Agreement to Commercialize Advanced NASA Rocket Concept

[kdavis007]

Agreement to Commercialize Advanced NASA Rocket Concept; Former Astronaut Franklin-Chang Diaz to Lead Effort<br /><br />NASA has signed an agreement with Houston-based Ad Astra Rocket Co. that paves the way for commercialization of a promising advanced plasma rocket system that has evolved over the past 25 years.<br /><br />The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) is a type of propulsion system that produces a plasma exhaust at temperatures similar to those in the interior of the sun. The system may generate rocket thrust with performance hundreds of times higher than that of present chemical rockets. The increased performance could mean dramatic reductions in fuel requirements. While conventional rocket nozzles would melt under the extreme temperatures, VASIMR uses magnetic force fields to control and direct the plasma exhaust jet.<br /><br />Potential commercial applications for the technology could include the re-boost of large orbiting platforms, satellite delivery and repositioning, as well as cargo delivery to the Moon. The technology also may provide a capability for high-power plasma propulsion for future interplanetary human and robotic missions.<br /><br />"This is a propulsion system that is vastly different from the conventional chemical rockets of today, with the potential for vastly better results," said Dr. Franklin Chang-Díaz, a former astronaut who spearheaded the development of the technology while with NASA. "The promise this system holds could dramatically reduce the travel time for interplanetary missions, cutting trip times to Mars by one half or better."<br /><br />The technology also may have applications on Earth in the microelectronics and environmental industries. High power plasma devices are being studied to process large amounts of radioactive nuclear waste and to destroy highly toxic chemical and biological waste. Development of superconducting magnets for VASIMR also could lead to applications in space radiation shielding, tr

 

[kdavis007]

Excellent!!!!

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Yes, great news. Anything that lightens the burden for NASA in these tight budgetry times is also a bonus.<br /><br />Can anyone explain how these technology transfers to the private sector generally work? It is Chang-Diaz's concept from the beginning, but obviously the American taxpayer has shunted a lot of money into the project in the meantime.<br /><br />Does he now have to pay a huge wad of cash to NASA?<br /><br />Does he licence the concept from NASA?<br /><br />Do NASA get ongoing royalties from any commercial products developed by Ad Astra?<br /><br />Do NASA get all the free motors they want of this design from Ad Astra for ever more? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Or, is it largely a philanthropic gesture by NASA/Govt to make this available to the private sector basically 'free', and the Govt reaps the indirect rewards to be had from new economic activity associated with commercialising the work? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Good question..

 

[kdavis007]

Here is the link to the site: http://www.adastrarocket.com/

 

[spacester]

I'll take a whack at your questions, Kiwi, I might be wrong but I'd like to get a discussion going. I'd like to learn more about it as well.<br /><br />It's a Space Act Agreement thing. Chang-Diaz is an employee of the company entering into the agreement with NASA, this is important and in fact I believe there is a period of time required between him leaving NASA and working for a company with a SAA on his work.<br /><br />No cash goes to NASA (illegal?), but NASA always wants something in return. Under Psycho Dan, NASA saw few deals that provided good value to NASA, so SAAs were limited. ISS Science would be in a lot better shape if that NASA had worried more about overall value to taxpayers. O'Keefe lacked the technical savvy to provide leadership for the, um 'Office of Technology Transfer' IIRC.<br /><br />I've seen conficting information on the Royalties question in the general case. The 'free motors' is the kind of thing NASA would want but they'd not be likely to be able to actually find a company willing to make that deal. I would assume that all the data from the testing program would be provided to NASA for starters.<br /><br />Your last sentence more or less summarizes the idealistic situation many of us would like to see NASA make happen more often.<br /><br />I've predicted that Mike Griffin has something up his sleeve as far as commercialization goes. I've got a feeling we're going to be seeing a lot of SAAs in the coming months for starters. Perhaps his criteria call for less value for NASA but more value for Taxpayers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I think the answer to your question is in the following two lines:<br /><br />"The transfer of this innovative technology to the private sector will accelerate its development, benefiting everyone..."; and<br /><br />"The technology also may have applications on Earth in the microelectronics and environmental industries."<br /><br />In other words, profitable applications outside the space arena will fund the development of the technology that can then at a later date be used within the space program.<br /><br />As for public money, well the taxpayer will benefit by the jobs created and taxes paid by a successful new industry. There may be licence fees or patent royalties payable, but these will reflect the risk/reward ratio. (A bit like how the UK Ministry of Defence only charged a small royalty on its invention of liquid crystal displays, as it didn't want to inhibit its commercial uptake.)

 

[frodo1008]

Actually, as NASA did all the initial funding (including having such an engine on a shuttle flight, with Dr. Diaz being the mission specialist in charge) I don't see why NASA couldn't at least get such engines from private industry at least at cost.<br /><br />However, if this technology is as promising as it appears to be then I can very well imagine that private interests will be quite willing to pay an amount that would generate a very good profit for Ad Astra! We all know that eventually private industries such as space tourism will be the driving factor behind mankind truly developing a space faring civilization (there will always be a need for a NASA type of organization however to go on further where no man has gone before!)! So everntually these types of propulsion systems will become a very big industry in themselves, and whoever sponcers such at this early stage will eventually become very, very wealthy!!

 

[mlorrey]

"Cost" is a very slippery term in government contracting. A CEO's wifes dogs haut couture beauty salon visits are a 'cost'. Schmoozing a Union rep with a carribean cruise in order to avoid a strike is a 'cost'.<br /><br />The only thing that can't be counted as a 'cost' is dividends paid to stockholders. In the case of major government contracting companies like Boeing and Lockheed, the primary stockholders are pension funds: state and federal employee pension funds, corporate retirement 401k account management firms, etc.<br /><br />Given that 60% of Americans hold stock, and primarily in blue chip companies (like Boeing and Lockheed), what you are talking about is proposing that Ma and Pa Kettle, your average retirees, should be the only ones to not make a buck on the whole transaction.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Given that 60% of Americans hold stock, and primarily in blue chip companies (like Boeing and Lockheed), what you are talking about is proposing that Ma and Pa Kettle, your average retirees, should be the only ones to not make a buck on the whole transaction.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, I think we're only discussing a hypothetical situation here anyway, as no one has been able to offer anything definitive as to the terms of the agreement between NASA and Ad Astra Rocket Co. I don't imagine any of us really expect NASA to be supplied with products and services from Ad Astra at anything other than commercial rates, assuming NASA wants to buy off them.<br /><br />However, I would expect Ma & Pa Kettle investor to make money from the venture by buying stock at 'x' value, and selling it at 'x' times 10 or 50 or whatever? Are the payment of dividends mandatory under US company law? If the concept can be commercialised in the areas Ad Astra are suggesting, I'm sure there will plenty of very profitable applications generating Ma & Pa a tidy sum and offsetting any deals done with NASA (should that occur). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I agree, always looking to invest in a aerospace start ups.