Commercial Spaceflight critical for future human exploration

[DarkenedOne]

Something that Elon Musk said got me thinking. He said “The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel to space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress.” Of course he is referring to the appropriations bill that cuts out 90% of the commercial crew funding requested by Obama.

The simple truth is that we have conducted spaceflight for over 50 years now. While unmanned spaceflight has grown with 10 countries capable of launching satellites and over 40 countries operating satellites human spaceflight has not. In fact it would be correct to say that human spaceflight has declined significantly as we are now restricted to LEO when we once walked on the moon.

Now there has been some success from the Russians. Surprisingly it is the former communist country that is the first to sell the first ticket into space. They were the first ones to put the first privately funded astronaut into space in 2001. Since then they have put seven people into space. Even more ironic they are the ones that we turn to now for transport into orbit.

Now it is very clear that NASA in its goals have no intention of making human spaceflight realistic for anyone other than the few astronauts that it trains for its own missions. NASA has developed a great deal of technology for manned spaceflight it has yet to produce a single piece of infrastructure to support any commercial development of human spaceflight. I think many of the people in NASA as well as in Congress are ok with that. They believe that human commercial spaceflight is unimportant and should not be a concern. The Ares I is the product of people with this view. At a cost of $40 billion dollars and $1 billion per flight cost there is no way that anyone outside of NASA would ever have any use for such a vehicle.

Ultimately I believe that the desire to have human spaceflight is fueled not by the desire to watch a few government scientists go to exotic destinations, but by the desire for people themselves to one day travel into space. I have met many people now in their 40s and 50s who grew up in the Apollo era believing that one day they to will be able to go into space.

 

[rcsplinters]

I don't believe commercial spaceflight is critical at all to the future of human exploration. If so, we may be dead in the water already.

Commerical = PROFIT. Nothing is more important to a commercial operation. Where's the business model? Where's the volume to offset heavy development cost. Where's the projected return on investment. Where's the private investor? We see none of this.

Further, look at how commercial entities often enhance profitability. They cut employees. They trim development. They stabilize product lines. The only successful (questionable as to whether they are actually turning a profit) commercial operation is the Russians. They had Soyuz, they have Soyuz and all they are going to have is Soyuz. Where's the innovation in that?

Lastly, where's the revenue stream? Ok, maybe 20 - 30 astronaunts in a year, in a big year. Next is Buffy and Skip in their orbital romp (till the first accident).

What's critical to the future of human exploration is commitment at a national level and perhaps international level. What's necessary is continuity of programs. We can't reinvent the wheel every 4 years.

Never forget. Commercial = Profit. Rate of Return on investment. Sustainability. Business plans. Without any one of those, you don't have a commercial operation.

I think a decade of commercial cargo will change the picture. Right now, this is a pipe dream.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

The day that average people can go to LEO like going on a beach vacation is probably at least 30 years away, and even then it will be quite expensive. I agree that commercial spaceflight is important to expanding humanity's presence into space, but don't rely on them entirely. As rc said, they're motivated by profit. While this may not be the case for people like Elon Musk, who want to go to space for reasons other than pure marketability, I guarantee you that 90% of the people involved with commercial spaceflight are doing it because it has the possibility to make lots of money.

But I do think that NASA should collaborate with these private companies. Only good things can come from it. The space shuttle is going to be retired, and the Ares vehicles have been cancelled (probably a good thing). So for now all we have is soyuz: astronauts, civilians, russians, whoever, all have to ride on a craft built 40 years ago. Even though it has been upgraded many times I think that it is time for Roscocosmos to replace it. NASA also needs to develop a craft that has decent launch costs and good crew availablility. I think that was what Orion was for but wasn't it cancelled?

 

[flyer456654]

The day that average people can go to LEO like going on a beach vacation is probably at least 30 years away, and even then it will be quite expensive. I agree that commercial spaceflight is important to expanding humanity's presence into space, but don't rely on them entirely. As rc said, they're motivated by profit. While this may not be the case for people like Elon Musk, who want to go to space for reasons other than pure marketability, I guarantee you that 90% of the people involved with commercial spaceflight are doing it because it has the possibility to make lots of money.

But I do think that NASA should collaborate with these private companies. Only good things can come from it. The space shuttle is going to be retired, and the Ares vehicles have been cancelled (probably a good thing). So for now all we have is soyuz: astronauts, civilians, russians, whoever, all have to ride on a craft built 40 years ago. Even though it has been upgraded many times I think that it is time for Roscocosmos to replace it. NASA also needs to develop a craft that has decent launch costs and good crew availablility. I think that was what Orion was for but wasn't it cancelled?

Ok, why is everyone afraid of profit as a motive? Why do you go to work on a regular basis? I think life is fairly driven by profit (maybe not monetary but utility profit). Private corporations and competition work. We can easily, i repeat, EASILY see examples of private industries really benefiting mankind. Technology general flows like this, government funds initial research, initial research proves successful, military/government have a hold on it for 5 years, private industry explosion, something better comes out. Profit is the greatest bloody reason for private corporations to get contracts left and right. I say use them exclusively for LEO and even bloody Lunar Orbit. They can do it better, cheaper, and quicker than government (not quite proven in space but if you really want me to go off on why this statement has evidence i'll send you a copy of my thesis). Basically, government pioneered space entry and space living (apollo, gemini, ISS), its time to hand over the private industry and explode the market!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I agree that it's great private companies are doing this. But just keep in mind they will do whatever it takes to keep turning a profit, I wouldn't put complete trust in them. As of now there's not really much to worry about, but if space does become more accessible then the laws will need to catch up to regulate it.

That being said it's really a good thing with SpaceX and virgin galactic and the other companies, I'm just hoping that they take care of their infrastructure and spacecraft so there aren't any accidents. For example, I hope that any launches aren't rushed or checklists incomplete because a company is in a hurry to get some tourists into orbit. I'm just worried about general safety of the public is all.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I don't believe commercial spaceflight is critical at all to the future of human exploration. If so, we may be dead in the water already.

Commerical = PROFIT. Nothing is more important to a commercial operation. Where's the business model? Where's the volume to offset heavy development cost. Where's the projected return on investment. Where's the private investor? We see none of this.

Further, look at how commercial entities often enhance profitability. They cut employees. They trim development. They stabilize product lines. The only successful (questionable as to whether they are actually turning a profit) commercial operation is the Russians. They had Soyuz, they have Soyuz and all they are going to have is Soyuz. Where's the innovation in that?

Lastly, where's the revenue stream? Ok, maybe 20 - 30 astronaunts in a year, in a big year. Next is Buffy and Skip in their orbital romp (till the first accident).

What's critical to the future of human exploration is commitment at a national level and perhaps international level. What's necessary is continuity of programs. We can't reinvent the wheel every 4 years.

Never forget. Commercial = Profit. Rate of Return on investment. Sustainability. Business plans. Without any one of those, you don't have a commercial operation.

I think a decade of commercial cargo will change the picture. Right now, this is a pipe dream.

First of all there is a need right now and that is for exploration. There are a number of governments interested in human spaceflight, including NASA. Many of them do not the money to develop and operate their own manned launch system. Some of them like NASA have the money to develop and maintain such launch systems, but it be far cheaper to simply buy simple services such as crew and cargo to LEO on existing rockets than develop a whole new one. All of them are potential customers. There you have the revenue stream. The Russians have operated for decades on this model.

Secondly regarding profit so what? Commercial launch companies make a profit, just like commercial airline companies. However like commercial airlines their value to society is not the fact that they make a profit. The commercial airlines provide people like you and me with air transportation. Without them we would have the option of using an airline. Without manned commercial manned launch capability than no one other than space agencies of superpowers like NASA will ever be able conduct any sort of human spaceflight.

Lastly and most importantly regards what you said about the future of human spaceflight.

"What's critical to the future of human exploration is commitment at a national level and perhaps international level. What's necessary is continuity of programs."

How do you justify national and international commitment without any commercial or military interest? That is the problem that human spaceflight faces. As with all programs human spaceflight has to justify its existence. People are increasingly questioning the benefits of human exploration as robots continue to explore the solar system while human spaceflight goes no farther than LEO. In order to get that justification human spaceflight cannot be a strictly NASA enterprise.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I agree that it's great private companies are doing this. But just keep in mind they will do whatever it takes to keep turning a profit, I wouldn't put complete trust in them. As of now there's not really much to worry about, but if space does become more accessible then the laws will need to catch up to regulate it.

That being said it's really a good thing with SpaceX and virgin galactic and the other companies, I'm just hoping that they take care of their infrastructure and spacecraft so there aren't any accidents. For example, I hope that any launches aren't rushed or checklists incomplete because a company is in a hurry to get some tourists into orbit. I'm just worried about general safety of the public is all.

Who cares about the profit? Who cares about public vs. private?
The important thing is that there be affordable human spaceflight to people and organizations who do not have the money to develop and maintain their own manned launch capability.

It is just like unmanned spaceflight. All the companies that offer satellite phone, satellite radio, satellite TV, commercial telecommunications, and commercial industry could not exist without commercial unmanned launch services. There is no way that each one of them would have the money to develop their own rockets. Same thing with governments. There are over 40 countries operating satellite when only 9 countries have launch capacity. All these commercial ventures started by using commercial launchers that the government helped fund.

Currently only the space agencies of the superpowers have the money to develop and maintain their own manned capability. That means that the rest of use including the space agencies of practically every other nation as well as all the corporations and private citizens in the world need to buy it from someone. Without commercial human spaceflight than there is no way for these people to conduct human space operations. Ventures like space tourism, Bigelows private space stations, and etc would never get off the ground.

 

[flyer456654]

The value of a space transportation company is almost solely based on two things, mass to orbit and safety. If a company isn't safe, than that company cannot charge the same amount as another company that is safe and thus loses out on those potential profits and will be overtaken by a company that placed emphasis on safety. Would you be willing to pay $100 million to place 50 tons of material into space with a 60% chance of success, or $90 million for a 95% chance of success to place 30 tons of material. Personally I would go for the $90 option even though hit is less. However, there is a great chance that 2 loads can make it to space safely while the $100 million option is basically a coin toss. Basically, private companies want to make profit, but they know that their value is directly related to the safety of their craft. So the safety issue with private is basically moot. They damn well know they have to be safe or risk losing a drastic premium they could get.

PS: Numbers used are solely for visualization and are not related to ANYTHING other than coming out of my brain...which is sitting through the dumbest lecture I have ever had to sit through.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I agree that it's great private companies are doing this. But just keep in mind they will do whatever it takes to keep turning a profit, I wouldn't put complete trust in them. As of now there's not really much to worry about, but if space does become more accessible then the laws will need to catch up to regulate it.

That said, the sole purpose of Congress is to get reelected. If that means wasting billions of dollars on a project that will take a decade, to no real useful purpose, other than funneling taxpayer money into their district, so be it.

Unfortunately, there are no pure motives...

 

[SteveCNC]

I'm not sure that exploration for the most part will be carried out by commercial ventures at least not until it is a lot easier than it is now .

As for it playing a big part in the future of exploration , I think it will make a huge difference once LEO is opened up to commercial but only in the fact that space itself will be more accessable , not that SpaceX will build a probe to Alpha Centauri on their dime . And I wouldn't call going to the moon or even Mars exploring really , we may not know everything about either of those two but it's not like we are unfamiliar .

Not all commercial ventures are for profit though , I'm certain Elon has no illusions that a lot of the money spent so far will never be recouped but in his position that's not that bad . Heck if I were that rich I would do the same thing , having my name go down in history alone is worth a lot , making it possible so I could one day go into space would be well worth it as well . How many people here can say they had an impact on the entire country , not many I am betting .

Some things are bigger than profit !

 

[Gravity_Ray]

It’s more than critical; the future of human space flight is commercial space flight.

To me the future of humanity in space is Mars. The Moon is closer and should be target 1, but that is more of a testing ground rather than a destination. The Moon is good for some technical testing and some scientific experimentation such as in setu resource utilization, some deep space telescopes and some solar system archeology. But the future of humans is Mars.

Humans will not go to Mars because there is a business model for it, they will go there because we are explorers and we want to go there. Christopher Columbus didn’t come to America because there was a reason to come to America (there was a half baked idea that you would save some time going West rather than East, but that wasn’t proven or anything), heck he wasn’t even trying to come to America. He explored because he was an explorer. Can you imagine if he had to explain to the US Congress why he needed the money to go west? We would still be sitting in Europe.

However, once he made it here, suddenly there was hundreds or thousands of reasons to come here. The same will be true with Mars. So Mars can only be settled by Commercial exploration because some rich guy like Musk or Bigelow wants to go there and explore it. Once it is settled even by a small outpost then suddenly you will find lots of reasons for that outpost to grow. It’s like a snow ball rolling down a hill. It takes some crazy person with a lot of money (and big brass balls) to start the initial snow ball and roll it down the hill, and then it will gain its own life.

NASA, Europe, Asia will not be going to Mars. A private entity will go to Mars and then the rest will follow. Last of all will be the governments.

 

[rcsplinters]

I'm not sure where you guys get the idea that anyone thinks profit is bad. The point is that if there is NOT profit, no commercial entity is going to come play for long. If they can't pull in 7 - 15% ROR sustained, they'll bail. Suppliers can get that sort of return cost plus. Whether they can when they have the craft, design, launch, range and the rest, that's a crap shoot.

The question is whether 20 - 30 lifts will sustain that sort of profit. Further the Russians can easily undercut whoever tries to enter the market. This is a risky infant market. Human space flight doesn't need commercial players, though if they were to materialize, they could probably be favorably exploited.

Remember, the name of the game is PROFIT!!. What we haven't seen is a business model that assures profit to any of them, particularly one that looks at business continuity in the event of a disaster. Without a sound business model, investment in this stuff is frankly a crap shoot. Not many of us would think standing at the black jack table to be a sound investment strategy.

I did have a thought, regarding their business continuity. What the federal government could do is underwrite some of the better startups. That'd keep us from creating another AMTRAK. If (and when) they loose a crew, then carry them till the problem is fixed and then they could move on. That'd eat a little of their risk and not divert funding which should go to exploration or research.

If commercial HSF is to succeed, you gotta quit thinking like Captain Kirk and start thinking like a stockholder. Which by the way, is how the private investors are thinking. Notice they aren't lining up to throw the spare billion or two into this. They want PROFIT. Somehow they aren't seeing it on the horizon.

 

[SteveCNC]

Have you invested in SpaceX or Bigelow ? I already know the answer is no because they are privately held companies that answer to no stockholders but only to their own conscience at the end of the day . BTW no one here has ever said profit was bad just that it isn't always the driving force behind decisions and investments . I make tons of decisions every day that have nothing to do with making a buck but I tend to do thing because of principle rather than cost . I'm one of those that love the old world japanese and their sense of honor and many times I make decisions purely based on what's honerable reguardless of cost . In my mind if you don't have honor , you don't have anything ! Anyway I digress , If you know much about high finance and such things losing money is not always a bad thing , lots of companies keep struggling subsidiaries on for the tax breaks and write offs so why not get something done with the money and get a tax break in the process , sounds like a "win win" to me .

 

[Gravity_Ray]

rcsplinters I think you are correct if you are talking about a regular business. But human space travel is NOT a regular business model. Its a history changing process. Its the first time in the history of this planet that such a thing is even possible, so you can't use previous business models to accurately describe it. Think about that: In 1 Million year history of mankind... The very first time!

Here is an example. When Bezos founded Amazon in 1994, he had a game changing idea. At that time he was laughed at for trying to compete with brick and mortar bookstores. Amazon didn’t even turn a profit until 2001 (and even that year its profit was 1 cent per share). That is 7 straight years of losses. It was a wholly different business model and its stockholders that were thinking normal business were complaining, and freaked out more than once.

Look at it now! Big difference eh? Some times it takes a strong personality who has a vision to accomplish something difficult. That person has to lead so that the other sheep can follow. Right now, I see SpaceX and Bigelow as visionaries. They are thinking things that will wilt most investors and that is why they started without investors. If we want business as usual then there is always Boing, or LockMart, or ATK, or worst of all the Russians... Oh wait, they failed to take us anywhere but in low earth orbit circles.

 

[flyer456654]

Have you invested in SpaceX or Bigelow ? I already know the answer is no because they are privately held companies that answer to no stockholders but only to their own conscience at the end of the day . BTW no one here has ever said profit was bad just that it isn't always the driving force behind decisions and investments . I make tons of decisions every day that have nothing to do with making a buck but I tend to do thing because of principle rather than cost . I'm one of those that love the old world japanese and their sense of honor and many times I make decisions purely based on what's honerable reguardless of cost . In my mind if you don't have honor , you don't have anything ! Anyway I digress , If you know much about high finance and such things losing money is not always a bad thing , lots of companies keep struggling subsidiaries on for the tax breaks and write offs so why not get something done with the money and get a tax break in the process , sounds like a "win win" to me .

To address this, I have not invested in SpaceX or Bigelow because I cannot. They have not IPO'd yet and will not for a good long while. However, they do have investors that they have to contend with. You don't honestly think that Mr. Musk pumped 100% of the capital into the project. Also, SpaceX has been profitable for the past 3 years with its falcon 1.

You make tons of decisions that have nothing to do with making a buck...but you do make them for a profit. There is this crazy concept called Economic Profit. This type of profit has very little to do with money and more to do with utility (happiness). For instance, I could decide to work for a week and make $2,000 or I could choose to go to the islands for a week and spend $2,000. So the choices are between $2,000 and -$2,000. There is an overall loss of $4,000 is I decide to go to the islands. And yet, I would choose to go to the islands over work any day. This is because I get MORE than $4,000 worth of utility out of this. So how does this apply to space?

Well Musk obviously gets HUGE amounts of utility for owning SpaceX. He also makes actual profit from owning it as well, though he could probably make more if he went into a more traditional field. He does it to maximize his Economic Profit and not just his accounting profit. This is the reason that people do what they love, however they do need accounting profit as well.

In terms of business, an entity (corporation) almost only looks at accounting profit. Economic profit only matters to individuals. I agree with ROI needing to be 7-15% in a traditional respect, but when it comes to space and the added risk, I would argue that an ROI of 15-25% would be needed. Accounting profit is needed to keep a company alive, and economic profit is needed to get the best people to work for less money (why doesn't a NASA engineer work for Goldman Sachs and make millions?)

In regard to Columbus, Yes he explored just to explore...but if memory serves me right he had to get funding from somewhere. The king and queen of Spain didn't just give him money to explore, he had to convince them that there was a real opportunity for accounting profit. This came in the form of a shorter route to India (the most profitable venture during the age). He believed he could more than HALF the trip, that means half the costs and even more profit for the people that discovered the route. The reason he kept being allowed to go back was the huge amounts of gold that he was able to pilfer from Indians. We colonized the new world (we as in Europeans) for the SOLE notion of profit. Jamestown would have failed without tobacco, Spanish colonies would have failed without Incan Gold.

In regards to Amazon, sure it was revolutionary but it did pull profit. Not only did it pull profit, but it paid its operating expenses...including paychecks to executives. Also, they did have a traditional business plan (they would have never found funding without it). I'm almost positive that they knew they were not going to make a profit for a while but that the future cash flows were well higher which caused NPV to sky rocket. Wouldn't you give up $10,000 a year for 6 years if in the 7th you could make $200,000? Sure it took a while but profit did happen.

In otherwords (say hi to my degree in economics ), EVERYTHING is done for profit. It might be for Economic Profit or Accounting Profit, but everything has to do with it. Your choice to go to the movies or rent a movie comes down to Economic Profit and what amount of Utility you can recieve from both. A business's choice to go set up a colony on Pluto will be solely dependent upon both Economic and Accounting Profit. The executives will have to take a paycut but will recieve more utility than the amount they are losing in real money, while the business will need a business plan that will create Accounting Profits withing 5 years and has a large ROI for investors.

Basically what i'm saying is Profit drives life. The acquiring of it pushes humanity to the brink and to greatness.

 

[rcsplinters]

rcsplinters I think you are correct if you are talking about a regular business. But human space travel is NOT a regular business model. Its a history changing process. Its the first time in the history of this planet that such a thing is even possible, so you can't use previous business models to accurately describe it. Think about that: In 1 Million year history of mankind... The very first time!

Here is an example. When Bezos founded Amazon in 1994, he had a game changing idea. At that time he was laughed at for trying to compete with brick and mortar bookstores. Amazon didn’t even turn a profit until 2001 (and even that year its profit was 1 cent per share). That is 7 straight years of losses. It was a wholly different business model and its stockholders that were thinking normal business were complaining, and freaked out more than once.

Look at it now! Big difference eh? Some times it takes a strong personality who has a vision to accomplish something difficult. That person has to lead so that the other sheep can follow. Right now, I see SpaceX and Bigelow as visionaries. They are thinking things that will wilt most investors and that is why they started without investors. If we want business as usual then there is always Boing, or LockMart, or ATK, or worst of all the Russians... Oh wait, they failed to take us anywhere but in low earth orbit circles.

Interesting analogy, to bring those Internet start-ups into the discussion. What percentage of those succeeded? That industry sure destroyed a lot of wealth. It was a risky time. How much money did the federal government give to Amazon? Not much I think. None, maybe?

Buy the product, DON't accept the risk.

 

[flyer456654]

rcsplinters I think you are correct if you are talking about a regular business. But human space travel is NOT a regular business model. Its a history changing process. Its the first time in the history of this planet that such a thing is even possible, so you can't use previous business models to accurately describe it. Think about that: In 1 Million year history of mankind... The very first time!

Here is an example. When Bezos founded Amazon in 1994, he had a game changing idea. At that time he was laughed at for trying to compete with brick and mortar bookstores. Amazon didn’t even turn a profit until 2001 (and even that year its profit was 1 cent per share). That is 7 straight years of losses. It was a wholly different business model and its stockholders that were thinking normal business were complaining, and freaked out more than once.

Look at it now! Big difference eh? Some times it takes a strong personality who has a vision to accomplish something difficult. That person has to lead so that the other sheep can follow. Right now, I see SpaceX and Bigelow as visionaries. They are thinking things that will wilt most investors and that is why they started without investors. If we want business as usual then there is always Boing, or LockMart, or ATK, or worst of all the Russians... Oh wait, they failed to take us anywhere but in low earth orbit circles.

Interesting analogy, to bring those Internet start-ups into the discussion. What percentage of those succeeded? That industry sure destroyed a lot of wealth. It was a risky time. How much money did the federal government give to Amazon? Not much I think. None, maybe?

Buy the product, DON't accept the risk.

Also, Initial startup costs for an internet company is considerably less. Meaning there is considerable less risk involved in the internet. While most of the internet companies failed, the ones that succeeded were those generating cashflows that were acceptable. This is to say they were within the realm of acceptable losses during that timeframe. The amount of wealth destroyed during that time was considerable but the amount of wealth created during that time was INSANE! Google, for instance, IPO'd at $85 a share...it is currently worth $506.32 (10:22am). That is a 595% GAIN!!! If you oned just 100 shares of google when it ipo'd ($8500 investment) you would currently have $50,632. Venture Capitalists would only need 1 of these to cover initial costs for about 5 internet startups. This is one of the reasons why capital to start these companies were so easy to come across.

A space infrastructure/flight company would have many millions invested before the first flight went up. Thus the overhead is completely different than the internet industry, hence VERY bad comparison. Not only that, capital is much harder to come by now and days. Has anyone tried to get an investment loan recently? I have and i have a 750 for a credit score, yet i can't get one! Space corporations need to mitigate risk by bringing in government to help them out. I would much rather shoot $500 million toward Bigilow to develop a shell in space, than to have our entire space future in NASA's hands (I do love NASA though). Basically, Space Corporations would need the support of the United States Government to mitigate the large development costs (though I do doubt the overexagerations people make about these costs since most of the development has already been done in one form or another).

 

[DarkenedOne]

Also, Initial startup costs for an internet company is considerably less. Meaning there is considerable less risk involved in the internet. While most of the internet companies failed, the ones that succeeded were those generating cashflows that were acceptable. This is to say they were within the realm of acceptable losses during that timeframe. The amount of wealth destroyed during that time was considerable but the amount of wealth created during that time was INSANE! Google, for instance, IPO'd at $85 a share...it is currently worth $506.32 (10:22am). That is a 595% GAIN!!! If you oned just 100 shares of google when it ipo'd ($8500 investment) you would currently have $50,632. Venture Capitalists would only need 1 of these to cover initial costs for about 5 internet startups. This is one of the reasons why capital to start these companies were so easy to come across.

A space infrastructure/flight company would have many millions invested before the first flight went up. Thus the overhead is completely different than the internet industry, hence VERY bad comparison. Not only that, capital is much harder to come by now and days. Has anyone tried to get an investment loan recently? I have and i have a 750 for a credit score, yet i can't get one! Space corporations need to mitigate risk by bringing in government to help them out. I would much rather shoot $500 million toward Bigilow to develop a shell in space, than to have our entire space future in NASA's hands (I do love NASA though). Basically, Space Corporations would need the support of the United States Government to mitigate the large development costs (though I do doubt the overexagerations people make about these costs since most of the development has already been done in one form or another).

An interesting point about the internet is that the internet started as a government enterprise. The government was the one who spent the money to develop the initial infrastructure. Businesses and commercial enterprise saw its potential and took it from there.

Same thing could happen to human spaceflight.

 

[flyer456654]

So, what infrastructure do you suggest we have? A giant railgun/cable/pyramid? We have the initial infrastructure that was created during Apollo (rockets) to get humans to the moon. We have had since the 50's the knowledge of how to get people into orbit (cosmonaut Yuri?). This is the infrastructure that is needed and the government already developed it at great expense. I see space flight in that critical stage of movement from a government run market to a free market. Basically, the government needs to loosen regulations so that spaceflight can happen easier and they need to start throughing MAJOR funding toward corporations to develop things. Corporations are better at innovation anyway. The government created the internet, but who developed HTML/JAVA/FLASH? The government developed computers, but who developed the microprocessor/Harddrives/laptops? The government developed spaceflight, but who will make it better, cheaper, and easiers? That last question is the question that needs to be answered now, and the only answer I can fathom is the free market.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Both rcsplinters, and flyer are correct. I wouldn’t debate your points because you are correct in what you are saying. But in effect you are making my point for me.

For 50 years space enthusiasts like me have been bashing their heads against the logic of your statements. I cannot argue ROI and business model. But that is exactly why I believe that the future of human space flight is a private entity like Musk or Bigelow. Both of these guys are very good business men. They understand ROI and a business plan, all you have to do is look at their performance in the business world. A public company like LockMart that has high paying executives and a board of trustees, or a government agency like NASA will never take a risk and send humanity into deep space because they cannot make a business case for it, nor show a profitable ROI.

But private entities like Musk and Bigelow have ignored these cold hard truths for a reason. For humans to go into space and become a space faring civilization you cannot use ROI. There is no money to be made in deep space right now. We have never been in deep space (except for a short stint on the Moon), so there is no basis for ROI calculations. I don’t even think you can make money in deep space for several or more decades. But we must go into space because that is where the future of humanity is. The surface of a semi-round sphere called Earth is not infinite and at some point will stop supporting a growing human civilization.

We can be economist or explorers, but we cannot be economically sane explorers. For every 100 humans that left Africa probably only 1 survived. If they knew their odds, we would all still be sitting in the rift valley around a small camp fire. But they went out to explore and yes many did perish (just like many dot-com companies). But that sacrifice teaches you what you can do, what you cannot do, what will work, and what wont.

 

[flyer456654]

Great post gravity!

 

[rcsplinters]

That's a little like designing a booster while ignoring Gravity (sorry, couldn't help the pun). You can do the design, but its likely gonna fail. A government can conduct a research project and exploration without expecting a return on investment save the knowledge gained (In this case, that's exactly what NASA is doing). A business can not, under ANY circumstance ignore these things just like a booster cannot evade gravity.

This is why we must buy product (seats) and not accept risk with the publics money for these start-ups.

 

[DarkenedOne]

That's a little like designing a booster while ignoring Gravity (sorry, couldn't help the pun). You can do the design, but its likely gonna fail. A government can conduct a research project and exploration without expecting a return on investment save the knowledge gained (In this case, that's exactly what NASA is doing). A business can not, under ANY circumstance ignore these things just like a booster cannot evade gravity.

This is why we must buy product (seats) and not accept risk with the publics money for these start-ups.

What your saying makes no sense.

On one hand your saying that the government is able to take on more risk, but then you go on in the your last statement to say that "the government not accept risk with the publics money for these start-ups."

Secondly from a technical point of view launching people from modified versions of already successful and proven commercial rocket is far less risky than launching people from an untested rocket of a total new design.

Truth is that from a risk management point of view Ares I makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Valcan]

Truth is that from a risk management point of view Ares I makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course it makes perfect sense. Its not a waste if your a politican looking for votes, a person who works on the project or a company that is part of the project.

For everyone else including this tax payer it doesnt make sense.

 

[rcsplinters]

Let's put this "risk management" issue to the test. Let's even use a report hostile to ARES.

Risk is typically something that would jeopardize a business. Wait, NASA is a government agency, not a business, but we're being arbitrary so let's pretend NASA is a business and use a report hostile to ARES.

Ok, risk then might be something that would jeopardize investment by not working. Augustine never indicated it would wouldn't work. Ok, risk might be something that was fundamentally unsafe. Augustine never indicated it was unsafe. Ok, let's try again. Risk might be something that would have no market (wait, NASA isn't a business and never intended to sell ARES I, but we'll ignore that too in the spirit of being arbitrary). AH HA! We got that old ARES I now. Augustine indicated that its mission to the ISS would be short lived since the ISS is to be de-orbited in 2015. However, since the ISS quite likely to be extended to 2020 and maybe even 2028, then maybe it does have a mission even if we ignore that it could also be used to toss Orion into orbit on missions beyond LEO. Ok, that's enough fun, let's summarize.

Its a big mistake to evaluate risk to a business and to a government agency in the same fashion. The rules of the road are entirely different. The best way to look at this is to imagine a private company conducting a war on behalf of the United States. When you think about it, there are a lot of similarities. The tools of war are commercially produced. Some of the transport is provided by MATURE (as opposed to start-up) commercial enterprises. The war is prosecuted by the US, for the US to achieve goals set by the US using US assets. Why? They're the best at it in the world. I don't think any of us want a CEO waging our wars. Wars aren't about making money, they are about winning the war, or achieving the goal or completing the . . . mission. Sort'a like going to Mars.

Now I'm not particularly a fan of ARES I. I like it for crew lift better than some behemoth booster that doubles for cargo and human purposes that we may get out of Direct or SD HLV options. If Musk gets his little booster and capsule ready for humans to LEO then we can assess his prices versus the Russians. However, the mission for our goverment is beyond LEO. The US government is prosecuting that campaign and the agency is NASA. There is no better organization in the world to do that. We need to dedicate our resources to that mission. If Musk has a product to offer to help that, great. However, he's a business. He needs to sink or swim of its own accord. We need to expend our assets on technology and hardware that will allow us to achive a mission. Better to develop VaSMR than eat Musk's risk for him.