Mobilizing Space Activists/Professionals

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You'd think the data Clementine received (not to mention the mineral components from the specimens brought back during the Apollo missions) that large mining firms and corporations would back private space explotation companies.&nbsp;http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/June00/lunarMaria.html Look at that....more Titanium than you can shake a stick at!&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Start building up a moon base, once it can produce Titanium start assembling capital class ships, stick VASMIR on it and boom, were off to conquer the solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Heres Clementines experiments: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clemendata.html &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Minerals fail to meet the very ligh/very valuable criteria.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KosmicHero]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>We certainly wouldn't have to invent profit-making schemes for space, since many already exist (information for one).&nbsp; What if we could bundle these already-profitable ventures with some startups in a mechanism that people could buy into? </p><p>This would be a mutual fund of sorts that would combine the large caps (lockheed martin, raytheon, boeing, general dynamics, etc.) with some small caps/start ups (spacex, bigelow, etc.).&nbsp; Would you invest $1000 in that?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

 

[keermalec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>$100 million will not come close to the development costs for a launch vehicle.&nbsp;It would not even cover the launch of a major vehicle. So, no I would not invest a nickel in a company that was that poorly capitalized.&nbsp; Similarly, I would not invest a nickel until I saw a sound business plan for&nbsp; obtaining revenue from that investment.&nbsp; Given the high cost of putting a pound into orbit (or beyond) whatever&nbsp; the revenue-generating producct mght turn out to be it will have to be very light (like information) or very valuable (like information).If you really want to energize private industry to go into space, you need a sound economic reason for going there.&nbsp; It worked for telecommunications satellites.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I'm not talkng about developing a launch vehicle, but a spacecraft. 100 million USd is the cost of a small deep space probe, developement included. I'm talking about developing a craft that for example mines water on a Near Earth Asteroid and brings it back. Automated of course.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[keermalec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;We certainly wouldn't have to invent profit-making schemes for space, since many already exist (information for one).&nbsp; What if we could bundle these already-profitable ventures with some startups in a mechanism that people could buy into? This would be a mutual fund of sorts that would combine the large caps (lockheed martin, raytheon, boeing, general dynamics, etc.) with some small caps/start ups (spacex, bigelow, etc.).&nbsp; Would you invest $1000 in that? <br />Posted by KosmicHero</DIV><br /><br />I believe the reason&nbsp;why the large companies don't invest in new space profit-making schemes is because of the unecessary risk and cost of opportunity&nbsp;induced when removing ressources fro other, profitable schemes such as satellite building and launching. I believe only a small new company may have the drive to attempt opening up a new market sector. </p><p>Remember how large airlines were unable to invent low-cost air travel: it just didn't fit into their existing structures, processes and culture. Today, even having seen the example set by new small companies, they still can't even copy it. This may be the same with new space ventures. So rather than buy stocks from large space companies, I am suggesting people invest in small new start-ups with the creative will to succeed. </p><p>I also believe NASA and other public space agencies&nbsp;have a role to play here by validating the technology before start-ups come in, thus reducing the risk factor significantly.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe the reason&nbsp;why the large companies don't invest in new space profit-making schemes is because of the unecessary risk and cost of opportunity&nbsp;induced when removing ressources fro other, profitable schemes such as satellite building and launching. I believe only a small new company may have the drive to attempt opening up a new market sector. Remember how large airlines were unable to invent low-cost air travel: it just didn't fit into their existing structures, processes and culture. Today, even having seen the example set by new small companies, they still can't even copy it. This may be the same with new space ventures. So rather than buy stocks from large space companies, I am suggesting people invest in small new start-ups with the creative will to succeed. I also believe NASA and other public space agencies&nbsp;have a role to play here by validating the technology before start-ups come in, thus reducing the risk factor significantly.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>Actually they do invest in new profit-making schemes when it appears prudent to do so.&nbsp; Unforunately the experience is that the schemes do not make them a profit.&nbsp; Here are a couple of examples.</p><p>The premise of the EELV program was that a single launch system that served both government and commercial customers would reduce costs for everyone.&nbsp;&nbsp;Bidders responded by proposing a development in which they invested a significant piece of their discretionary budget in&nbsp;the project, with the anticipation that the winner would make a profit. However, the program was changed during the course of development and two contractors were kept on.&nbsp; In addition the projected level of commercial business did not materialize.&nbsp; The result has been poor profitability for both contractors.</p><p>The Pegasus launch system was developed as a joint venture between Orbital Science Corp. and the Hercules Aerospace Company (which became a part of ATK in 1995).&nbsp; ATK found the profitability from that venture rather poor and re-negotiated the arrangement so that ATK now acts as just the propulsion subcontractor to Orbital.</p><p>Several companies have invested discretionary IR&D resources in new propulsion technologies, including solar thermal propulsion and hybrid propulsion.&nbsp; They did that recognizing the risk involved, but IR&D funds are quite often directed towards risky ventures.&nbsp; Howevre, there has been little found of commercial value so far.&nbsp; I am sure that risky projects will, however, continue to receive funding.</p><p>l am not sure what you mean by "validating the technology before start-ups come in".&nbsp; What technologies do you have in mind ?&nbsp; I am not aware of any start-ups pushing brand new technologies.&nbsp; The few people chasing nuclear propulsion rely on government-developed reactor concepts already.&nbsp; For a start-up to rely on totally unproven technology in a an already high-risk and high-cost venture is probably not feasible at all,&nbsp; I don't knwo of any ventures that actually attempt to build hardware representing new technology using only investor funds.&nbsp; Any investments of that type would have to come from extremely risk-tolerant investors.&nbsp; The IOSTAR concept is the one of which I am aware that is closest to such a model , but their concept uses a government-developed reactor concept and seems to be having trouble with financing and is apparently tied up with law suits because of it.</p><p>There have been outfits with an apparent "will to succeed", Beal Aerospace leaps to mind, but without the necessary understanding of the engineering issues involved.&nbsp; When they come to the realization of the risks involved, the engineering work necessary to mitigate those risks. and the cost of&nbsp;performing that work,&nbsp;they tend to throw in the towel.&nbsp;That is not uncommon with high-risk start-ups in any industry.&nbsp; The difficulty with the launch industry is that the profits do no match the risks.</p><p>So, if you want people to undertake the risks what you need is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.&nbsp; That is what is most lacking at this time.&nbsp; If someone finds a high-payoff, and I mean high-dollar payoff in a reasonable time frame in commercial business terms, then the venture capital will be there to make it possible.&nbsp; Until then you will see commercial dollars going to communications satellites, earth survey satellites, and technologies supporting government military and scientific work and little else.&nbsp;&nbsp; The exception may be the ultra-rich investing what for them is relatively small dollars in hobbies, like space tourism.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KosmicHero]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>If you were to bundle the stocks of startups and established aerospace firms (in the form of a mutual fund; a mutual fund works by taking a pot of capital that is generated from large groups of people investing their money in this fund and then spliting that pot over the different parts of the fund) you could turn a profit as an investor while supporting the long-term possible profit-making startups.&nbsp; </p><p>The problem is&nbsp;only 5% tech development.&nbsp; The other 95% is split fairly evenly by having no function of profitability and not having the capital to achieve operational status.&nbsp; This is where the fund could help.&nbsp;&nbsp;Instead of having a single superrich angel-investor you would have thousands of middle-class angel-investors.&nbsp; The investors (you and I) would make a profit because the fund it hedged with larger firms, and some of the money we invested would act as substantial capital for start ups with good function of profitability but perhaps not enough capital to operate yet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;If you were to bundle the stocks of startups and established aerospace firms (in the form of a mutual fund; a mutual fund works by taking a pot of capital that is generated from large groups of people investing their money in this fund and then spliting that pot over the different parts of the fund) you could turn a profit as an investor while supporting the long-term possible profit-making startups.&nbsp; The problem is&nbsp;only 5% tech development.&nbsp; The other 95% is split fairly evenly by having no function of profitability and not having the capital to achieve operational status.&nbsp; This is where the fund could help.&nbsp;&nbsp;Instead of having a single superrich angel-investor you would have thousands of middle-class angel-investors.&nbsp; The investors (you and I) would make a profit because the fund it hedged with larger firms, and some of the money we invested would act as substantial capital for start ups with good function of profitability but perhaps not enough capital to operate yet. <br />Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure that you could do this with a mutual fund.&nbsp; Many if not most of the start-ups are so new and so small that they are not public companies.&nbsp; And mutual funds are regulated.</p><p>I think you are looking at something more like a hedge fund or a venture capital company.&nbsp; The catch there is that they are not subject to much regulation and typically they limit investments to folks with a significant amount of capitol, who presumably can afford to take the risk.&nbsp;</p><p>I don't think the problem is really lack of capital per se.&nbsp; It is lack of a clear business plan to develop a profitable position.&nbsp; If you can develop a good plan, I think you can obtain the capital.&nbsp; But space ventures have so far been long on marketing hype and short on producing meaningful revenue.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>Here is the real problem as I see it.</p><p>There are lots of people, such as those contributing to this forum and this thread in particular, who have a lot of enthusiasm for going to space.&nbsp; That is really good.&nbsp; It provides a lot of good thought about rockets and propulsion.</p><p>But nobody has a very clear idea of what they want to do when they get there.&nbsp; And that idea is what you need if you want to attract venture capital.&nbsp; The people with the money aren't looking for a ride, they are looking for a destination.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is the real problem as I see it.There are lots of people, such as those contributing to this forum and this thread in particular, who have a lot of enthusiasm for going to space.&nbsp; That is really good.&nbsp; It provides a lot of good thought about rockets and propulsion.But nobody has a very clear idea of what they want to do when they get there.&nbsp; And that idea is what you need if you want to attract venture capital.&nbsp; The people with the money aren't looking for a ride, they are looking for a destination. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>Negative. I have very clear goals and destination/product creation ideas. The capital markets are not the best place to find backing because they are focused exclusively on nearterm turnaround. This is why firms backed by Angels have succeeded so well: SpaceDev, Virgin/Scaled, SpaceX, Armadillo</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">But nobody has a very clear idea of what they want to do when they get there.&nbsp; And that idea is what you need if you want to attract venture capital.&nbsp; The people with the money aren't looking for a ride, they are looking for a destination. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</font></p><p>I've seen plenty of ideas clear and not so clear. I've even posted a few of mine. IMO, the problem is not a shortage of clear ideas, its a shortage of will power. Space tourism is a pretty clear idea but even that will be hard to achieve as long as money is hard to come by.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">qso, I believe we're in the prehistory of human spaceflight. We can send people into space and make them land and live on an other planet but at prohibitive cost, and with no real (as yet) economic drive. For this reason sending humans to another planet IS currently a waste, investment-wise. However, keeping humans in LEO and constantly refining our technologies for doing so will ultimately, I believe, not only lower the cost of sending humans&nbsp;to another planet&nbsp;but also make space investments economically attractive.Take for example, the mining of oxygen on the moon. So many hurdles exist between now and a successful, profit-driven operation that most companies today would simply find it more profitable to mine say, iron in Mongolia. If NASA goes to the Moon, developes the technology and demonstrates the viability of mining oxygen there, it could later on license out the technology (as it licensed out transhab technology to Robert Bigelow) to a private company who would become a&nbsp;private partner in lunar development. Having even a single profit-driven operation in space would create demand for secondary ventures, such as power production, communication networks, building materials, food production etc on the Moon, and then... we're on the rollercoaster to a permanent human presence in space. Posted by keermalec</font></p><p>Sorry it took so long to respond. I agree that we are in the prehistory of human spaceflight. But four decades ago, it was believed we'd be much further along by now. Two factors changed the perceptions of four decades past. One being the cutting of NASA funding and post Apollo programs that might have given some chance of those visions coming to pass. The other, and the one with the most potential to achieve the vision...turned out to be an economic disaster.</p><p>That economic disaster was the shuttle. The shuttle was a great technical achievement. But the one place, and most important place was that which it failed. The ability to be reused robustly enough to bring the cost of access to space down to a level where private industry would be able to take risks with less chance of automatic bankruptcy.</p><p>NASA won't get much further on the moon than it did with Apollo because two basic post Apollo problems remain.</p><p>One being the idea that money spent on human spaceflight is better spent on earth. The other being that even in light of the Bush inspired Constellation program. There is no guarantee that Constellation will actually be approved and continued once a new Presidential Administration (Probably Democratic) is in place.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">I am all for start ups, I think it is a wounderful idea, but they have to almost completly rely on themselves for financing, which is the real killer. Give engineers money and they will conquer the cosmos.</font></p><p>Startups is all we can hope for now. NASA has been unable to come anywhere near the peak funding it enjoyed during Apollo since 1970-75 when the 50% budget cuts took full effect and reduced NASA budgets from 2-4% GDP in the 1960s to the 1-.6% GDP since that time.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">As for educating people, you literaly have to get the youth immersed in it, the younger the better.&nbsp; The professionals know the need for space research, I'm sure everyone here at SDC has written a letter to their congressional representative expressing the need for it. The average family does not really care, and its only spoken of during events where life is lost, or a school assignment. I don't know about most of you, but my grade school actually had an observatory and planterium adjacent to it. I picked up a love for the sciences and space exploration there; but few others did. I remember it so vivedly too, everyone hated the place, they never payed attention, slept during the planetarium lessons, and always complained. For current events in class, everyone brought in news article on sports or supermodels; only like three of us brought in articles pertaining to space or sciences.</font></p><p>The above states the problem quite well. It was always there, but during the 1960s, Apollo was popular because we were in a competition with the Russians. But Apollo popularity declined in just the time Apollo 11 landed on the moon the first time and 17 landed the last time. I was 13 when Apollo 11 landed, in Jr High School and considered a nerd of sorts for being interested in human spaceflight.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">For educating the current generations 13 to 27, you will have to make a reality television show, and you will need at the minimum three celeberaties, at least one homosexual, or two girls after one guy to provied drama.</font></p><p>How bout two guys after one girl? I used that angle among others in my graphic novel to illustrate this point.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">Hopefully during the mind nubmingly horrid experience joe sixpack will learn some things from the&nbsp; scientists/engineers/astronauts, provided they are given any camera time where idiots are not in their way. I pray that my opinions are overwhelmingly proved wrong, but with all of the truely amazing accomplishments humanity has made in space exploration I am just left agape and confused how the greater whole of the population is not behind this and pressing forward. Posted by neuvik[/QUOTE]</font></p><p>A single argument shot down what was already shaky support for Apollo. "If we can land on the moon, why can't we cure cancer"? Or solve other social problems so the logic went. Problem was, this argument surfaced at the height of societies distrust of government. This distrust was especially justified after Watergate. So how can one think the government can be trusted with money saved by cutting NASA and directing it to relevent social problems? And indeed, much of government spending in the late 1970s, all through the 1980s and much of the 1990s was wasted on such affairs as S&L scandal and deficit spending from 1969-97.</p><p>Why couldn't these social problems be cured during the last four years of Clinton surplus budgets amidst continuing NASA cuts? The reason is, the vast majority of folks could care less about human spaceflight and government could care less about actually addressing the social problems that existed in 1969 that still exist today by using saved NASA funds. And, some social problems will always be with us.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[keermalec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>l am not sure what you mean by "validating the technology before start-ups come in".&nbsp; What technologies do you have in mind ?</DIV><br /><br />By "validating the technology" I mean demonstrating its feasibility. For example, if NASA were to mine oxygen on the Moon and carry some back to LEO for use in the ISS or as propellant, they would be validating the string of technologies which allows the whole process to happen. Once this was done a private company could&nbsp;take advantage of&nbsp;this experience&nbsp;to produce a feasibility study for a private venture on a larger scale.</p><p>Sort of doing the Transhab/Bigelow deal all over again but this time with the <u>initial intent</u> of transferring technology to the private sector.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>