systems needed for ISS now that the Shuttle is gone…
[[[The only reason why NASA is still using Space Act Agreements is because they didn’t get enough money to fund a fixed-price contract with Federal Acquisition Regulations.]]]
Yes, because the incentives NASA has is limited they don’t have the level of control over the design they would have if they were fully funded. Which is why I agree that the less funding the firms get the more the firms will have to make sure the spacecraft also meet the needs of the true commercial markets.
[[[So the Space Frontier Foundation asking people to go moan at the federal government to get more money for commercial crew demonstrates that they have not thought through the implications of success.]]]
Nothing new here, the SFF never thinks through the implications of the policies they advocate. Look at how they first opposed the ISS and now defend it as a “destination” critical to the development of New Space. The X Prize was another one, arguing it would accelerate development of reusable RLVs. Instead the shortcuts Burt Rutan took to win it set back the development of reusable RLVs for years. Listen to the Space Show on the X-Prize flight sometime. I predicted then that it would be a long time before they produced a commercial version of SpaceShipOne. I think that prediction has proved to be true…
I called mine, and was told by a staffer that my rep has zero interest in space, has no interest in discussing anything related to space, and will vote according to what the leadership says. This seems to be typical, alas.
Don,
Not surprised. That is why the future of space development is not with government subsidy programs but with commercial markets. Look at the comsat industry as an example. Which is why I don’t waste time with space advocate groups who seem to exist for the single purpose of lobbying government.
Mine (coffman) had already told me that he will NOT back private space but will continue to push for SLS. Yet, the screams that we are becoming socialists.