Space Cynics

We've Moved!

2007-06-20T01:32:00.000-07:00

Space Cynics has a new home, and a fresh new look:

The New Space Cynic Website

Using the Fed to Lower Launch Costs...?

2007-06-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

One of the oft-heard metrics amongst the space-development crowd is that if we could only lower the cost of launch to under $1000 per lb to orbit, as opposed to the $10,000 per pound that the hideously expensive shuttle charges, new markets would be enabled. There may be a bigger problem to consider....

Consider these bits of monetary trivia:

• The US Dollar has lost considerable amounts of inherent value through devaluation (some might argue outright debasement) of the currency as larger amounts of liquidity are pumped into the marketplace.

• The US government, through the Fed (which is actually a private bank, but that's another matter best left for other blogs and other websites to discuss), has borrowed extremely large amounts of money to finance expenditures on everything from Defense to Welfare, in order to support the shortfall in revenues that exists between the taxes collected and the $ spent on programs.

• The Euro, and most other major world currencies, have surged against the US Dollar over the past 7 years. Here in Australia, when I arrived in 2002, the exchange rate was US$0.62 to the Aussie Dollar - now it's US$0.83 and climbing...

• The Dow is *not* at an all-time high. Inflation adjusted, the Dow actually has to hit over 16,000 just to reach it's highs from the past 15 years. Think about that.

• Last year, Linda Goldberg, a vice president and head of the International Research area at the New York Fed, spoke about how in today's global economic environment, dollar depreciations have asymmetric impacts on exports relative to imports. She argued that the wide use of the dollar as the invoicing currency in international trade transactions affects how exchange rate movements influence traded goods prices in different countries and trade balance adjustments. In her analysis, substantial dollar depreciation did not provide much relief for U.S. producers competing with importers; however, markets for U.S. exports could really grow.

• Dollar depreciation reduces activities in upstream through different channels including increased cost, higher inflation rates, lower purchasing power, and lower return on investment.

So what does all this mean?

A couple of things come to mind (but these are not the only likely outcomes - i would be interested in your thoughts on other implications of these macroeconomic forces...)

1) Unless the US manufacturers are raising prices, the true international cost of a US made rocket or satellite should be getting significantly more competitive against their competitors (e.g., Delta II relative price should have dropped by 20-30% against the European equivalent)*

2) The cost of international launches should be getting more expensive in US dollar terms for purchasers of launch services*

3) The "true" cost of a Shuttle launch, in international terms, appears to have dropped by almost 35% since 2000, but then we all know how squirrelly NASA accounting can be...

Finally, as the US financial base gets more strained from increased liabilities (social security, medicare, ongoing wars, etc) and difficulty in obtaining future deficit financing (because of the dangers of raising interest rates - required to make the US debt offerings attractive to foreign buyers, but avoided by the Fed because of the impact it would have on the US domestic economy by punishing all of those mortgage holders who have Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs)...), the ability to fund discretionary expenditures such as a trip to the Moon or Mars will become a harder and harder sell in an era of forced austerity.

* note - this all assumes, of course, no currency hedging has been done by the companies in these industries.

Ooooh.... Aaaahh... zzzz....

2007-06-11T03:19:00.000-07:00

NASA needs a new spokesperson.

Here's a hint - if you have to resort to the following as a way to make the manned space program seem interesting:

"Two vehicles weighing 230,000 pounds going 17,500 mph, it's tough stuff,"
- Mission Management Team leader John Shannon

you're trying too hard.

Two words: relative velocity.

Unless you consider driving a car down the street whilst hurtling through the milky way galaxy "tough stuff".

You are my Sunshine...

2007-06-09T00:33:00.001-07:00

Ok, I'll admit my first reaction to this article in wired:

Military Target: Solar Beaming Sats

was, Oh no, not again (apologies to Douglas Adams). Those of you who have been following the Cynics since we debuted April 2006 will recall a previous blog post on why Space Solar Power is a kool-aid effort of the highest order.

But believe it or not, I am actually partly heartened by this latest push to SSPS.

Why? Because, as many of you have heard me say (or write) before, I am firmly of the belief that only the DoD has the budget, the operational experience, and the political clout to develop truly cheap, reliable, reusable access to space. Not NASA, and not the toy spaceships being developed by the private sector.

But if the DoD does decide that they have a case for development of such technologies (hypersonic transports, responsive space access, etc), then the trickle down to the commercial and private sector will follow - as it has for many other technologies we take for granted now (including GPS). But only the DoD would have the resources to pull off a massive 10km geostationary solar power station - and even then they'd only be able to do it if they had first created a spacelift capability that doesn't exist today (and, of course, had developed the experience to do major on-orbit assembly operations amongst other things).

Of course the Military Industrial Complex (read: big aerospace) would LOVE this kind of model, which means it would be able to get a fair bit of Congressional support. A far cry from NASA's meager attempts to flog a manned space program that barely limps along from year to year, fingers crossed that they don't blow up another shuttle in the process.

For now, though, at least we have a study.

The journey of 1000 miles begins with the first steps.

Good luck to Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith of the US Air Force as he develops this study. Note to Major General James Armor (Director of the National Security Space Office) - kudos for having the foresight to look at this problem... just keep an open mind when looking at the implications the report will likely present (and don't let them try to feed you the kool-aid in the process). SSP isn't easy, nor trivial - it will require a major rethink of DoD Space and if the foundation isn't laid, this simply will not pan out.

Electrons 2 : Atoms 0

2007-06-04T15:19:00.000-07:00

For those who say no good can come from Microsoft (we'll avoid any embarrassing mention of the Zune here...), I would like to share with you yet another stunning example of how technology is revolutionizing the way we see the world:

Photosynth Demo

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the new frontier is NOT space, but cyberspace. Secondlife, Google Earth, and things like Photosynth are making the web the true next frontier for humanity, one where the "cost" of entry is a PC and an internet connection.

How can outerspace compare with that?

Until, and unless, we get truly Cheap, Reliable, Reusable, Access to Space (CRATS), the masses will never leave terra firma. I'm concerned that our window will close in this generation unless that point is absorbed and acted upon by those with the bucks.

Electrons 1 : Atoms 0

2007-06-03T17:15:00.000-07:00

The Space Cynics have officially opened the Cynics Lounge in Second Life!

So come down, bring your favourite beverage, grab a lounge chair on the rooftop, and watch the virtual rockets being tested in the sand box.

In the future, we'll be having chat sessions at the Lounge for those who want to challenge our positions, ask us questions, or just hang out and discuss whatever comes to mind.

Major kudos to Robin Snelson for helping a Second Life newbie (me) get us started there!

p.s. - we're looking for good furniture and fixtures, so any donations are appreciated

p.p.s. - and for those who've never seen it, I recommend a quick trip to First Life

So What IS Their Mission...?

2007-05-30T19:41:00.000-07:00

From a recent interview (courtesy of Space Daily):

GRIFFIN: Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to quote "battle climate change."

----

Riddle me this, readers - can anyone point the Cynics to the actual authorization so we can see what NASA really IS supposed to be doing, according to Mr. Griffin's "If it's not in the Authorization, it's not our mission" criteria? Perhaps he can get them out of those silly manned space missions to nowhere while he's at it?

I don't care if you are in the "Global Warming is a crisis" camp or the "Global Warming is Hyped" camp - or, if you're in the Global Warming is a natural phenomenon camp for that matter. The issue I want to dig into here is what IS the mission of NASA? The organisation has many different arms - from the most well known and dysfunctional (Manned Space) to the often times brilliantly successful (robotic space - e.g., Hubble) to the virtually unknown by the masses (biology, aeronautics, etc). When I used to do strategic planning work with NASA back in my KPMG days, their "strategic plans" were a mishmash of different objectives and directions. I doubt much has changed, other than the lettering of Codes at NASA HQ.

The question at the root of all this is: Does NASA even know what it's "elevator pitch" mission is, and can anyone succinctly describe it here?

The soapbox is open, let's hear your ideas.

In Space, No One Can Hear You Groan

2007-05-12T02:00:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears our fine public servants at NASA have been hard at work in the CGI labs, creating a promotional video for the future theme park they intend to build on the Moon.

I'll leave aside for the moment my total disbelief that a meaningful sustainable lunar base will be built by NASA in my lifetime due to a whole range of economic issues which have been written about in previous entries.

Instead, I'd simply like to point out a couple of things:

First, to the geniuses at NASA who created this little promo trailer, trying to cash in on the hype of Hollywood: sorry, but the Transformers movie has a much cooler trailer. Oh, and I really think that if anyone is going to make a trailer of a space base, NASA would at least get it right and not include SOUND EFFECTS. For the love of God people, you do realise that space is a vacuum, right?

Second, to the general public out there that get sucked in by these sort of promotional vapor ware extravaganzas. Google "VentureStar". You'll see some really cool promo videos of the supposed successor to the Space Shuttle.

Computer simulations are easy.

Space is hard.

One Year Later, A Refresher

2007-05-08T22:34:00.000-07:00

A series of back and forth comments on a recent posting of mine ("Space Race 2.0? Hardly.") made me realise that, having reached our 1-year anniversary here at the Space Cynics...

Happy Birthday to Us
Happy Birthday to Us
Happy Birthday dear Space Cynics
Happy Birthday to Us...

Anyways: as I was saying, it being our one year anniversary, perhaps it's time for a quick primer for those who haven't been with us from the beginning (and can't be bothered to actually read the archives - you know who you are) and a refresher for those who simply have lost the plot as to what we Cynics actually believe and hold dear.

So, without further ado, here you go.

Development of outer space (this solar system, the galaxy, whatever) WILL likely happen some day by humanity. I say likely because we have to first win that race against self destruction that we seem so hell bent upon. Assuming that humanity manages to get past our adolesence, then developing the "final frontier" is inevitable.

That doesn't mean it will happen in our lifetimes.

The likelihood of lunar bases of any meaning, asteroid mining, L5 colonies, or any of that High Frontier gobbledegook (that's the scientific term) happening in the next 20-30 years is so vanishingly small even the Hubble Space Telescope can't see it. So get over it.

The same goes for massive space solar power satellites, an observatory on the far side of the moon, a meaningful Mars mission, etc.

The missing link, painfully bad analogies of the New World notwithstanding, is Cheap, Reliable, Reusable Access to Space (or, CRRATS). Without the ability to get things off Terra Firma easily and regularly, the markets (commercial ones, not just selling to NASA or the DoD) won't develop. WHEN it happens, however, it will be like any other new market where the cost of entry has dropped considerably - more applications, more entrants, inevitable successes and failures, etc.

Dennis Wingo, for instance, had a great concept with SkyCorp - build satellite components on the ground, assemble the satellite in orbit, so that it costs less and has a better reliability (no need for the fully assembled version to suffer the extremes of the launch regime when you can send it up in pieces...). Unfortunately, without an industry configured around such a model, and no way to regularly get those pieces into orbit, assemble them at a station, etc., we're stuck with the "Big Dumb Booster"(TM) approach.

Fanciful concepts of massive stations at GEO, or even a Space Elevator, ignore the reality that we can barely manage to assemble a station in LEO, which is tiny by comparison, and yet hugely expensive (and yes, many of the ISS costs were a waste, and there is virtually no amortisation of the NRE, but even still it is a ridiculously expensive way to go about things, building a station with overpriced launches).

We are cynical by experience, not because we are ill-informed. Combined we have decades of experience in a wide range of space-related businesses - so give us a little credit. That being said, to those of you who tune in from around the world to read our missives, thank you. It's nice to know we are being read, even if we are but a small, often drowned out by the kool-aid crowd, voice in the wilderness.

Which brings up another point - this "us vs. them" mantra that gets touted every now and then about how we need to develop space to make sure that the core values of the US - "democracy and freedom" (or insert whatever jingoistic babble floats your boat) - is what takes root in space, instead of the evil commies or terrorists or whatever.

Get over it.

If anything, the lack of collaboration on the ground amongst the peoples of the Earth bodes ill for the future of humanity in space, at least in an organised fashion. If we can't figure out how to play nice on the ground, it'd be hard to see how we'll last long in space. And we'd better figure that out, because the "we need a space colony to preserve humanity in case a big asteroid wipes out the planet" kool-aid group needs to realise that some sad little outpost on the moon or, worse, in orbit doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of maintaining the Homo Sapien line if Earth is wiped out. At least for the next 100 years.

And that, my friends, is all that matters.

Because we (the current generation of adults in America, anyways) has shown it has no real concern for our own grandchildren and the world (and DEBT) we are leaving to them, so why should we be concerned with the world 100+ years from now?

Sure, in a touchy-feely leave no impact kind of way this is important - but be sure that you recognise that the vast majority of humanity will continue to do what they do because the laws of inertia and conservation work on a human level as they do in the realm of physics. Wishing otherwise won't change that - and planning your business model around it is just the height of stupidity.

One Man Can Make A Difference

2007-05-04T16:15:00.000-07:00

Congratulations, in this case, to two men.

First, to Rand Simberg, for posing the idea of a prize-driven contest to create a better astronaut glove. NASA took your idea, ran with it, and the contest was a success.

Second, to the winner of the contest: Mr. Peter Homer, an engineer in Maine who used that old Yankee ingenuity to get himself a $200,000 prize for coming up with a better glove.

And, third, to NASA - for a willingness to try new models, and in the process, help to stoke the engine of innovation at the grassroots level that is essential to keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive.

Godspeed, Wally

2007-05-03T18:42:00.000-07:00

Just a brief note to mark the passing of one of the original Right Stuff rocketmen, astronaut Walter M. "Wally" Shirra Jr. Wally was one of the Mercury 7 team, as well as having flown in both the Gemini and Apollo programs.

No comment, no moralising, no pithy statements - just Godspeed, Wally, as you begin your next great voyage.

RIP.

Space Race 2.0? Hardly.

2007-05-01T16:14:00.000-07:00

The internet this past week has been abuzz with stories of NASA vs. their old nemesis, the Russkies - this time about plans to return to the Moon, and how NASA has turned down Russian offers of cooperation on the mission. Speculators speculate that this is to "deny Russia access to an isotope in abundance under the moon's surface that many believe could replace fossil fuels and even end the threat of global warming."

I initially thought to just ignore this and other similar articles because they are written by journalists who are paid to produce, regardless of the actual nutritional value of the content they churn out. However, when this particular article made its way to the Motley Fool financial discussion boards, and people there started discussing this as if it were serious, I realised that the Kool-Aid problem is as real as ever. And so we don our trusty capes and swords and once more proceed into battle with the forces of stupidity.

Problem: there are so many things wrong with this NASA vs Russia for the future of He3 story it's hard to know where to start.

Let's stick with the basics, then:

1) We don't have the ability to mine the moon
2) We don't have the space vehicles to go to or from the moon, much less transship anything of significant mass.
3) The ISS as we know it won't be functional in another 15 years (i'll take wagers on that if anyone doubts me), and can't serve as a staging post for any such transshipment.

oh, and here's the real doozy:

4) We don't have a functional fusion reactor on Earth, so fuel for such a "reactor" is, as the article points out, the equivalent of medieval alchemy.

But hey, they get paid to write, so they'll write, even if it's nonsense. And we'll continue to be Cynics, even though we don't get paid to be.

p.s. - Happy 40th Birthday to my brother Baber. Technically it's still May 1 where you are, but here in Sydney it's already the 2nd.

An Argument For "Youth"-anasia, Redux

2007-04-23T15:30:00.000-07:00

Apologies again for those who come here looking for space-related commentary (I would not hazard to use the word "insight" since I'm sure a fair number of our readers would be loathe to call us insightful...). This posting, in part a followup to this one:

An Argument for Euthanasia

has been spurred by the latest gem I found in my morning paper:

We Wanted to Kill Someone - Teen Killers

There are those who have objected to my comments in the past (backed up by the psychiatric profession, no less) that people who begin by torturing and killing animals have a high likelihood of moving on to people at some point. Sociopaths come in many flavours, from our recent gun-toting loon at Virginia Tech and the gang-bangers who roam the streets of towns around the world to the soccer hooligans and thugs who are regularly featured in the news media (outside the US) for their behaviour at sporting events.

But these two little angels really defy description. And should be removed from the gene pool before they are allowed to breed. Or, as the mother of the victim rightly said, "If we had a death penalty they should get the death penalty."

Submitted for your consideration - and to raise a thought point. Is our species ready to make the leap off this rock, before we figure out what is fundamentally wrong with our culture/civilisation/society/whatever, or are we doomed to carry the seeds of this sort of behaviour with us throughout the cosmos? And, if we were to run into an alien species somewhere in the course of our relentless expansion, would they have the same sorts of behaviours in their society, or would they be like the Asgard* in Stargate?

*(in action, not appearance - because, frankly, they do look a lot like cheesy puppets to me..)

Looking for a New Political Party...

2007-04-13T16:22:00.000-07:00

So on a random surf this morning I came across this particularly stupid editorial/ article:

Pigs in Space

Courtesy of The Nation magazine. Thankfully most of the commentors on that posting excoriated the author for his naive and regressive viewpoint. I think I recognised a few fellow Cynics readers over there....

So here's my problem - I can't find a political party in the US that represents the majority of my views. I think this is a problem that is much broader than the mainstream realises.

I've been told that my views - which can be briefly described as "government should not spend money it doesn't have, and should stay the hell out of my private life" (or, alternatively, a fiscal conservative and social liberal) would fall into the category of "libertarian" - but the Libertarian party (with the notable exception of Ron Paul, who is a libertarian regardless of his actual affiliation) has NO traction in US politics.

They say that if you're 20 and aren't a democrat, you have no heart, and if you're 30 and aren't a republican, you have no brain. But what happens when you turn 40...?

Mr. Simonyi - congratulations on your well-deserved trip. I certainly envy you, and would do the same if I had the cash. As for the hordes of Xena-worshippers out there (you know who you are) - i've got a separate post for you in a moment...

Why Homeschool: Announcing the Carnival of Space

2007-04-13T15:48:00.000-07:00

We're Going To The Carnival!

Ok, not really. I'll admit I'm intrigued by this (new to me) concept of the "Carnival" in cyberspace. Consider it a new form of social meme-ing enabled by cyberspace... and yet another example of how electrons triumph over atoms.

Thanks and congratulations to Henry Cate for organising this forum for spectators and participants alike.

For those of you who are visiting the Cynics for the first time - welcome. Be prepared, we aren't like your "usual" space bloggers. To understand some of the terminology, and philosophy, that underpins the Cynics' positions, I invite you to go back into our archives from a year ago and read through the postings. You will find terms like "space tragic" explained there.

Pauly Shore... your agent is calling

2007-04-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

In the "life imitating art (imitating life)" category...

Saw this news item in the Dutch News this morning.

Space Agency Wants Mars Volunteers

Seems the European Space Agency, having missed the whole Biodome saga here in the US back in the 90's, wants to run an isolation trial of 6 victims/volunteers "isolated in metal tanks for 18 months."

Granted, i'm guessing they won't have to grow their own food, but I have a feeling that even if this actually gets kicked off, the simulated "mission" is going to quietly be "cancelled" somewhere along the way when either (a) the Jack Nicholson character goes nuts and tries to kill his fellow mars explorers, (b) they realise that they forgot a recharger for their iPod or some other key techno device they'll need to keep from dying of boredom, or (c) a real emergency actually does come up (although apparently appendicitis is not considered such an emergency....). Even so, I suspect such a cancellation will occur with the usual self-congratulatory kudos for all that they have learned even though they didn't complete the mission.

Because, you know, in real space, you get do-overs too.

Those who can, launch; those who can't, PowerPoint.

2007-03-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

In my regular gig as a systems/software analyst, I have to wade through a lot of material each day just to keep up with current trends. While my RSS reader has helped me gather it an order of magnitude faster, the reading of the material itself often remains tedious. (The speed reading class helped, but now I have to clean my monitor more often.)

Every now and then, however, I pick up a tidbit like this one, which I found was also very useful in another context, like, say, alt.space...

It's a rant about the signal-to-noise ratio in the software industry. The author, a real, honest-to-God programmer, discusses his frustrations in trying to convince customers to buy his product on its actual merits. His product solves a customer's specific problem. He has actual code that actually ships. Custom onsite configuration is also available as part of the service.

However, more often than not, he finds himself competing with firms who have only vaporware to sell - but their "software architects" come a-calling with a slick PowerPoint show replete with color, animation, and impressive buzzwords. So the poor guy gets caught up in the trap of trying to explain meaningless "architecture" questions asked by the potential client's pointy-haired boss, rather than allowing him to explain how his very real, shipping product would actually solve specific problems and make end users more productive.

I find there is a strong parallel here between the rantings of buzzword-spouting "software architects" selling vaporware, and the unquestioning, romantic worship of future-boy rocketry by the alt.space crowd. They can create or join one startup after another; they raise funding from naive angels by selling the Dream, fall flat, reinvent themselves in another enterprise, raise money from still more naive angels, fall flat again, and keep doing it over and over.

Like "software architects", they are teflon when it comes to failure - they'll never admit to it, except, when pushed, in terms of blaming others or unique circumstances beyond their control - like the regulatory environment, failure to raise sufficient capital, or the blunders of key partners. They never mention, however, how their now-failed product or service was laced with 6 degrees of unobtainium, or violated the laws of economics (sometimes even physics).

The only thing they've ever launched is a PowerPoint show, filled with thrilling 3-D animated effects of their new/improved launcher/spaceship/what-have-you, declaring they'll be taking passenger reservations/client orders in only two years. And every two years that self-imposed deadline keeps getting pushed back. But undaunted by reality, they press on.

They go to all the "right" conferences, make sure they are photographed with luminaries such as Aldrin, wave their arms on panel discussions, and quote liberally from all the books on space and aviation history that festoon their offices.

From now on, whenever I'm confronted by these people, I going to chant to myself the following mantra:

"Rockets launch, payloads fly;
Rockets help customers
Do their work in the sky."

Then I might be able to sit through another annoying PowerPoint show without my breakfast threatening revolt.

I've said this on more than one occasion, and I'll say it again: Entrepreneurial enterprises - of whatever kind - are created to solve problems, offering unique or innovative solutions that inspire customers to buy. This is their primary value proposition, and it's what makes such enterprises potentially worthy of 3rd-party investment. This is the biggest contrast I see between presenting firms at a conference like SmallSat, for example, and those that attend many space advocacy conferences. The SmallSat firms understand the concept of solving problems for customers and adding value - as a result they prosper. The others sell mostly dreams, promises, and vaporware.

Up for a challenge? PROVE US WRONG.

2007-03-08T23:03:00.000-08:00

(originally posted by Old Space Cynic as a comment on the last post thread, but raised to level of separate post by me to make sure you all had a chance to see it... and see if you will respond...)

AmberJane, you have nailed it again, but the blindly faithful will trash you for doing so.

If a younger, high income, interested professional isn't the target market for suborbital flight, who is? The old rich farts with hypertension and questionable AV conduction? When the vast majority of the public is not interested in space, the market numbers for suborbital flights make no sense. A number of prepaid deposits held in escrow are meaningless.

An Australian academic recently did credible market research directly supporting your opinion about preferring orbital to suborbital flight. But, like all dissenters to the party line, he is defined as wrong. Just like Dr. Hertzfeld is wrong on economics according to the true believers.

Trying to refute Dr. Bell's argument with logic based on examples of RATOs (low performance, low energy density) and failure to understand that some severely damaged X-15s were rebuilt using the same tail numbers is both ignorant and silly.

From a business standpoint, are we to accept a hypothetical PowerPoint spaceplane over a tangible data history spanning more than 1/2 century? Which is the more valid approach to guessing reliability numbers? The challenge to the alt.spacers is to prove us wrong: Get the investment capital, build and test and prove the sceptics wrong. Quit arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin and PROVE US WRONG. If Dr. Bell had used the column headings “major event” instead of “loss” some of the criticism could have been avoided.

We have recently been treated to the spectacle of a BS level engineering space cadet taking on a PhD aeronautical engineer with extensive personal flight test experience and a faculty slot in the UC system over pros and cons of different flight configurations with "opinions" on one side and a wealth of peer-reviewed literature on the other.

I have put my money where my mouth is and have invested in several alt.space companies. Their business plans and structures were clearly flawed, but I hoped that over time they would grow into acting like real businesses. My hopes have not been realized after 4 years. Reading their 5 year projections today is amusing.

You are correct that alt.space investment opportunities are very few and very far between. In my opinion, sure to be trashed as ignorant and ill-informed, the commercial case will not be closed until cheap orbital access is achieved. Suborbital joy-riding will probably not do it. If the space-geeks want capital they have to convince people who think like the Cynics to part with theirs or raise it in other ways. Arguments with ad hominem attacks and distorting logic, omitting inconvenient observations, and the like is best left to the politicians and news media, not to Kool-Aiders frustrated by those who have the wherewithall to fund alt.space ventures but can't see the business case closing.

Finally, it was amusing to see Rand Simberg’s final dig at you (“Have you changed professions from plastic surgeon to aerospace market researcher?”). This is especially silly – insult a person who brings interest, enthusiasm, and potential investment capital to the table because he or she asks a perfectly reasonable question (“What am I missing?”). Great way to encourage investment in the field, Rand. I suspect Rand has no concept of the analytical resources surgeons and other high income/high net worth people can bring to bear for market research, analysis, etc. as they consider investments – including fliers.

For your further illumination, get Dr. Livingston’s recent lecture at USC on the subject or better yet take him up on his long-standing offer to discuss your approach to alt.space investment analysis on his show. Given the way the community seems to operate, it is unlikely that anybody will call up and challenge you face to face. That will all occur behind your back.

It Was Safer Flying Against the Nazis...

2007-03-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

Jeff Bell's scorching editorial on Space Daily skewers the suborbital tourism market six ways from sunday, through a thorough disection of the risks and safety record of rocket-powered suborbital flight to date.

It doesn't matter if your favourite beast is a rocketplane, DC-X lookalike, or spaceship one - he does an admirable job of ripping them apart.

I'll be interested to see the reaction from the kool-aid crowd to this one.

Kudos, Jeff.

An argument for euthanasia

2007-02-28T00:57:00.000-08:00

Warning: to those of you who are looking for a space related blog post (this being the Space Cynics after all), this post is most decidedly NOT space related.

First, the event: People who should be removed from the gene pool

I don't care if you're a dog person, a cat person, or someone who is completely ambivalent to animals. The young retards featured in this article merit my "they should be removed from society, permanently" award. Go ask a homicide detective - these pieces of filth are future serial killers. Spare society the hassle, just toss them on the scrap heap.

For those of you who think that settling the stars is such a great idea, I suggest you spend some time focusing on getting the species fixed, first. On the other hand, I think the idea of some alien slowly dismembering the descendents of these clowns has a certain charm to it - and yes, cretins like these always find a way to breed. Just like cockroaches.

Making it Relevant or "Does Anyone Care?"

2007-02-24T19:15:00.000-08:00

So a recent email posting on MapCom (basically a mailing discussion group of Alt.Spacers with a large overlapping membership of Advocates in the Space Frontier Foundation) brought to my attention this website:

Stop Global Warming

This website has over 640,000 signups already. Can you think of a single space entity which has garnered this level of popular support in terms of people responding to an actual call to action?

Neither can I.

As I've said before, both in conferences and on various Space Show radio interviews, the Space Community MUST take a lesson from the environmental community and find a way to build a bridge with them, because they are ostensibly our best ally in rallying public support for space development as a solution to many of the long-term environmental problems facing mankind.

"Very Accomplished Woman in Tragic Local Story"

2007-02-19T11:23:00.000-08:00

Ok, i've debated posting about this one for over a week now, but two recent media pieces steered me towards weighing in. However, rather than poorly restate what was so eloquently put out there by these two gentlemen, I simply provide their words to you.

First, Jon Stewart's skewering of the media and their coverage of the sad "NASA Astronaut Love Triangle" story (from which I took the title of this blog post as well)

Space Puns Might Astro-Not Be A Good Idea

Second, a great essay by Homer Hickam, which originally appeared in the LA Times.

Space cadets: What would make an astronaut crack?
Too many astronauts for too few slots part of problem

By HOMER HICKAM

As a former NASA astronaut training manager responsible for crew training for shuttle missions, I was not entirely surprised by the initial reports of the sad, bizarre case of Lisa Marie Nowak.

This isn't the first case of astronauts having difficulties in their personal lives. Usually, the straying astronaut simply resigns or retires, and everything is hushed up. But being charged with assault, attempted kidnapping and attempted murder is far greater than anything I ever observed or imagined could occur. Perhaps this tragedy will bring some of the agency's long-ignored problems into the open.

First is the tremendous and unnecessary pressures brought to bear on the members of NASA's cloistered astronaut office. This is the division at the Johnson Space Center in Houston where the astronauts work. It is the office that assigns each astronaut his or her job. Since most astronauts are waiting to be put on a mission, these jobs — such as working on the shuttle hydraulic system or sitting in on meetings about a new science payload — are important, but they're usually no more difficult than the ones accomplished routinely by other NASA engineers and scientists. The difference is the astronauts come under constant scrutiny by their management to determine who will fly and who will not. Some never get assigned to a space mission, yet they are called astronauts as long as they work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Nowak was hired as an astronaut in 1996. It was a decade before she flew into space. During that time, she was passed over again and again. Somewhere along the line during those disappointing years, I think she became brittle. She finally flew, landed and then was sent to the back of the astronaut line again. My guess is that her personal life started to become unglued from the accumulated strain, and she finally cracked.

But why did Nowak have to endure 10 years of scrutiny and constant competition with her fellow astronauts before she got to fly? The fact is, there are too many astronauts (more than 125) and not enough opportunities to fly. The NASA inspector general said the same thing in a 2003 report. Yet the astronaut office hired 11 more astronauts in 2004. Last year, the shuttle flew three times, carrying just seven astronauts per flight. Its replacement vehicle, which is under design now, will carry at most six astronauts.

Does it make sense to have this many overachievers all walking on eggs, vying for such a limited number of slots?

Only in a dysfunctional bureaucracy like NASA's astronaut office, which keeps hiring more astronauts than it needs.

As a training manager, I was aware that many astronauts felt as if they were powerless, stressed-out peons within their own organization. I observed their daily competition with one another to get a seat into space. In many cases, this trial by fire changed enthusiastic young astronauts into bureaucratic combatants with warped personalities and shaken confidence.

For a long time, I also have been aware of the corrosive resentment many NASA engineers and scientists feel toward the astronauts. The astronauts have a sense of entitlement, and what they want, they get, or so it seems. For instance, I was in a meeting once in which an astronaut who only had a few years of NASA experience constantly interrupted and belittled a 20-year space engineering veteran. That's the kind of thing that fuels discontent.

My suggestion to lessen the pressure on the astronauts and also to decrease the resentment others in the agency feel toward them is to reorganize their office, first by shrinking it. There are two types of astronauts — pilots and mission specialists. The latter are more or less like flight engineers who are generalists. They operate robotics, perform experiments and go on spacewalks. They make up the bulk of the astronaut corps, and we just don't need so many. They should be offered other jobs within the agency. There would remain just a small, core group confident that they will fly.

The remaining seats on shuttle flights should then be opened up to the top tier of space scientists and engineers in the country from outside NASA. Right now, the only Americans allowed to fly aboard our spacecraft are the employees of the astronaut office, who live in a closed community with little outside influence. That is just not right, nor is it healthy.

To bring in the best of the best from outside the agency to fly would not only result in better science and engineering, it would also inject a constant stream of fresh air into a program that, as the Nowak tragedy reveals, is very much in need of it.

Hickam is the author of "Rocket Boys/October Sky," and "The Keeper's Son," among others. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Walking Eagle Award Announced!

2007-02-15T19:44:00.000-08:00

This is the season of awards. In keeping with the finest tradition of awarding the best of the best such as with the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, the Academy Awards, the Nobel prizes, the Grammy's, the Emmy's, and the Country Music Awards, and the IgNoble Prize, we at The Space Cynics are now awarding 2007 Walking Eagle awards.

The Space Cynics Walking Eagle Award goes to the person, organization, or group of people best deserving an award in their respective categories. Awards can go to those in traditional space, alt.space/New Space, and related divisions. By receiving the Walking Eagle, the recipient receives well-deserved public recognition for his/her consistently outstanding performance in his/her field during the year.

This highly sought after award is not granted lightly, nor often - please return to Space Cynics each Quarter as we celebrate future Walking Eagle awardees.

Space is HARD

2007-01-30T20:15:00.000-08:00

Condolonces to the men and women of SeaLaunch over the failed attempt to loft the NSS-8 satellite today. Hopefully the Odyssey platform, which is based in my hometown of Long Beach, California, did not suffer much damage and will be back to sea launching again soon.

For those of you who think that space is easy, take a good look at the picture.

It isn't.

The hits keep coming

2007-01-29T08:27:00.000-08:00

Here's another example from the MSM under the rubric of "stuff you can't make up."

Apparently Brian Emmett, who had won a "flight to space" in a loudly promoted public contest in 2005, believed he had to "give up his seat" because he wasn't able to pay the taxes on his "winnings."

Well, I try to use polite, high-road language on this forum, so rather than say what I truly feel, I'll just say that poor Mr. Emmett was..."misinformed".

The fact is, the so-called "prize" he won has no cash retail value of any kind. Why? Because commercial space tourist flights - other than the $21 million a pop Soyuz excursions to ISS, which arguably do not fit the definition - simply do not exist.

Emmett should not have been liable for any tax whatsoever until the day he could actually claim a real seat on a real rocket that was really going somewhere. Those do not exist, yet. Not Rocketplane, not Virgin Galactic, not anybody has anything that is blessed by AST and ready to take paying passengers. And until they do, his "prize" is just a blank sheet of paper, with about the same cash value as that deed to Mars acreage I bought from that guy a few years back, just for fun.

However, should a real seat actually materialize in 2009-11 timeframe, Emmett would have had 4-6 years to set aside enough personal savings to pay the tax.

Think he was disappointed when he gave up his seat? Imagine his chagrin should he read something like this and realizes he did so for no good reason??

Excellent....

2007-01-28T22:13:00.000-08:00

In the category of life imitating art (and the term art being used loosely in this case), i bring you this snippet and link to a truly entertaining article from today's Sydney Morning Herald.

You just can't make this stuff up.

US Urges Scientists to Block Out Sun

"THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday)."

Jeff Bell on COTS

2007-01-17T07:52:00.000-08:00

These will no doubt be seen as "fightin' words" by the alt.space community:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_COTS_Enigma_999.html

Have at it, one and all.

Who Goes There?

2007-01-13T12:49:00.000-08:00

On my weekly foray through the various web newsites, blogs, and occasional entertainment links (such as PostSecret, which I highly recommend) I have made a point of regularly visiting Jeff Foust's blog, Space Politics so I can keep abreast of the goings-on in my old neighborhood (Washington DC) as it pertains to space development.

Sadly, while the articles/columns are still quite informative and well-written (and yes, Robin, the format is more pleasing than a black-background blog, but hey, i'm trying to maintain a space theme here...) it appears that the curse of the space angst has finally hit Jeff's blog.

Let us remember briefly just another one of the oh so many other fora that have since disappeared into the dustbin of space history in the 10+ short years that the WWW has been around...

The Space Arena Board - RIP 2005

What is it that killed this board? Apathy?

Well, eventually, yes.

But first, it began with the sniping and then the personal attacks. Who can forget the ever entertaining debates between the self-appointed geniuses of the alt.space "community", who managed to make virtually every thread devolve into a back and forth of name-calling and ad hominem attacks. The use of anonymity often accompanied the postings of these gems of our sector, and it was often the case that the worst offences came from those who were too afraid to post under their own names.

So, it is with sadness i have noticed the increasing use of clever (or not) anonymous handles for comments posted on Jeff's blog, and the corresponding increase in partisan and childish comments as well.

Arrogance of the Underdog (Chihuahuas Yap Loudly)

2006-12-16T17:44:00.000-08:00

Space Cynics

Little dogs bark a lot. The Space Frontier Foundation’s recent white paper does too. The document has some interesting arguments and ideas that merit consideration, but those positive aspects are lost in arrogance.

Unfortunately, the idea that NASA should give significant public funds to unproven launch alt.spacers with no track records is the height of ignorant arrogance. It would be a totally irresponsible violation of the public trust to disburse public funds in that manner.

It is actually amusing to see these independent hairy-chested capitalists jostling to swill at the public trough.

A more constructive approach for the launch alt.spacers would be to start small, get their own capital, and grow like most start-ups as they develop track records. Rather than appear like a coalition of COTS losers trying to get a second chance, the groups that were eliminated should prove themselves with deeds rather than rhetoric.

SFF advocates having NASA leave relatively near term LEO access to the alt.space launch community. How? Who? What alt.space companies have demonstrated their ability to gain reliable and inexpensive LEO access? Who is currently bending metal for future LEO access? What are their track records? How does NASA taking money from Boeing or LockMart and giving it to the alt.space launch start-ups differ from the status quo other than by switching recipients?

Advocacy organizations like SFF could approach NASA management and offer to work with them to develop and improve a coherent national space policy rather than nipping at their heels like a berserk Chihuahua. Besides, they are nipping at the wrong set of heels. NASA is only part of the problem. Congress has been and continues to be the major part of the problem with their propensity to micromanage and politicize the entire national budget.

Faith Without Works is Meaningless

2006-10-10T12:08:00.000-07:00

I've been wrapped up in other projects for awhile, and I return here after a protracted absence to see that my good friend Shubber is once again igniting flames of controversy and derision both here and on the Anousheh Ansari space blog. (BTW, I find the flame responses as "educational" as the uncritical adulation.)

I have a different view from Shubber in that if I had $20M +$1, I would NOT spend the $20M on a joyride to the ISS. (In the first place, my wife would divorce me before I could do such a reckless thing with our finances, and her lawyer would demand half, in settlement, at any rate - so much for space fantasies!)

As for me - I got into this whole "space thing" with the goal of helping empower the rest of us, of perhaps more modest means, but with nonetheless a similar, overriding vision that we happen to share with the wealthy and fortunate few, to also one day be able to make that trip. So I'd be better off investing my $20 million helping develop the core frontier-enabling technologies, and building long-term market demand that will sustain them. That way, ultimately, the price of a joy ride goes WAAAAYYY down, and I can pay for a ticket from my long-term capital gains.

Do I find Anousheh's flight "inspirational"? Not really. As some have stated, others have done it, and more will in the future. She was wealthy, healthy, and could afford an expensive joyride - that, in and of itself, does little if anything to create either a mass social movement, OR lower launch costs for the rest of us. Simple fact.

Having said that, I was far more inspired by the Ansari family's willingness to accept the risk in underwriting the original X-Prize to begin with, along with their continued support in helping us all do the hard work that will need doing to create a truly viable space commerce sector - a task that will take years, perhaps an entire generation. I applaud the Ansari's commitment each day, in that regard, and I wish we could clone more of them. (Is that the inspiration for the genome XPrize?? LOL)

I've often - perhaps cynically - felt that if astronauts were more like rock stars, perhaps both public and private space efforts would get more attention - and the more deserving of the "privateers" would benefit from increased VC funding and ultimately lots and lots of paying customers with cash in hand. But NASA has spent too many decades reinforcing an image of boring irrelevance to remake it overnight.

What remains to be seen from all this hoopla is the aftermath of the Ansari flight, both in terms of whether she retains a certain celeb status, and whether or not there will be any "halo effect". As history teaches us, the "Lindbergh effect" from Charles Lindbergh's 1927 trans-atlantic flight, was a 50% increase in pilots licenses granted and a 300% increase in airmail demand over the next two years. There was no similar "Tito effect", however. Perhaps an "Ansari effect" will ensue - my mind is certainly open to the possibility - but it is yet to be seen how that would manifest itself.

As the old saying goes: "Faith without works is dead." It is claimed that millions of people have read Ansari's space blog and have been almost universally inspired by it. (With a few exceptions, naturally...).

But for the sake of argument I'll grant the supposition. OK, now what are you all inspired to DO, as a result of Ansari's good works? What concrete actions will you, who claim to have been so "inspired", engage in to better your world, right now, and on into the future, evermore?

Will all of you join and participate in the activities of a space advocacy organization, such as the NSS, Mars Society, or Space Frontier Foundation (to name only a few)? Will you donate money and time to these causes? It seems to me, if you are seriously inspired, I would expect the ranks of these groups to swell to bursting with new bodies and renewed energy, which, frankly, all of them desperately need. I always felt it telling that one can commonly find anywhere from 20-100 times more bodies at a Star Trek convention than at an average space conference, where people actually want to do "the real thing".

Will you commit to putting your own money at risk by investing a portion of your portfolios in promising space or space-related companies? Will you reeducate yourself, if need be, in engineering, business management, or economics, so you can participate professionally in such endeavors?

Will Iranian women, both in the US and in Iran, organize and demand serious social and political reforms in their native country, freeing it from the one-sided domination of the mullahs, so all women and girls in that nation can have the same freedom to dream and act on those dreams that Anousheh did?

Will Americans rededicate themselves to improving economic and political conditions in this country? For I have concluded that only a free, prosperous, peaceful and forward-thinking people will summon the resources, ingenuity and the collective will to reach for the heavens and claim them (not to mention profit). A fearful, insecure, vengeful and "captive" people, however, who imagine they see terrorists under every Bush, will not. Simple as that. "Space tragics" all too often often neglect the hard realities of the world around them, somehow imagining themselves immune to such mundane political issues, or falsely believing said issues are irrelevant to The Dream. (But that's a separate topic for future posts, which we WILL get to - that's a promise!)

The point of this screed is that, after all the cheering, adulation and bowing on a prayer mat 5 times a day in the direction of the Ansari household dies down, there remains a lot of serious work to do to enable the rest of us to make that same journey. Will the truly "inspired" commit to a personal course of action, including, but by no means limited to, the options mentioned above? Will you continue to do it, when it drags on, or gets too expensive, or seems boring, or even becomes dangerous?

Faith and cheerleading don't pay the bills - and will certainly not get the rest of us to the stars anytime soon. Yes, Anousheh is a goddess for today. Fine. I'm good with that. Now go back and do your homework.

Come to a Land Down Under...

2006-10-04T17:02:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that Qantas is jumping on the Anousheh space tourism trip bandwagon as well - although perhaps not in a way that the space tragics would like.

This is from their latest email campaign:

The recent trip into outerspace by space tourist, Anousheh Ansari, has everyone talking about the future of travel.

But we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves. Before you conquer the galaxy, you might want to discover all the wonderful places to visit on Earth - the beaches in Fiji, the countryside in Queenstown, or cosmopolitan Melbourne...

After all, what will you tell the extraterristrials about the world? Surely not who won the latest reality television show.

Xena Reborn

2006-10-03T16:29:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Anousheh Ansari, on her recent vacation to the ISS.

There, now that i've got that out of the way, I've got a message for all you Anousheh-is-the-second-coming-of-Xena freaks out there.

She went on a (very expensive) VACATION to an extreme destination.

This isn't HISTORIC.
It WON'T get you to space.
She's RICH, you AREN'T.
She isn't the first person to BLOG.*

While we all here at the Space Cynics are certainly envious of her rarely-experienced vacation, and would love the chance to go (so any of you wanting to donate $80m - so we can all go - to the Cynics... make your checks out to Cash, or just paypal us.) we aren't buying this drivelish worship fest that seems to have infected you.

Go take a cold shower and get a life.

Regards,
The Management

(*note, in case you missed it, the Space Cynics is a blog too. Duh.)

Lunar Supremacy and Lunacy

2006-08-26T00:14:00.000-07:00

"The manned moon shot, like the war on terror, is an example of the inferiority of the political allocation of resources. In their choices of projects, political leaders do not seem to display a high degree of rationality, or at least their rationality seems distinctly below what common sense or even a small amount of thought might produce. The reason for this is that they have power to implement what they think is right or want without having personally to face the full measure of the consequences. They do not directly face the market test, which is this: Will consumers fork over their hard-earned money for the product? Politicians have a higher chance of implementing hare-brained schemes based on false theories. And if they can con the public, the degree of rationality falls even more steeply."

The entire essay is worth reading.

Those who have been following the discussion here re: state investments in spaceports - that last bit should be particularly of reference.

This Space Project Wants Your Feedback

2006-08-22T14:52:00.000-07:00

Readers:

I have been contacted by the group at the website, www.tasha9503.com. Check it out. Here are 17 questions/feedback that they have wanted information on. I think its best left to readers of the blog to respond to this group re their plan to launch an 80 unit condo project throughout the galaxy. Here are the comments/questions I just received that you might want to opine on for the project creators. Keep in mind, the 17 questions/comments were in response to my comments.

1) I found your site in a google search engine "Space" (this refers to how they found Professor L).
2) Yes we are for real.
3) Why did you send me an http:// to a assurance company (no idea what this is, probably an electronic glitch).
4) The technical drawings were produced with the AutoCAD 2002 and 2004 program in .dwg.
and yes we are serious
5) financing
6) We would like to be open for rental in 2015, but that will take six successful launches.
7) Every negative comment received so far has given us all challenges to salve and so helped us design a condo that can and will work (disregarding the plasma core) telling us why we can't makes us prove we can.
8) Every physics and engineering problem has been solved by other before us and we just collected there answers.
9) Business and financial questions will be the slowing movement we must push against.
10) Have you a problem with living inside an 80m x 20m hollow cylindrical magnet?
11) Do you foresee problems with the operations of computers inside an 80m x 20m hollow cylindrical spinning magnet?
12) Do you have information regarding the size and strength a magnet must be to deflect and collect the magnetically charged plasma that we must deal with when we move beyond the Earths Magnetosphere?
13) Is there a an engineering situation you feel we have over looked or not addressed @ tasha9503?
14) Is there a physics question you feel we have over looked or not addressed @ tasha9503
15) You profusely apologize for sounding negative but have not yet pointed to any reason we can not build the initial condo to be used as a hotel resort.
16) You have not yet requested any information, that might alleviate the fears you found out side the box.
17) The site shows our immediate plans and our long term goals, but it has not gone into the details of how we plan to salve the problems other were stopped at. you have not even pointed out a spot where people stopped.

Space Cynic readers, check out their website and post your feedback and comments.

Final Thoughts on SmallSat 2006

2006-08-19T07:00:00.000-07:00

The 20th annual SmallSat meeting in Logan, Utah was attended by roughly 800 people representing industry (from Boeing on down), academia (both faculty and students), US government (USAF, USN, DOD, and NASA) and a number of foreign interests. The 3-1/2 days of talks included presentations by the NASA Administrator, the recently retired commanding general of USAF Space Command, and the head of ESA. There were more than 60 commercial exhibitors and 15 university/student exhibits.

My various random conclusions and reinforced biases from the meeting are:

(1) The military is the elephant in the room and is heavily represented at SmallSat.
(2) Both DOD and NASA are sincerely interested in seeing launch costs go down with frequent launch availability.
(3) Some creative people in the government are seeding various projects to encourage #2 within their operating constraints.
(4) There is a current surplus of launch capability: If launch costs were to be cut in half today, launch demand would change very little if at all.
(5) Current trends in technology favor smaller, special purpose satellites which drive down willingness to pay high launch costs. Who wants to pay $1 million to launch a $50 thousand satellite? That encourages waiting for a free ride on a multisatellite launch for many missions.
(6) The very smallest (picosat) payloads are primarily academic with the mix of military and commercial increasing as payload size increases. Academic payloads are less time sensitive in some regards, but academic careers can be deeply affected by prolonged launch delays.
(7) Several papers suggest there is a market for launchers of 1-10 Kg satellites with launch costs of perhaps $40K/Kg by trading time for cost notwithstanding #6.
(8) Cost per unit mass is an appropriate metric for multisatellite launchers, but cost per launch is a better metric for the smallest end of the mass spectrum.
(9) There is an alt.space industry. It attends SmallSat. This alt.space industry and its members work the system. The various space advocacy groups tend to whine about that which they don't have rather than go out and get it. They are nevertheless worth inclusion because they occasionally create some interesting ideas and are seen as the go-to guys by the media even though BS filtering is inadequate.
(10) I would pay dearly for a system in my car that would switch my cell phone into a satellite link if the phone couldn't locate usable cell towers. Cell coverage in the boondocks is spotty, and there are boondocks between Logan, Utah and the rest of civilization.

Administrator Griffin at Small Sat Speaks on COTS:

2006-08-16T14:00:00.001-07:00

I am at the Small Sat Conference in Logan, Utah and heard the Griffin speech on Monday. I was with Leonard David who also heard the speech and then wrote the article that has been selectively quoted widely on the net and in discussion groups. The link to the space.com story is at the bottom of this post. Evidently there is resentment that he referred to many entrepreneurial businesses as having their existence based solely on viewgraphs. Let me tell the rest of the story right here.

Griffin repeated many times that he believed in the private sector to be successful and he repeated over and over again that he was gambling a half of billion tax payer dollars on COTS. He was very hopeful that the companies would be successful and that this seed investment would indeed payoff. Again, in response to a question form the audience, he repeated this many times. Leonard reported this accurately it in his article. Note the following which is the entire piece Leonard wrote on this subject:

"COTS: gambling NASA’s money
Griffin said he considered himself as "one of the change agents" in turning to the talents of entrepreneurial space firms. This Friday, NASA will unveil its strategy with private space companies to provide commercial orbital transportation services, better known as COTS. A half billion dollars over the next four years is being applied by NASA as seed money to prime the pump for COTS.

"I have a lot of hope if we can get an existence proof in place of cheaper space transportation at any level," Griffin said, that it will then serve as a driver on market prices to get the cost of access to space down.

"I’m using the first market that NASA has ever had as the anchor market and that market is space station resupply," Griffin explained. "I’m very much hoping that the entrepreneurial space firms, some of them at any rate, can step up to the challenge."

But the NASA administrator also said that situation is not a given.

"There have been some entrepreneurial space successes, but by and large I think it’s only fair to point out that most of space entrepreneurship exists on viewgraphs," Griffin said.

"The time is right that if there is some NASA money on the table … some of these entrepreneurs can step up," Griffin concluded.

End

Now, maybe Griffin's choice re the comment on viewgraphs was inappropriate, I am not writing this note to defend Griffin or what he said. However, if we can all step outside the particular agenda we care about and share and see us as the steward of public money being held accountable for how we spend it, with Congress ready to pounce on us for the slightest misdeed, what do you do? Invest wisely or throw money at companies that have yet to build anything, have marginal or poor business plans and maybe management, have never bent metal, etc. Being a steward of public money, if the position is taken seriously, implies a pretty high standard of stewardship, like a trust fiduciary. That is why banks with trust departments are normally quite conservative with how a user might want to use the money in a trust they manage.

Here at Small Sat, there are lots of new space companies bending metal, working solid business plans, going after a defined market with a customer, even if it’s the Air Force, DARPA, the feds, etc. Of course not all here are like that but a good many are. They have financing, they have sales and a positive cash flow, a market and clearly are and will continue manufacturing product and bending metal. They have seasoned management, they know business, markets, finance, etc. They have business plans that are not vaporware. They do not live by Power Points alone. In fact, when they show a Power Point in their booth, etc, its to support their actual business which is underway. Its not rhetoric or PR without substance. This is a very different group of businesses from what we may normally think of when talking about or considering alt.space or new space. In fact, I am not sure that these companies would consider themselves being new space or alt.space. I don't know, I've not asked many of them that question but those I have asked do seem to classify themselves as alt.space businesses.

Having heard Griffin's remarks in person, I am convinced he sincerely wants COTS to be successfully and hopes that the companies getting the money evolve into serious private sector space companies. That is why his priming the pump with a half billion of seed capital. In fact, he mentioned he hoped private companies even those other than the COTS winners become successful.

The rest of his speech dealt with small sats given this is the conference at which he was speaking but it was through the Q&A where the good information was revealed. He is clearly pressured by Congress and the Administration to see the VSE through to completion. He claims he makes hard choices on how to use limited funds and lots of needs for these funds so he does take from here and there to fund the priorities he was hired to complete: The JWST and the VSE. Thus, programs suffer, including education. In fact it was the area of education that was most controversial here at Small Sat given his very plain language that NASA has no funds and will not support educational programs, and its not NASA's job to do that.

This brings to mind the recent developments with the State of New Mexico and the report it received from its financial advisors re their spaceport plans. According to the news in the main Albuquerque newspaper, the spaceport plan is not an investment but a project and business development program for the two companies involved, T/Space and Virgin. So what did New Mexico do? They fired the investment firm. Shoot the messenger, don't address the problem. Well, like Griffin, New Mexico administration is the steward of their public money. How do they best server their tax payers and meet the standards of a fiduciary responsibility? Is it by shooting the messenger or dealing with the problem to come up with workable solutions to produce a different and credible outcome? I don't have sufficient information on this subject to render a real opinion and I don't rely on newspaper articles but like Griffin, the Governor and the New Mexico legislature is responsible for the proper use of New Mexico public money. I think it will be interesting to see how the New Mexico situation develops.

I know the Griffin comments will be controversial. They certainly were at Small Sat. Those supporting education were totally pissed. Those wanting more science missions were totally pissed and frustrated. Everyone seemed to think Griffin could do more than what he said he was able to do regarding spreading the money around. But the bottom line is this is how Griffin sees his position and role at NASA so this is the reality he is going to deal with and we are going to have live with while he is administrator.

I was ready to ask a question about his seeing the Space Frontier Foundation White Paper and his thoughts on it and its impact on him and NASA Administration. They cut the questions off without calling on several of us and he was whisked out due to a demanding schedule. There was no mingling with him or following him to ask him the question in private so to speak. In contrast, the Director General of ESA spoke this morning, has been here at the conference most of the week and is widely available to mingle and talk with us. General (ret) Lord of Space Command was the key note on Tuesday and was widely available to mingle with us all, having lunch with us, etc. In fact, I believe Gen. Lord will soon be a guest on The Space Show as it is now being structured. Watch Space Show newsletters for information on this as General Lord has much to say that will interest us all.

I believe this is a fair report on the Griffin speech at Small Sat and the reaction to it. Leonard David did a good job of reporting. I hope you all read his article which is linked at the bottom of this email. Check it out at:
http://space.com/news/060815_griffin_smallsat.html

Shoot the Messenger

2006-08-14T02:31:00.000-07:00

Well, for those who haven't been following along on the little debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of Government investment in spaceports, here's a little update on the happenings in New Mexico.

Apparently, not liking the advice given to them by their hired investment advisors (Fort Washington Investment Advisors), the State Investment Council of New Mexico chose to instead terminate their relationship citing a "divergence of interests".

In plainspeak, a divergence of interests appears to mean that they didn't like it when FWIA told them that the decision to put $20m into t/space (and their consideration of another $20m into Virgin Galactic) was not sound investment but rather an economic development program. For space boosters, this is a no go.

Off with their heads, so to speak.

Congratulations to STS-CXXI

2006-08-01T19:10:00.000-07:00

Just a slightly belated congratulations to the crew of STS-CXXI, which boldly sailed to ISS on July IV, MMVI, with a crew of VII on a mission lasting XII days, XVIII hourss, XXXVII minutes, and LIV seconds.

Just another shining example of what western civilisation can do, and why we are ultimately superior to those "other" people who have adopted the concept of "0" and the arabic numbering system.

Because, after all, the aborigines couldn't go to the moon, and the Aztecs apparently never thought about going to space.

Or something like that.

Help Me Understand

2006-07-28T13:02:00.000-07:00

TopSpacer at RLVNews.com says the following: "I have no idea if the K-1 is a great or even a good design for a RLV. My point has always been that it is simply a proof of the principle that fully reusable vehicles are practical now. " I fail to understand the logic here. The quality of the K-1 design is unknown to TopSpacer, but it constitutes proof that fully reusable vehicles are practical right now? Assume it is a poor design. Then, it is not an existence proof of anything other than a poor design. Assume it is a good design. It may prove the existence of an RLV, but its practicality is unknown without demonstration proofs. The K-1 is reportedly 75% built. It has yet to fly at all. Help me understand how this proves the practicality of fully reusable launch vehicles. This seems like radiation shielding for manned interplanetary flight redux.

Boys and Their Toys

2006-07-22T17:36:00.000-07:00

Imagine a 6 year old boy sitting in a box on the sidewalk. He is wearing a helmet and goggles, and going "Vroom, vroom." Fast forward 6 more years. The boy is now in his treehouse repelling alien invaders.

Fast forward again for one third century. The boy now has a very, very fancy treehouse. He sits in it for hours playing with the controls and going "Vroom, vroom." I envy him.

A Sucker Born Every Minute

2006-07-17T20:59:00.000-07:00

"It might be worth something in a few years."

This gem of an insight brought to you by Ms. Sarah Lang, a 31 year old housewife in England who won 1 million pounds in a contest ("Pokerface") and apparently has decided she wants to buy a plot on the moon.

According to the article in Moon Daily, "the mother-of-two is a huge fan of the science-fiction television and film series 'Star Trek.'"

"I am really into sci-fi and horror so I really want to go to a big Trekkie convention in the US and dress up," she confessed.

She should fit right in...

Buy the Ride Balderdash

2006-07-14T09:36:00.000-07:00

Some space advocates (alt.spacers or NewSpacers or whatever they call themselves these days) have been pushing the concept that NASA should “buy the ride instead of buying the rocket.” The idea is that private enterprise can do a better job of developing manned vehicles and NASA should just purchase transportation from the private sector. This has not worked in the past and probably will not work in the future.

A rough analogy would be the purchase of rides from a cab operator. The rider does not especially care whether the cab is a Checker or a Volvo, but only purchases the ride. Extend this to the space sector. NASA would hypothetically purchase rides on private sector spaceships to establish demand and drive down costs. How and on what? Assume the following: NASA announces that, effective 2011, it will purchase 7 rides to and from ISS on a monthly basis. According to the “Buy the Ride” concept, the private sector will then jump in and develop the spacecraft and off we go into the golden future. Who pays for the development of these vehicles? How does this differ from the current state except for the promise of future rides putting a bottom threshold on the launch market?

Right now, the alt.spacers appear to be expending a lot of energy whining about the lack of funding for vehicle development and how they could do much better than the private sector giants Boeing or LockMart. If they want to offer rides for sale by 2011, they should develop the vehicles now.

“Buy the Ride” appears to have an unstated agenda. That agenda is: NASA should give development money to the alt.spacers so they can develop really cool vehicles much more efficiently and cheaply than Boeing or LockMart. This is the desired goal even though the alt.spacers have no track record of delivering much hardware. This is equivalent to the current state of affairs except for advocacy of the unstated agenda and is diametric to “Buy the Ride.”

Instead, NASA, USAF, and DARPA are funding small seed-money development projects that are related to propulsion and launch operations to allow start-ups to develop and demonstrate management expertise. In addition, companies like SpaceDev and, on a smaller and privately held scale, Garvey, are executing small projects that are on a pathway to commercial orbital launches. Add SpaceX into the mix, assuming that they ultimately succeed in launching Falcon, and the end result should be additional launch capability as all of this somehow evolves a new generation of launch companies. If that happens, I predict the largely irrelevant alt.spacer peanut gallery will be claiming the credit.

My final word on bread and circuses, New Space style

2006-07-06T18:46:00.000-07:00

While it has been an "enlightening" conversation of late, regarding the philosophy and economics of that-which-we-will-NOT-call-spaceports, it has reached the point where there is a definite risk of going around in circles (as NASA has for decades) to a place of marginal utility. So I purport to make my final case here, then move on to other topics, as there are so many to discuss in the kool-aid universe.

I also find it interesting that someone who admits to "not being a rocket scientist" - and presumably not an economist, academic, investment manager, or serial entrepreneur, either - attempts to "defend" the efforts of people like Peter Diamandis, Eric Andersen and Sir Richard Branson, without any real knowledge of their personal or business motivations for doing what they are doing. (In fact, if I were they I would not presume the need for such a defense, and would say so in no uncertain terms.)

Having said all that, I believe there is only one place where alt.space or New Space, as it were, can truly add value and make the ultimate human expansion into space possible, and that is "CRATS": Cheap and Reliable Access to Space. If that is not achieved, all the theme parks in the world will amount to nothing. I also submit that building lots of "spaceports" without certified "spaceships" to fly out of them on a regular basis could ultimately backfire on promoters and their investors. Those investors - assuming they're private - will be loathe to invest again, the industry will fail (again) to gain credibility, and yet another generation's time and energy will have been wasted going down a false road.

I'm 52 years old. I've already waited over 30 years for CRATS - if I have to wait another 30 I'll be investing in biotech and nanotech (but NOT alt.space!) simply to keep me alive and healthy long enough to finally see that day. (There are people who insist that the technological capability for CRATS is already available, and it's just a matter of getting rid of what is perceived as political, bureaucratic and budgetary constraints - but that is a topic for another series of posts - for now I'll just refer you to what I call the "three doctors paper".)

Moving on, I have to say that this quote floored me:

"But I don't see how theme park spaceports can hurt provided we do not expect too much from them."

[snark] Yes, "Mr. Bill"...I'm certain Diamandis, Branson and Andersen said that very same thing in their business proposals to take taxpayer's money in NM, Dubai, and Singapore [/snark].

But seriously - I'd bet potential investors in those theme parks - taxpayers in particular, who are involuntary - have a LOT of expectations for them, based on the hyperbole being pitched by the promoters themselves. They have been told to expect oodles and oodles of money flowing in through lots of repeat business.

What is the promoter's and pol's plan to pay back the tax money to the people being forced to subsidize these operations? There isn't one, because being a taxpayer means never having to receive value for their money, and being the politician who spends it means never having to apologize to them for throwing it away - they instead try and use it as a lever to higher office. (NM Gov. Bill Richardson, in particular, has Presidential aspirations, or so I've heard.) They just wave their arms and claim all that increased tourist activity will magically generate lots of taxable income to more than make up for the tax dollars being re-routed from other programs. That's going to be a big issue in NM in particular, which is technically one of the poorest states in the US. I haven't seen a definitive study verifying this, however.

No, going back to an earlier analogy, we should forget Tin Cup (which was an eminently forgettable film, in any event), and look instead at a Kevin Costner classic that unfortunately fits the alt.space world all too well - Field of Dreams. Most New Space companies' business plans are distilled directly from the major tagline from that film: "If you build it they will come". Even the most optimistic prognostication from the Futron study stated that, 15 years down the line, they, in fact, would not come, at least not at a rate sufficient to keep even one dedicated launch facility going at the level of the smallest terrestrial airport capable of handling a 737 or better.

"Mr. Bill", however, continues to insist that these very low flight rates don't matter - it's just the entertainment value that counts, and that's what will (somehow) keep people coming, to ultimately subsidize further R&D and pay back the poor taxpayers of NM. It ain't necessarily so. Let's go back to school, specifically Econ-101:

All risk capital - even capital stolen from taxpayers - has both an intrinsic and opportunity cost associated with it. The intrinsic cost is either straight-up interest for a banker, Return On Investment for venture cap, or net tax dollars funneled back into the system via increased taxable economic activity at the site - in the hopes that more comes in, net-net, than was spent out. The opportunity cost is an analysis of how well one might do investing in this particular opportunity as opposed to other competing opportunities, i.e., "what else may I be missing out on?".

The amount of capital out there - whatever its source - is limited. There is competition for that capital by businesses large and small who already understand how to turn a decent buck in established growth industries. If I have $100 million to invest, and I have to choose between a space theme park and the next generation microprocessor which has 100 times the speed at one tenth the heat output, what do you think I'll pick? A veritable minefield of a new industry with no track record and fraught with unknowns, or something where the market, customer base, and path to profitability is well understood?

Five so-called "spaceports" are being built when not a single commercial spacecraft has proven itself, let alone received an AST launch license. If you stick with the theme park business, however, you're now back in the Real World, a la The Matrix; in other words, you now find yourself in heavy competition with a LOT of other theme park chains who have have their marketing turf staked out quite well, not to mention cheaper rides. While there may be a lot of traffic initially due to the "novelty" value, it going to take a lot more than "build it and they will come" to keep customers coming back. Why? Because theme parks suffer another challenge: "seen one, seen 'em all". It costs a lot of money, creativity, and advertising to keep things fresh and tourists encouraged to return. Kids in particular outgrow things quickly.

I haven't been to Disneyland since I was 17, and was forced to shepherd my sister around. I took my daughter to Hershey Park when she was 12. Now she's 17 and would rather drive to Idaho with her friends to see the Red Hot Chili Peppers concert. Theme parks? Mickey Mouse? Fuhgedaboudit. Experiencing space tourism from the sidelines, which is what this is, will, like extreme sports, be done once or twice for the experience. Then, "Mr. Damn, Mrs. Damn and the whole Damn family" will go find something else to waste their 2-week vacation on in future years. The more adventurous will eventually tire of watching things from the sidelines, and will grow frustrated that the costs of the Real Thing haven't come down far enough to get within the Damn Family's budget.

Can the "Rocket Racing League" generate the interest, crowds, ad revenue and aftermarket sales as NASCAR? I will submit a qualified "no", for one reason - you can drive a NASCAR vehicle yourself, or mod something similar in your own garage, if you have the tools and desire. Ergo, people know they can go along for the ride if they wish, but are content for now to live vicariously through Dale Earnhardt, Jr. How many people will be building rocketplanes in their backyards? There is an initial "ohhhhh-ahhhh" factor, but it will once again wear off, just like Apollo and the Shuttle, as people realize this will never apply to their own lives and within their own budgets, any time soon. The "qualification" however, is that it's probably not the promoter's primary goal to make as much money/recognition as NASCAR does - perhaps only a small fraction will suffice to keep interest up, and development/sponsor dollars coming in.

Given that theme parks may not make the nut...space tourism itself definitely won't drive enough traffic soon enough to make a difference...so again, why is all this necessary, and how is it going to pay?? And before anyone tries try to lecture me that some taxpayers are in favor of subsidies to businesses - like building new ballparks to keep the major league team in town - those voters actually had a say in the matter on an actual bond issue at the ballot box.

Again, quoth Mr. Bill: "...should we hold Diamandis and Branson to a higher ethical standard than the NBA, NFL and major league baseball?"

Well, perhaps we should, actually(!) - but more to the point, the taxpayers themselves are now holding their own city governments to a higher standard. In the late 1980's, the owner of the San Francisco Giants, Bob Lurie tried twice to convince the voters of that fair city to subsidize the construction of a new ballpark at China Basin. The measure failed both times. But despite veiled threats, the Giants never left town. Ultimately a new China Basin ballpark was finally built, in 2000, but using private money. This has now become a curse for other baseball franchises seeking taxpayer help to build new ballparks in their towns.

However, nothing is mentioned about public plebiscites in any of the currently proposed "spaceport" areas.

The last thing that I thought was a bit over-the-top was this line: "...doing a makeover of a Lear-jet so it can fly in space is wicked cool...but no one should pretend that a made-over Lear-jet is on the critical path to anything more significant than an awesome episode of Monster-Garage."

That statement is just so wrong on two fronts: (1) the people at Rocketplane, who are leveraging millions to make their vision a reality, may not think of their efforts in that vein (and, like Peter D. and Sir Richard, may not appreciate someone like this as a self-appointed defender); and (2) we shouldn't think of anything in this area as "wicked cool" until the builders have proven it won't wickedly kill people right off the tarmac. Hyperbolic press releases notwithstanding, rocketry is a dangerous game, with a very real risk that someone will get maimed or killed in the process. Death of paying customers in a fireball or a crumpled fuselage is not "wicked cool", especially if one of those customers is friend or relative of yours.

Those promoting and attempting to build these theme-park-hybrid-space-carnivals may succeed very well, and God bless 'em if they do. They will take whatever tax subsidies they can get, as that is free money, and they have no responsibility to those taxpayers once the thing is built - if the traffic and increased tourism doesn't pan out in the long run, the pols will take the heat, but the promoters will cash in - maybe.

However to me, such projects are nothing more than a bread-and-circuses distraction. I'll probably be a customer myself this year, at XPrize Cup - nevertheless, I'm not in any way convinced these projects will seriously do much to help make CRATS a reality - and CRATS will be the only real legacy of New Space that will be worth writing about, to future historians. Fail in that, we fail everybody.

Port or Starboard?

2006-07-05T14:48:00.000-07:00

In his recent blog post: Agreement! At least I think so... Bill stated the following:

But I don't see how theme park spaceports can hurt provided we do not expect too much from them

They can hurt in one very obvious way: financial. You may not have an issue with governments expropriating taxpayers' money on these white elephants, but i do.

Some within the alt.space community chafe whenever the "wasting of tax dollars" argument is made, responding with the "well, they waste money on [insert program name here] so why shouldn't we spend it on space projects?" This is flawed for the very basic reason that two wrongs don't make a right. Note that they don't actually explain why it is *not* a waste of money, but rather try to use the tired "but they're doing it too" line which seems to be a justification for just about anything these days.

If someone wants to build a privately funded space themepark, a la Disneyland, i say good luck with that. But even in that case, there is a moral flaw in the argument made by most spaceport enthusiasts - the ones who sell the spaceport on its own merits (as a port) - to the non-space-savvy financial investors who may put $$$ in those spaceports.

Let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of space tragics do not have the financial wherewithall to finance their own small space projects, much less a hundred million dollar plus spaceport. That money comes from other sources - be it rich people who are sold the kool-aid of a space idea (and why do they always seem to go for building rockets, anyways?) or investment funds which are slowly duped by the repeated articles in the mainstream media (hardly a critical bunch these days anymore anyways, but that's a whole separate blog in itself).

The moral flaw is this: when you sell someone kool-aid, they usually are buyers because they like the flavour and want something sweet to drink. But if it's sold as a nutritional supplement that is good for building strong healthy teeth and bones, it's a lie. When you sell someone on the concept of a spaceport as an operating port that will make money through the large number of repeat flights from yet-to-be-built vehicles, it's no longer a dixie-cup filled with kool-aid for 10c from the kid with the stand, it's buying the entire Kool-Aid company.

And that just isn't right.

Ports and Theme Parks are Incompatible

2006-07-03T03:17:00.000-07:00

I see that someone has gone to considerable length to reply to my recent arguments concerning the economics of proposed "spaceports". The author apparently saw nothing amiss with the notion that it's OK to create a theme park atmosphere to attract customers at some level or another. In so doing, he unwittingly grants me the argument that commercial space tourism might never be able carry the load on its own to allow a spaceport to pay for itself. So instead we'll create a circus atmosphere with a few launches thrown in for the "ooooh-ahhhh!" factor. And that was the entire point of my piece.

While I mentioned the long term potential of point-to-point suborbital flight, I never suggested that it would be the "killer app" justifying spaceports, but rather a long term commercial justification for heavy investment in the technology itself. Such craft may not ultimately require a "spaceport", perhaps a major-sized international airport, retrofit with custom facilities, would suffice - I don't know. But either way, whatever scenario plays out will be a long time in coming.

Where our understanding breaks down, perhaps, is in the use of the term "spaceport" itself.

By common convention, a "port" is a place where people or cargo embark or disembark to or from other places. The business of a port is to achieve this as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. No more, no less. They manage lots of traffic into and out of their hub of influence, because that's all their customers expect of them. If we stick with the gaming analogy, these people don't "play golf with only one club", because they're not playing golf at all. They're playing darts - all tightly focused on a single goal - get something from here to somewhere else, or get something from somewhere else safely here - and they want to hit bullseyes every time, 24/7/365.

People go to "airports" because they are going somewhere, and are focused on getting there as quickly and comfortably as possible. The design and function of airports support that singular purpose. While there are many 3rd-party support services that airports offer, from food to magazines to liquor to internet access, it is still with the understanding that their customers are just "passing through", for a handful of hours at most, so the marketing goal is one of convenience, solving a personal emergency, or encouraging a last minute "impulse buy" before getting on the plane.

"Seaports" move massive amounts of cargo that we import from foreign lands off of container ships to waiting trains and trucks, which in turn move those goods to other destinations further inland, where those who purchased the goods are patiently waiting. Those containers are refilled with US-made goods to transport, via the same ports, to buyers in other nations.

In short, those things we call "ports" exist to serve travel and commerce, and nothing else. They are not tourist play destinations.

So when I hear the word "spaceport", I envision something similar, a place through which people and goods are moved efficiently and economically from point to point, only the "points" we think of are either on the opposite side of the planet, or off the planet entirely. But you don't go there to gamble, to engage in "space entertainment" or just to watch a launch (unless a friend or relative is about to take a flight).

Plus, if some miracle happened, and we really did one day get all that passenger traffic promised by the kool-aid sellers, wouldn't all those milling about, partying non-travelers just get in the way? How would LaGuardia, for example, which moves up to 25,000 passengers a day, function if a lot of non-traveling people showed up and just hung around for hours and days, clogging the parking lots, access roads, and restaurants? A potential "spaceport" in particular, may have other problems associated with it (such as noise or exotic fuel handling) that would require it to be much further removed from the nearest hub of civilization, thus creating a specific marketing challenge in attracting people to go the extra distance. This could be mitigated by requiring space tourist vehicles be limited to smaller craft that piggyback on more conventional jets - but again, those could conceivably be launched from more conventional airports, thus obviating the need for and expense of a specialized facility.

If one grants (however reluctantly) that traffic alone won't even come close to covering the expenses, then perhaps a multifunction theme park is the best way to make the business case for those the promoters want to foot the startup costs. But if non space launch activities are touted as being the largest proportion of total business, as a potential investor I would still want to know precisely how these activities contribute to the total bottom line. And I would still submit that this is NOT a "spaceport". It's something else, but it's not a spaceport, and therefore anyone who insists on calling it that is being disingenuous - especially to potential investors.

Ports and theme parks are conflicting, and therefore incompatible entities, as they serve entirely different functions. One can't effectively combine them into a single thing. All I'm suggesting is that promoters of such, in the space commerce arena, should exhibit more honesty in their intentions.

X-Treme Ports

2006-06-18T17:03:00.000-07:00

I usually think of an "extreme sport" as anything that will kill you if either you or your equipment (or both) screw up at a really inopportune moment. Ergo, I consider white water rafting, skydiving, ultralight aircraft, rock climbing, and scuba diving in that genre - the low-end of it, at least. I used to rock climb in my younger days (when there was less of me to have to pull up the rock), and still enjoy to this day an occasional coral reef dive down to 80 feet or so. If you get good training, develop some skills, know your limits, and maintain your equipment, the risks inherent in these activities can be well managed.

Millions of people throughout the world indulge in these hobbies every year, with low rates of injury or loss of life. They come back to do it again, year after year. One reason, in addition to the adrenaline rush, is the managed risk. Another is that these sports are relatively economical to engage in, all things considered, well within reach of the middle classes of most industrialized nations.

But then we go up the "risk spectrum". There are other extreme activities that are often far more expensive to do, come with far greater risks, and are generally engaged in only a few times in one's life, perhaps only once. One example of this is high-end mountaineering. One may train climbing smaller peaks in Colorado and Alaska for many years at great expense, before ultimately committing a significant portion of one's income/savings on a one-time shot at Everest. These people will spend tens of thousands to achieve this goal, at the real risk of nasty death, or falling and simply being left for dead by one's companions.

Other expensive "extremes" would include things like riding a supersonic jet fighter into the stratosphere, high altitude balloon rides, Formula One race driving, or taking a submersible over a mile under the ocean. These activities cost a lot of money, and most people who do them generally only get to do them once, perhaps more if they're wealthier. As such, the available pool of customers for such experiences is only a small fraction of that for scuba or kayaking.

So when I see governments and private consortiums working hand in glove to commit hundreds of millions of dollars, all over the world, to build commercial "spaceports" in support of space tourism, I get a bit confused. At the current ticket prices being discussed, it is clear to me that "early adopter" space tourists fall in the high-end of the risk spectrum, and have only the fiscal resources for a once-in-a-lifetime shot at it. There will be no repeat business. The supply of customers at that level are far from infinite, and a quick look at the numbers indicates there may not be high enough a flight rate to justify the construction of a single spaceport at this fragile stage of the game, let alone four - two in the US, and one each in Dubai and Singapore. As near as I can estimate, the initial combined price tags for these facilities will be US$ 705 million, the funding being provided by a combination of governments and a "consortium of investors". Thus far, the actual cash commitments are in the low tens of $ millions, mostly from governments - the "consortium" dollars have been few, to date, although much more is promised by year's end.

Commercial airports today - a well established mature industry - are usually run under a "port authority" model. Not quite private, not quite government, they're an independent chartered authority which can levy ticket taxes, take out bond issues, and get federal and state funding for key infrastructure development or repair via their respective Departments of Transportation. They also charge landing and gate fees to individual airlines. They stay ahead of the game fiscally because of high volume.

For any spaceport to be economically viable, it's going to need lots of competing spacelines with significant flight rates and passenger throughput that pay the taxes and fees. In the airline business, the high flight rates are a result of lots of repeat business, as commercial air travel is on the same cost and safety level as low-end extreme sports. I would posit that, due to the risk factors and the high price tag, space tourism is more akin to climbing Everest. Ergo, potential future spaceports are going to have to find a different operational model in order to stay afloat. Let's look at some numbers...

The 2004 Futron study is generally one that the alt.space community likes to hang its hat on, so I'm content to go with that.

Right off the bat, however, we have a problem, because the study predicted commercial flights commencing in 2006. Oops...OK, things happen - so we'll just move that hockey stick back a couple of years. Ah, but then again, I don't want to fall into the same trap as many alt.spacers do (I was even guilty of it once, myself!), so I'll just say "Year 1", or "Year 15" as opposed to "2006" or "2021".

The Futron study projects that in Year 1, there will be 356 suborbital space tourists at an average ticket price of $100k, for a gross revenue of $36 million. They claim that the flight curve will grow such that, by Year 15, there will be 15,712 passengers at an average ticket price of $50k, for a total industry gross revenue of $786 million. That sounds great, except that everybody needs to get paid, and on the surface, there doesn't seem to be enough revenue to go around.

If you build a $225 million spaceport, there are going to be significant operational costs, including traffic control, security, and especially the cost of insurance, which will be quite high the first decade or so of operation. These costs will run into the millions, annually, and will only be partially passed on to the spacelines and their passengers with standard fee and ticket tax structures, at first. There will also be special facilities needed for the spaceflight participants themselves, as they will be subject to last minute preflight medical checks per FAA regs - this is not a "show your boarding pass and take your seat" affair. Those facilities and the high-end technical staff also cost money to maintain. There will have to be emergency services made available in the event of a launch failure/abort, as well as more elaborate flight safety systems, due to the potentially exotic nature of the fuels used. $36 million in gross revenue, spread across four spaceports, won't begin to cut it - ergo, we're looking at subsidies or sustainable private capital losses for "consortia" the first few years.

According to an MIT study, airline ticket taxes were an average of 16.1% in 2004. So that $100k ride now costs $116,100. At $9 million in gross revenue per spaceport, that's only $1.45 million in tax for the port. Landing fees have traditionally been assessed as a function of Gross Take-Of Weight (GTOW), and gate fees are charged based on the passenger carrying capacity of the airplane. For sub-orbital space tourism, the spacecraft will be at or less than the weight of a small business jet, and will probably not seat more than six passengers and two crew. So there will not be a lot of operational revenue for the spaceport there, under traditional models.

Out of the gross revenues, spacelines also have to meet their own expenses and pay the costs of their own capitalizations. But if port fees and ticket taxes become prohibitive, due to the spaceport's unique maintenance requirements, it could slow potential tourist traffic, thus hurting revenues.

$36 million in ticket revenues means, at $100k per ticket, only 15 flights the first year, carrying an average of six passengers each, by a single local spaceline operating out of each spaceport. That averages only one flight every 3.5 weeks. Revenues aren't projected to double until Year 4. They double again in Year 6, but then we're still only talking $40 million per year per spaceport, and $6.44 million in ticket tax collection. Now we're up to one flight per day per spaceport - still, hardly the stuff caviar dreams are made of, if you are the SpacePort Authority of Dubai. That's also a significant time for private consortia or port authority bondholders to hang on for a return.

So lets push ahead to Year 15, where there are 15,712 projected passengers generating $786 million in gross revenue at a ticket price of $50k. That still only generates $31.6 million in ticket tax revenue per spaceport, and a flight rate of 18 every ten days at each port. Being forced to wait 15 years for even those numbers, it hardly seems to justify a $225 million investment in a spaceport for its own sake. This is why the current spaceport plans being offered have more of a theme park quality to them, offering a "complete space experience", including parabolic flights, training facilities, full-scale pay-to-play simulators, hotels, etc. (Perhaps they'll add casinos!) The revenues from these sideline operations could actually provide some sort of payback to investors.

I am accepting, for the sake of argument, the projected Futron flight rates from whole cloth, although there is little hard evidence in support of this. Also, those passenger levels assumed the tourist would be in their seat the entire time. The numbers were far more generous if the tourists were allowed to leave their seats during the flight to have a more complete experience of microgravity. Even so, they only project around 25,000 paying passengers at Year 15, as again, straight up and down sub-orbital tourism, at even $50k a pop, is going to be a one-time shot for high-rollers. Plus, the jury is still out regarding safety issues over the notion of allowing the passengers to float around the cabin.

What could be a revenue machine, however, in 15-20 year's time, is directed point-to-point suborbital travel, be it package delivery or high-end business travelers. But presumably another zero is going to have to be dropped from the price to make such passenger travel popular enough to demand high flight rates in and out of busy spaceports. Private investor consortia in such facilities are going to have to wait a long time for their returns, unless the theme park model becomes sufficiently successful to drive profits on its own, in which case they stick the host governments with the tab for the annual operations shortfall. But those governments may pony up, just to enjoy the "prestige value" of having a spaceport.

In the meantime, spacecraft capable of sustaining even these minimal flight rates, regularly and in safety, have yet to be demonstrated. This whole thing, to me, is akin to the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, saying at the end of the day, "OK, we've had four successful flights. Now, lets go build O'Hare!"

PT Barnum is smiling.

A "Space" Business Gets Launched

2006-06-12T20:03:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the slight delay in posting recently - i've been busy helping* a new exciting startup company get through their initial launch this weekend with their first customer, and they are already generating revenue!

The company, comprised mainly of young smart space tragics, is only tangentially related to space, in that one of the key components of their system is taken from the free signals being provided by the GPS constellation. The rest of the technology comes from the internet and wireless world, and combines some great bits of clever engineering/integration to go after a wide open, multi-billion dollar market.

So, without further ado, I'd just like to offer a huge congratulations to the team at SnowSports Interactive and the launch of their whispar service at Mt. Buller in Victoria (that's in Australia). Special congratulations to Steve Kenny, the Managing Director/CEO, for taking them from idea to implementation in 7 short months.

* "helping" - v. normally means to assist, but mostly i just stood by the sidelines and cheered them on.

The Problem with SSP

2006-06-01T06:17:00.000-07:00

I was asked to write up some thoughts on Space Solar Power, so here they are - stream of conscious and all that. I wrote this even though the last time I had the gall to say such things (in Space News) i was excoriated by members of alt.space for attacking one of the holy grails of space development.

In the sure to be immortalised words of our current War President - "Bring 'em on!"
___

SSP advocates point to the ability geostationary based SSP stations to provide clean abundant energy by harnessing solar power and retransmitting to Earth in the form of microwave energy, to be converted at ground-based stations into cheap energy for terrestrial uses.

There are a large number of factors which, at this time, call into question the feasibility of SSP - these can be grouped into two primary categories: economic and technological.

As I am not an engineer by trade, i will refrain from getting into power efficiency, conversion ratios, or other factors which others have pointed to when comparing SSP to existing terrestrial-based power systems (such as nuclear and wind). These tradeoffs in efficiency and the economics of the power generated by SSP vis a vis terrestrial means are fairly well argued out by others. There is one glaring unknown which also forms the basis for my position against the viability of SSP at this point in time.

Simply put - with today's space technology, we are supremely unprepared for the task of building a SSP generating station. Current designs that have been put out to the masses call for a facility at geostationary orbit which is many times the size & mass of the ISS. There are significant major problems that immediately come to mind:

1) we've never designed and built even a prototype SSP. So even if we wanted to, we couldn't just "build" one today from scratch without first going through numerous teething pains designing, building, and testing prototypes until we finally had it working correctly. And that includes building and testing IN SPACE, not just on the ground.

2) which leads to the second issue - R&D and Operations are two very different things. These are often confused by true believers, or the difference is knowingly trivialised as "just an engineering problem". But work I did studying commercialisation of ISS highlights the same problem. The ISS was touted as a great R&D facility - as was the Wake Shield Facility before it. However, what was never examined was the practicality of production of a material that was first discovered during zero-G research. A practical example: WSF demonstrated that it was possible to create an ultra-pure vacuum environment, which could be used for making better raw materials for computer chips. However, there is a huge gap between making a few test raw material articles in basic R&D and building a zero-G chip fabrication facility in space...

3) so let's assume for a moment that we can actually design and fly a few prototype power stations (big assumption). There do not exist today any launch vehicles capable of lifting a complete item to GEO that is as large or larger than ISS. Which means that we'd need MANY large launch vehicles (likely hundreds) to put the components of this hypothetical SSP into GEO. Then we'd have to assemble it. Except that this assembly would have to be automated, as the last time we had an astronaut at GEO or beyond was in 1972. Which means developing brand new capabilities, as the assembly and ongoing construction of ISS continues to demonstrate just how difficult it is to build a relatively small facility only a couple hundred miles up.

Some day, when we have solved the single most important aspect that is critical to all long term space development - that is cheap, realiable, reusable, access to space (under $100/lb to orbit), THEN things like SSP (and space elevators, and L5 colonies, and insert your favourite space development idea here) will be possible. But for now, it is just another bit of science fiction -- because of economics and existing engineering know how.

Kool-Aid lessons from South Park

2006-05-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

A truly classic South Park episode, aired a few years back, still offers valuable lessons for investors, not just in space, but really any industry.

In this episode, the boy's teacher assigns a report on current events. Being totally unschooled in such, they instead decide to write about mysterious "underpants gnomes" that have been spied stealing underwear from their dressers.

The boys followed the gnomes to a huge cavern, which was filled to the top with purloined undergarments and gnomes busily processing them. When questioned about their activity, the gnomes produced a business plan:

Gnome 1: Collecting underpants is just phase one. Phase one: collect underpants.

Kyle: So what's phase two?

[Silence]

Gnome 1: Hey, what's phase two?!

Gnome 2: Phase one: we collect underpants.

Gnome 1: Ya, ya, ya. But what about phase two?

[Silence]

Gnome 2: Well, phase three is profit. Get it?

Stan: I don't get it.

Gnome 2: (Goes over to a chart on the wall) You see, Phase one: collect underpants, phase two-
[Silence]

Gnome 2: Phase three: profit.

Cartman: Oh I get it.

Stan: No you don't.

Kyle: Do you guys know anything about corporations?

Gnome 2: You bet we do.

Gnome 1: Us gnomes are geniuses at corporations.

Does this sound familiar to readers of this column? It could be argued that the gnomes' underpants business is a lot like the way many alt.space firm's business concepts are expressed:

Phase 1: Develop cool new launch system for passengers or freight in Year 20xx

Phase 2: [intentionally left blank]

Phase 3: Make oodles of money (in Year 20xx + 2) flying 50-100 flights a year in a fully mature industry with lots of market demand.

This is where I see the greatest disconnect in the alt.space community. They skip Phase 2 - which is actually the hardest part - developing and following a realistic roadmap from engineering prototype to 50 flights a year. That market demand cannot be demonstrated to exist at present - one has to create it. Large serious investors are going to want to know precisely how that is going to be accomplished - and within that 2-3 year time frame that always seems to be part and parcel of the business plan.

For a decade or more I've seen a lot folks who say they'll be up and running in a couple of years - and they're still out there, and it's still only a couple more years down the road. One company, for example, made a big splash in 2004, coinciding with the Aldridge hearings, claiming they'd be flying by 2006. 2006 is almost half over, and I haven't seen any more press releases of late. Not that I was expecting any.

Point is, when you're doing due diligence on a company - and that could be any company, not just alt.space - make sure they've got all three phases nailed down. You don't want to lose your shorts.

Professor L Speaks Out On The Space Radiation Issue

2006-05-27T11:08:00.000-07:00

I've been following the discussion on this site and others regarding two recent articles on space radiation. The first article appeared in the March 2006 edition of Scientific American. This article was written by Eugene N. Parker. The second article appeared in the June 2006 issue of Discover Magazine and was written by M.G. Lord. This article is titled "Are We Trapped On Earth? Impossible Journey."

While I have my own thoughts on what is valid about the issue of cosmic radiation and its effect on long term space flight participants, I won't share them with you at this time. Instead, I want to urge those interested in this discussion to do your own checking of the sources and make up your own mind as to which side of the discussion you believe to be more valid or completely valid. Since I have in front of me the two articles referenced above, I can easily list the sources from both articles and the URLs where readers can find out more about the radiation issue directly from the sources used for the articles.

Clark, because I do not have any sources handy for the information you cite, can you please post a comment to this message and list some sources and URLs for interested readers to find out more about what your are talking about and suggesting? Even a mini-literature search would suffice.

Again, those of you interested in this subject, check out the sources used by the writers of the articles and by Clark. Then make up your own mind as to the validity of the arguments on either side of the issue regarding cosmic rays and humans in space. Remember, a key component in critical thinking and discernment is that you compel yourself to step outside your own point view, your own prejudice and your own agenda. You want to be as unbiased as possible and open minded as possible so your critical thinking and discernment skills can kick in.

If you do check out the source material on this topic, which by the way is an important topic and this is an important discussion, please post your thought, analysis, and conclusions here on Space-Cynic.

Thanks. Happy researching to each of you.

Sources: These sources are not meant to be the final word on this subject. They are simply starters for your research and were cited by the magazine articles. Obviously to do proper research and due diligence, your own source investigation should include additional sources on both sides of the issue. But this is a good list for starters.

Scientific America:
Eugene N. Parker: http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Parker/ParkerRefs.html

http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/parker.html

Office of Aerospace Medicine Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, FAA: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/

Dr. Wallace Friedberg:: http://www.mmac.faa.gov/intercom/010511.htm
Into fencing? Meet ‘The Wall.’Radiation biologist thrust of awardBy Mike WaydaWhile he may appear mild-mannered to his colleagues at the Civil Aeromedical Institute, Dr. Wallace Friedberg, FAA radiation biologist, is known as "The Wall" to his fencing competitors. 'The Wall': CAMI's Dr. Friedberg in fencing gear.Friedberg, a long-time devotee of the sport of fencing, was recently honored by the Redlands Fencing Club with a lifetime achievement award for his 30-plus years of participating in and promoting the sport.

Before participating in an Oklahoma-wide tournament on March 24, Friedberg was presented with the award, which came as a "big surprise" to him. When asked what one would need to do to win a lifetime achievement trophy, he said, "You have to be able to survive and to persevere."

In one of his very early matches, Friedberg was somehow wounded and needed a few stitches in his hand. He survived that, as well as other challenges in his life, including a bout with cancer, and he has persevered in his pursuit of excellence in the sport -- and at work.
In 1960, Friedberg joined the staff of the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, as it was known then. He was among a group of researchers and scientists who were hired first to work at the FAA institute. He and two other CAMI employees are now the only ones of the original "dinosaurs," as they referred to themselves, still working after 41 years.
Friedberg says he takes fencing "very seriously," practicing and taking lessons on a regular basis. He is expert in the épée, a time-honored weapon wielded in fencing competitions, and he has won the state championship several times.
As a competitor, the 73-year-old Friedberg is acknowledged as being anything other than mild-mannered. ###(Wayda is editor of The Federal Air Surgeon’s Medical Bulletin, his report appears in the Spring, 2001 ed.)

Space Radiation Shielding Program at Marshall Space Flight Center:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2003/03-183.html
http://server.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/nsrl/index.html

Radiation Shielding for Human Interplanetary Exploration and Discovery, a NASA sponsored workshop for the Univ. of Michigan: http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/Radiation/

Samuel C.C. Ting, MIT: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1976/ting-autobio.html

National Space Radiation Lab at Brookhaven National Laboratory:
http://www.bnl.gov/medical/NASA/NSRL_description.asp

Discover Magazine:
Francis Cucinotta, Chief Scientist at NASA's radiation program:
http://www.islandone.org/ISDC/ISDC1999_Houston/ISDC99-Abstracts_CD/NSS%20Bios/Francis%20Cucinotta.pdf

Jacob Bloomberg, Neuroscientist at Johnson Space Center
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/64087main_ffs_bio_bloomberg.pdf

Dr. Marcelo Vazquez, Brookhaven National Labs
http://www.bnl.gov/medical/Personnel/Vazquez/default.htm

Duane Pierson, NASA Microbiologist:
http://www.isso.uh.edu/postdoc/2004/fox.htm scroll to the bottom of this page for a brief biography of Dr. Pierson. His papers on radiation topics can be found on the web using Google.

John Charles, NASA Space Life Sciences Division:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/people/to-p-t-charles.htm

Shannon Lucid: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/lucid.html

Mike Fincke: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/fincke.html

Dr. Lakshmi Putcha: lputcha@ems.jsc.nasa.gov Pharmacotherapeturics researcher at Life Sciences Lab at Johnson.

The 5% solution

2006-05-26T04:27:00.000-07:00

Hasty generalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hasty generalization, also known as "fallacy of insufficient statistics", "fallacy of insufficient sample", "fallacy of the lonely fact", "leaping to a conclusion", "hasty induction", "law of small numbers" or "secundum quid", is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence.

Examples with contradictions
"I loved the hit song, therefore I'll love the album it's on": Fallacious because the album might have one good song and lots of filler.
"This Web site looks OK to me on my computer; therefore, it will look OK on your computer, too": Fallacious because many computers present content differently.

_________________

So why did I post this seemingly random snippet from Wikipedia?

This comment was made in an earlier post, and i thought it deserved to be highlighted as a separate posting:

That's why over ninety percent of such startups fail. And that just doesn't apply to alt.space or dot.com. In the early 80s, it was personal computers. Anyone remember the Osbourn?

Of course even knowing how to run a business is no guaruntee of success. Andy Beal is a great banker. His launch company failed when the market collapsed on the late 90s.

In the great scheme of things it doesn't matter. The five or so percent of alt.space companies that succeed will change the course of history.

So here is the issue i have with statements like this - it is the same fallacy that many VCs (and everyday investors who followed the investments of those VCs) made during the dot com bubble.

In the traditional VC world (you know, the guys who were around in the 70s and 80s, long before it was "hip" to be a VC and all you needed was an MBA from the right east coast school...), the venture capitalist was someone who had built and run one or more successful businesses, made a decent pile of money, and was looking to help the next generation of entrepreneurs build more great businesses.

These "Old School VCs" (OSVCs) would do incredible due diligence in the process of deciding whom to invest in - it was about more than JUST the business, it was about the management, too. But good management and a BS market was still BS. This due diligence was NOT, unlike today's New School VC (NSVCs) model, about waiting until another VC came in and then jumping in too, pretending to do proper analysis while blindly chucking in millions of dollars into a venture because "Benchmark Capital" or (insert big name VC here) had already agreed to invest.

THIS IS NOT DUE DILIGENCE, FOLKS.

It's betting that someone ELSE has done the homework, and just copying their answers.

So, back to the OSVCs. What they found, over time, was that if they were to invest in 20 companies, ALL of which had been grilled through the harsh cold logic of the OSVC due diligence machine, the performance would be something sort of like this:

10 failed

6 muddled along

2-3 did ok

1-2 were home runs

So out of 20 seemingly sound investments, 5-10% actually became winners. The rest were dead, walking dead, or just poor performers.

This statistic was regularly abused by the NSVCs (and still is) - in that they first deluded themselves, and then the larger investment community (including individual shareholders) that they actually understood how this model works.

It's not enough to just make 20 investments. you have to make 20 SOUND investments, and even then you can only hope to get a 5-10% hit rate. But if you invest in stupid businesses like pets.com and 19 similar ventures that show a fundamental inability to grasp what the WWW actually was (a distribution channel, not a manna from heaven), then you are likely to have a 0% success rate. 20 bad bets won't get you the distribution of wins/losses that 20 good investments will.

So, in the alt.space context - in isn't simply enough that there are lots of startup companies out there all seeking funding. There have to be lots of OSVC-ready companies - and even then, if we're lucky, 5% of them will be successes.

My other little quibble with the comment from above that i used to start this blog is regarding Andy Beal. His rocket company didn't fail because the market collapsed in the late 90s. That "market" was a paper one, based on fictitious satellites that would never see the light of day and the VAST majority of which were never funded. Building a rocket company on the late 90s launch industry market forecasts for satellite demand was a recipe for failure. As he found.

Why Slam?

2006-05-24T17:41:00.000-07:00

Dan Schrimpsher asked a perfectly reasonable question after I recently slammed a blogger for pooh-poohing the radiation hazards of manned space flight to Mars, although I believe he over-reacted. Dan wonders why I would slam a blogger for his opinion if he isn't asking for money.

There are 2 reasons:

First, anyone is entitled to his or her opinions whether supported by fact, fantasy, or floating in Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, many of the opinions floating in the blogosphere are not supported by fact, but by speculation or ignorance. When such speculation or ignorant opining is repeated sufficiently, it starts assuming the aura of fact with other people who do not have the time to examine primary sources in detail or the knowledge base to discriminate. That eventually leads to Lysenkoism, people who believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, and (my personal favorite) people who believe that the USA never put men on the Moon. Therefore, errors of fact and of interpretation need to be identified and exposed. That is one goal of The Space Cynic. Unfortunately, taking down the blog in question about space-flight radiation biohazards in detail, with references to well-documented sources, would take far more time and space than I am willing to consume with a point by point rebuttal that would be understood by an average, but interested, reader. Instead, the interested person should reread the critical blog, then reread the Scientific American article carefully, and then do whatever research he or she needs to conduct within the primary literature in order for form a conclusion what would stand up to careful review. I do believe that the blogger in question, while sincere, grossly oversimplifies the ability of our current technology and knowledge base to deal with the radiation hazards of transporting people to Mars. That seems to be a common occurrence with space flight enthusiasts coming from the physical sciences when considering biomedical risks. It is easy to postulate surrounding a crew cabin with fuel for shielding. What happens when the fuel is consumed for the return trip? In the abstract, you may be willing to take on an additional risk of 50% of dying from a radiation-induced cancer in exchange for a trip to Mars, but would the NRC permit you to assume that risk? Are you willing to damage your future children for the ride? Quit dismissing the problem out of hand and consider the ramifications of high dose radiation exposure -- especially since dose levels have not been precisely defined.

Second, with one exception, I do not care what people do with their own money. They are perfectly free to earn it and spend it as they wish. (I do -- I am currently invested in three alt.space start-ups and had been but no longer am invested in another.) They can even burn it in their front yards for all I care. Elon Musk is a case in point. He is spending his own money to pursue his goals. Good luck to him. I do care when people start asking for other people's money to do great things rather than using their own. That comes about when apparently sincere people say they can give the human race cheap access to space for (insert your number here) dollars, but their proposals do not stand up to careful examination. We are not likely to be taking tourists to Mars or Venus within a decade or two with Apollo-era technology. That is especially true with a company that has yet to get anything into even suborbital space. That some people are ignorant enough to "buy a ticket" is a sad commentary on them, but the people accepting the money for that purpose are, in my opinion, skirting fraud at worst and exploiting ignorance and dreams at best. They are dispensing Kool-Aid. What is the exception I mentioned above? Using one's own money to deliberately misinform the public.

Kool-Aid Filter for Alt.Space

2006-05-24T17:35:00.000-07:00

Space Cynic

There seems to be some confusion about defining what is and is not Kool-Aid in alt.space. The following, reprinted with permission, can be used as a Kool-Aid filter when applied to your favorite alt.space start-up:

If you see any of the following, run away --

1. The principals cannot understand why the coolness factor is not enough to get capital.
2. The principals adhere to the “build it and they will come philosophy” instead of specifically defining their market by depth and size in their business plan.
3. The principals do not carefully adhere to securities rules and fail to give at least quarterly financial reports to their investors.
4. The principals aspire to increase capitalization by orders of magnitude, as in having raised and spent $500 Thousand, they now want to raise $50 Million without a track record or a clear implementation plan.
5. The principals dismiss other disciplinary contributions – “We are great engineers and don’t need a finance person’s help (by the way, what does ‘present value’ mean?).”
6. The principals casually talk about staff expansion by orders of magnitude – “There are 2 of us, but we will hire 50 engineers and technicians the month after we raise the money and fly within 2 years.” Yet, none of the principals have ever run a group of 50 engineers and technicians.
7. The principals display a casual attitude about angel investors and shareholders in a closely held corporation – “It is my playground, don’t bother me.”
8. The principals don’t have adequate tracking and business systems in place – “We will implement them when we need them.”
9. The web site uses the present tense to describe concepts without associated hardware – “We offer cheap access to LEO.” This is akin to vaporware in the software industry.
10. The announced corporate goals expand faster than milestone achievements. For example, the first announced goal of achieving LEO is renounced in favor of the goal of rescuing the Hubble telescope without ever achieving LEO.
11. Logos and logo shirts from Lands End cost more than the rockets they have built.
12. The principals cannot convincingly demonstrate an annual ROI of at least 20 percent.
13. The organization displays obsessive secrecy about plans, markets, progress, etc.
14. A balance sheet with intellectual property dominating the asset list.
15. There is no realistic budget allocation for regulatory compliance, licensing, etc.
16. The principals appear to be more interested in talking to CNN about future dreams than in working to make those dreams happen.

More on Dreams, Fantasies, and Kool-aid

2006-05-24T09:09:00.000-07:00

I have to agree with Shubber that indeed this humble little blog appears to have ruffled some feathers here and there. Some offline criticisms - gleaned via internal e-mail threads passed around among ourselves - indicates we're still not being clear enough in our definitions of what constitutes a "dream" alt.space company, versus that of a "fantasy" or "kool-aid" firm. Allow me a chance to effect some clarification.

Over a year ago, I, my business partner Paul Contursi, and the good "Professor L" on these pages joint-published an article in The Space Review entitled "The 'signal-to-noise ratio' in financing new space startups". Within that piece were some succinct "gotcha" bullet points making our arguments - what we think of as the "top eight warning signals" of a fantasy or kool-aid enterprise. There are no doubt more...but I'll list the abbreviated version here, and direct you to the original piece for further explanation. You are probably a kool-aid company if you exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Unwillingness or inability to identify the team. Most often, a serious space enterprise needs technical experts, managers, financial specialists, marketing people, and other skilled professionals to succeed. That team is essential, and any space entrepreneur who won’t discuss the identity of their team or the skills that its members bring to the table is suspect.

2. Nebulous funding sources. Be wary of space enterprises that rely on exotic sources of capital that they try to explain away with unintelligible legalese, or, even worse, refuse to specify their sources of capital or guidelines for obtaining it at all. Make sure their fundraising mechanisms are in line with federal and state securities regulations, when necessary, before going any further.

3. Any combined mention of the words “billion” and “dollars” with a straight face. Startups looking for eight- or nine-figure capitalizations in the currently embryonic state of the commercial space sector are extremely questionable. The reality is that the total private capitalization in the “New Space” companies to date is probably somewhere close to $200–300 million. This is a nascent industry with little to show so far in the way of an overall track record.

4. Rampant cluelessness about the target market. Constantly ask the questions, “Who are your customers? How much are they willing to pay for your product or service? How do you plan to attract and retain those customers? What are the opportunities for repeat business?” For example, we certainly look forward to the day when solar power satellites are a viable enterprise, but not while customers can easily today acquire electricity at a fourth of the kilowatt/hour rate suggested by the current promoters of space-based systems.

5. Large quantities of “unobtainium” in the business plan. Dependence upon technologies or exotic materials that do not yet exist is often a sign of trouble. The same is true for speculative propulsion claims that fly in the face of the laws of physics or “get around” the rocket equation.

6. Dismissal or denial of regulatory considerations. If entrepreneurs dodge the question of how they will deal with the constraints of federal and/or state regulatory requirements they are at best naïve, and at worst might have something serious to hide.

7. Playing the conspiracy card. Be wary of people who claim that their business plans have been impeded in the past by a grand conspiracy on the part of Big Business, Big Government, etc. “Evil forces” working in the background are far too convenient scapegoats, as opposed to poor planning, unachievable goals, and lack of research.

8. A tendency for monomania. Be cautious of anyone who tries to convince you that his or her proposed product or service is “the only way” to solve a particular space business or technology problem. Common sense alone suggests that is a false premise.

I hope this sheds some light.

Belated ISDC Notes

My own experiences at ISDC - kool-aid or otherwise - were mixed.

The first presentation I attended was a bit haunting - it was by Klaus Heiss, seeking apparently to purge some personal demons from his own early involvement in development of the Shuttle. At one point, when reminiscing over a key engine decision in the early 70's, the bullet point on the slide said, in bold letters: "I SHOULD HAVE LIED". His belief was had key decisions gone in a different direction, the history of the last 30+ years would have been very different. (He told me later, "The truth is sometimes painful.")

I spent a lot of time in Mike Mealling's business track. There were some very valuable presentations there, including a "seminar" from Art Dula that was a classic, and I highly recommend as a "must-see", if you can get hold of the tape.

But...there was also a guy who wanted $4 Billion to set up mining ops and bases on the moon, along with the ubiquitous lunar mass driver to feed a fuel dump in LEO - the unobtainium, of course, being paid for by an unnamed consortium of 10 large corporations who would kick in $400M each for the development costs. I must admit I snapped like a rubber band at this guy, to the great delight and entertainment of the 6 or so people in attendance that afternoon.

Earlier, I had spent the morning in a track on space medicine, much of which was very enlightening. But then there was the Brit architect who showed off his design for a Mars base, apparently on a grant from the British Interplanetary Society. It had six discrete modules, each simulating a different earthly environment (from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam, etc. etc.). They would be launched separately, land in the same place, and built-in robotics would assemble them before the first human crews set out. However, there was no thought to actual program planning, costs, or real-world contingencies.

Clearly billions of public dollars would have to be committed to a project like this, and there was no failure factor. So I asked him, "What if one of the modules fails to land properly and is destroyed on impact? Can you make do with 5 or even 4 of the modules and save the mission?" He clearly did not expect a question such as this, and replied nervously, "Well, we just wouldn't launch the crew." $100+ billion project on the line and you just "wouldn't launch". I kept thinking of Robert Scott and the ill fated British Antarctic Expedition, with their stockpiles of sherry and fine china, in contrast to all the things Roald Amundsen did right, and on half the budget. I wished at that moment Bob Zubrin had been in the room to give the guy an earful. The BIS should ask for its money back.

"If I were a rich man..."

I also got 2nd-hand flack at ISDC from some people who were apparently offended and shocked by my assertion that, if serious funding (i.e., $500M+) were raised tomorrow, via a mutual fund mechanism or something similar, that there weren't sufficient investment opportunities in alt.space alone to justify a major commitment of VC dollars. There would have to be serious diversification of investments in technologies 'around the margins' of space to ensure a good return. The criticisms were of the type "He doesn't know what he's talking about - I know how I'D invest...blah-blah-de-blah, huff-huff-huff", followed by a laundry list of either fantasy/kool-aid firms, or firms that may have some customers and an income stream, but whose financial dealings and/or business ethics may be mildly suspect.

Right now, truth be told, I would only put money down on three or four firms if I had it available to me - and I don't recall hearing any of their names on the critic's lists.

What my critics fail to appreciate is a very important term to those of us who have ever passed a Series 7 exam, and that is "fiduciary responsibility". When you take other people's money to invest on their behalf, you become responsible for doing proper due diligence and performing your utmost to give those investors the best possible return in exchange for their trust. This is how investment managers earn their living. And the hard raw truth of it is that there are too few realistic, feet-on-the-ground, alt.space businesses to justify potentially tens of millions in VC dollars. Remember also that VCs don't pay for R&D - they pay only to get developed products to market. Also, the supply of investment capital is limited, and therefore very competitive. Alt.spacers need to be able to show a strong value proposition, a path to profitability, and workable exit strategies that are competitive with nanotech, biotech, and alt.energy. It doesn't happen very often.

Now, if I was independently wealthy, with lots of $$ to burn, and no one to answer to but myself, my standards might be a little more relaxed. I would be able to afford the additional extreme risk levels - but make no mistake, that's considered "angel investment", not VC. There may even be a success or two, by total serendipity. But realistically, I would probably lose most of it in failed ventures. This is why the number of angels and deep-pocket independent startups are limited.

But hey, the critics can always put their own cash where their beliefs are, can't they? And boast to me later about the great returns they're getting. Oh, but that's right, you have to be a "qualified investor". Oops.

The Space Cynic Challenge to Alt.Space

2006-05-23T17:51:00.000-07:00

Well.

It appears we seem to have ruffled a few feathers out in the alt.space community by creating this blog.

We've been accused of being snarky, condescending, and judgemental.

Perhaps.

But here's a chance to prove to us that you (and you know who you are) have an alt.space business that is a "dream" business (which we DO like) as opposed to a "kool-aid" business (which we, um... don't like).

Space Cynics will gladly review your business plan/case/whatever, and post our findings on our website. We will allow you room for rebuttal, and will respond to any substantive criticisms (but this will not become an open-ended he said/she said - we will stop the dialog if it becomes unresolvable).

The cost? $2500.

We all have paying jobs and families/friends (no, i mean we have families and friends, not that they pay us), so if we're going to take time out of our schedules to do a due diligence of sorts, you have to put some skin in the game.

If we DO like your business - and I daresay I am personally a big fan of quite a few alt.space companies, believe it or not - we will be happy to endorse your project when you go to talk to other investors. We may even make some introductions for you, free of charge - and/or invest ourselves in your business.

Operators are standing by.

2006-05-23T12:06:00.000-07:00

Dreams, Fantasy, and Kool Aid: Exploring The
Meaning and Use For These Terms in Alt.space
by Professor L on May 23, 2006

Abstract:

Dreams, fantasy and Kool Aid are terms often used to describe various projects in the alt.space, entrepreneurial or New Space developing industries. Each term actually has a unique definition, however, as used by many spacers (spacers are those advocating an alt.space and related agenda), often the exact meaning of the term(s) are blurred leading to an incorrect usage of the word. Confusing a dream for a fantasy or saying that one person’s Kool Aid is another’s dream is not only wrong, it is misleading it helps to dumb down the alt.space industry (which by the way, needs no additional help) when instead the use of language should work to uplift this industry.

Definitions:

Let’s start with formal definitions for each term, then demonstrate the correct use and application of the term as applied to alt.space. And remember, it does matter how we use the terms, not just among ourselves but to the world at large. So please understand that this is not just another professorial lecture. This paper is designed to move mountains and shake the world so hang on tightly for an illuminating ride through the tunnel of enlightenment.

Let’s start with the word dream. The formal dictionary.com definition includes many uses for and ways of understanding the word. The definition I want to zero in on is #5, “a condition or achievement that is longed for; an aspiration: a dream of owning their own business.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dream). This definition carries with it the implication that the dream is actually doable, that whatever is being dreamed, it can be achieved. It is plausible. This is fundamental to understanding the proper way to use this term. The dream must be plausible. For example, if I say I have a dream to play quarterback for the San Francisco 49’ers in the fall of 2006 (I am near 60, not a football player and replete with knee and shoulder injuries among other qualities), that would hardly qualify as a dream. Some might say it qualifies me for the institution and I would not disagree though I refuse to commit myself voluntarily. Rather than a dream, it would be correct to say that I was expressing a fantasy based on the SF 49er example.

So let’s investigate the term fantasy. Again, referring to dictionary.com, the formal definition for fantasy that I want to focus on is #6, “an unrealistic or improbable supposition.” The formal definitions go on to include an obsolete definition but this one certainly still rings true for alt.space. This obsolete definition is “hallucination.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fantasy). Implied in the definition of the word fantasy is the fact that it is not doable, it is not something that can be achieved. This is just the opposite of a dream. These words, these concepts, well, they are hardly interchangeable.

Now let’s check out Kool-Aid. We all know that Kool-Aid is a flavored drink that took on a new definition and impact with the Jonestown mass suicides in 1978 when then Peoples Temple leader Jim Jones brought new meaning to the sentence, “drink the Kool-Aid.” To discover the proper way to use the term, I have drawn definitions from two reputable online sources.

First, let’s check Wikipedia.org. Here we find the following for the use of the term Kool-Aid for alt.space:

The idiomatic expression "drinking the Kool-Aid" is a reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the Peoples Temple, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called the "Jonestown Massacre," 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the brew and died. (The discrepancy between the idiom and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid's relative obscurity versus the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.)
One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, "Don’t drink the Kool- Aid." This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side," or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly."

The phrase can also be used in the opposite sense to indicate that one has blindly embraced a particular philosophy or perspective (a "Kool-Aid drinker"). This usage is generally limited to those in or commenting on United States politics, but also appears in discussions on computer technology, where someone who is a staunch advocate for a particular technology is described as having "drunk the Kool-Aid". This is also frequently used in discussions about sports; when a fan makes an overly-optimistic prediction or hopeful statement, usually about a traditionally woeful team or franchise, others may comment that he is "drinking the Kool-Aid" This is the only usage of "Kool-Aid" that non-American speakers of English are likely to recognize. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool_aid).

Kool-Aid is described this way by Reference.com:
"Drinking the Kool-Aid"

In 1978, 900 followers of cult leader Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking a grape-flavored drink laced with cyanide at their commune in Jonestown, Guyana. Although the drink was actually Flavor Aid (a Kool-Aid knockoff and competitor), it is often thought to have been Kool-Aid. "Drinking the Kool-Aid" has since arisen as a darkly humorous slang term, meaning that someone believes or follows the statements of another person (often a charismatic leader) without question, often to their own detriment. The term usually applies in much less drastic cases than the Jones example (such as when discussing the reality distortion field of Apple Computer head Steve Jobs). Often, the phrase is used as a pejorative comment on effective marketing or public relations campaigns, or on zealous fans of movies, books, bands, or even computer operating systems. (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Kool-Aid).
Now that we are clear on what these words and terms actually mean, let’s take the next step. All together now…..

Who Cares About Any Of This Anyway?

This of course is the bottom line question to this peer reviewed paper. Who cares, why should anyone care, what value does this paper bring to humanity, how does it further space development and low cost space access, suborbital tourism, or a romp in zero-g with your partner. These are all good questions and I must say, the peers reviewing this conference paper got it immediately. I hope you do as well but in case you don’t get it, just trust me, I am a university PhD professor. OK?

Now I will tell you why you should care but alas, remember, peer reviewers are sworn to secrecy. Its sort of an NDA thing that alt.spacers will appreciate so while I really don’t know who the peers were that did this exceptional review, I just know that this paper was accepted, along with the grape flavored Kool-Aid packs I gave the peers. Their only comments on the paper when I got it back were “Thank You. The Kool-Aid was great!” Ah, back to the topic at hand. Sorry for this little digression but we all know how important peer review and NDA’s are in our community.

People should care because it is absolutely wrong to say that one’s Kool Aid is another’s slim hope for the future. Saying this means the person making the comment does not understand the words, as simple as they are, has no critical thinking, and probably has yet to be weaned from Kool Aid used extensively during childhood. If language cannot be used correctly to express an idea or concept, how can those misusing the language possibly help us access space at a lower cost, or get to space to do whatever we want to do once we get there. Look, if we don’t know the difference between a dream, a fantasy, and Kool-Aid, how the hell are we going to build, develop, manage, run a company to take us to space and bring us back alive? Just ask Frank Buck about this as he always brought ‘em back alive and he never misused language. If we think we are hoping for the future but instead are actually nurturing an hallucination, well, we got some big problems, right? If one thinks my dream to build a business with quality partners, good financing, a solid business plan and a potentially outstanding market is Kool-Aid, then they might certainly miss out on a great investment opportunity well grounded with a solid foundation. Instead, they may invest in a fantasy, in the hallucination, fed by Kool-Aid all the way. Both are risky, but risk is not the issue for this paper. Risk always needs to be weight to the most rational and logical, but this paper is already too long so risk will be covered in another paper, if there is another paper.

The Difference Does Matter:

Knowing a dream from a fantasy from Kool Aid is important. Knowing which companies have real dreams that are attainable, from fantasies that are ludicrous, fueled by Kool Aid rather and Lox and Bagels is important, not just to help you protect your hard earned money from being squandered, but from being embarrassed, humiliated, and doing in the industry all of us would like to see succeed. Lacking reality is not constructive. And its not subjective!

The Role of Serendipity:

This author clearly understands the significance of serendipity in the history of American inventions and creativity. Progress does result from luck, from chance, by accident, through serendipity, maybe even through prayer. I do not discount any of these sources for progress. But one cannot plan on progress emanating from these sources. Progress is not about chance or luck. Progress usually involves incremental, progressive steps along a recognizable path toward a goal or objective. Along the way, it helps if the researcher is open to information and even progress coming from unknown sources or clear out in left field. If the developer is not that open or misses the signs, in a free economy, there is usually someone around that will see the sign and act on it to move things forward or bypass the stated path for a completely different path to the goal, objective, or solution. Planning and developing the action plan and the steps to take is important and it is often the implementation of the action plan that enables the breakthrough even if it comes about as a result of serendipity. So the fact that serendipity is important does not mean that rational and logical paths are to be discounted or discarded. In simple language, you don’t get a free pass by leaving your brains behind.

Alt.Space and Dreams:

Dreams for the alt.space industry are absolutely crucial to its development as an industry, to its someday reaching maturity as an industry. Dreams translate nicely to hardware, to new businesses, to employment, tax revenues resulting from profits, and to great accomplishments. Alt.space must dream to be successful. But alt.space must not squander finite resources on fantasy or Kool-Aid. Know the difference. It may just make your day and your business.

Critical Thinking and Discernment:

Just because space is the subject or the business, its not an excuse to abandon critical thinking and discernment for Kool-Aid and fantasy. Yet this happens all too often. And then when this is pointed out, the reply usually goes something this: “What is Kool Aid to you is serious business to me and to others.” Nope, not true. When you hear or read that response, start wondering if the person had to take dumbbell English their first year in college (assuming they went to college) or if they some how avoided it, as in the modern world when they test out of it. If they are bending metal or making hardware, start wondering about what is being bent or made. If they are writers, question their perspective because they have already demonstrated that they have a problem in properly expressing themselves. And if they get bent out of shape for your having dared to reference this article, just smile, wish them well, tell them you will be happy to buy them a Kool-Aid and put down a quarter on the table, then politely exit to an environment that is more supportive of turning dreams into reality than chasing fantasy and Kool-Aid until death do them part. Whatever you do, don’t hang out with them. Remember the old saying, “you are known by the company you keep?” Well, think about it and act appropriately. This is the start of critical thinking and discernment.

The professor says never ever abandon critical thinking and discernment. Especially not when space or alt.space is concerned. If you want to see us become space-faring, if you want to get into space, if you want to open space up as a frontier for all of us, step up and be accountable. Know the differences in a dream, a fantasy, and Kool-Aid. Now in case you want to know how to do critical thinking and apply discernment to your business plan, investment decision, or space advocacy, Google the terms as there is plenty of quality information on the subject. As I said, this paper is already too long so a lecture on critical thinking and discernment may come about in the future but not now.

One last comment for this section. Assumption building for the business is vitally important but at least one variable in the assumption has to be based on something solid, something grounded. If all the assumptions are based on unknowns, you don’t have much. Assumption building and understanding are part and parcel of critical thinking. One of the best papers I’ve seen on explaining what I have just said comes from a speech given by Dr. Michael Crichton before a Cal Tech audience on Jan. 17, 2003. Check it out at www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html.
Summary:

This paper has explained how to properly use the words dream, fantasy and Kool-Aid for the alt.space and actually the full space industry. Critical thinking and discernment are key components that must always be present and must never be abandoned or surrendered, especially for that which appears cool, sexy, romantic, fun, maybe profitable, or maybe possible followed by a dozen or so “ifs.” If you are not able to appropriately assess something, get help from someone who can make an objective assessment and who does know the proper use of the terms discussed in this paper. Become accountable for creating the type of space industry you want and you DREAM about. I don’t think its possible to create a space-faring world on fantasy, Kool-Aid, or Bay Mud. Solid foundations are important, just as they for a house or building. Maybe in time a space-faring culture/world can be created from a DREAM. Remember, the DREAM is plausible. And yes, you can learn what makes something plausible or not. Or you can get help until you learn it. But if you don’t ask the question and you don’t understand the difference in the terms, you might spend your energy chasing fantasy and Kool-Aid and none of us want that. None of us will profit from that chase.

Signed….Professor L.

Notes on a Monday Morning

2006-05-21T16:52:00.000-07:00

It's monday morning, i've got heaps on my desk to take care of as the week begins, and so of course i start off by a quick surf through Cyberspace.

War still on in Iraq? Check.
War drums beating for Iran? Check
Chinese IPO flying off the shelves? Check
Immigration friends/foes fighting over the border troops? Check
DaVinci code still front page news? Check

So, not much has changed.

Except... what's this? Space Cynic, and myself, were mentioned in another blog (not too flatteringly, i might add) and I totally missed it.

I, of course, had to go read what was written by Mr. Goff.

I think Jonathan was being a bit unfair, to be frank. First off - why should we be held to higher standards than the average alt.space cracksmoker's website that promises fantasy technologies are just over the horizon? At least we aren't trying to sell something - in fact, we're trying to get people to be LESS gullible before their good money is lost to another BS cause.

Still, some valid criticisms.

Yes, this blog can be a stand-out contrarian voice to the echo-chamber that normally defines the alt.space kool-aid drinking community.

Yes - i will accept that sometimes we are flippant and shallow in our commentary on specific concepts/projects. But the 23rd or 145th time i have to explain in great detail why a particular concept is flawed, i get lazy and just slam the project.

Yes - we will try to write more substantive posts, or maybe just answer questions posed by interested readers.

No - i will not give up on the occasional bit of humour. If i think it's funny, and others don't - well, it's my blog. Get your own.

The truth, though, as with all things, is really somewhere in the middle.

All of the bloggers on the Space Cynic have regular jobs that are VERY time consuming. What this means is that we don't have the luxury or bandwidth in many cases to write out the full extent of what we'd like to on a particular subject. Does this mean we shouldn't mention something unless we can put out a dissertation on the subject?

Of course not.

If that were in fact the case, this blog would end up like the book on space commerce i've been attempting to complete for 2 years now - half finished and therefore unread by anyone.

Some of these posts will be longer, some will be shorter. Some will be content rich, some will be vacuous. I make no promises otherwise.

But, in the spirit that all discourse is positive, i will even add a link to Jonathan's blog on the Space Cynic blog.

Calling all REAL Journalists

2006-05-21T02:02:00.000-07:00

So one of the great things about living here in Sydney is that life is a lot more civlised and less rat-race like than the normal big city i'm used to from the US. This Sunday morning, around 9 am, i heard the usual shrill whistling sound that comes every sunday morning, blasted out from the little metal whistle that our local paperboy uses to let us know he's walking down the block, in case you want to buy a newspaper ($1.60).

Shuffling back into the house, coffee mug in one hand, newspaper under my arm, i looked forward to a few leisurely hours of reading what passes for news in the Sunday Herald (Australia has a different view of the world than I'm used to getting from the LA times or Washington Post...).

So imagine my surprise when I opened to the COVER page of the travel section.

Big picture of planet Earth, as seen through the window of a 747, with the caption "3... 2... 1... the Countdown to Tourism in Space"

"Oh, no," i thought to myself. The Kool-Aid has made it to Australia.

Now, granted, this is not the first Kool-Aid inspired project to get support in Australia (the Christmas Island Spaceport/Internment Centre comes to mind).

So, with a bit of trepidation, i plowed into the article. After flipping past the intervening pages filled with the requisite ads for exotic travel destinations (as if Australia isn't exotic enough...) and articles about real tourism features, i found it:

"Dawn of Tourism's Final Frontier: Notch up your frequent flyer points, because suborbital tourism is the next chapter of the space age."

What really gets me is that people get paid for writing this drivel. The article, first off, had factual errors - three (not two) people have paid to go to ISS (and the fourth, Dice-K, is getting ready, with a backup/fifth candidate, from the Ansari family, next in line). Second, the author lumped together a whole range of alt.space companies that aren't all in space tourism, a notable example being Space X. Last I checked, the Falcon 1 is for satellites, not tourists.

While i'm tempted to go paragraph by paragraph through this overly long article (i'm fairly certain the author was paid by the length of the article, which would explain why she filled it with such enjoyable fodder as "Canadian company PlanetSpace is developing craft based on the World War II German V2 rocket." - does the autopilot attempt all autolandings in London, i wonder?) the article just pisses me off so much i have to put it away.

I've got better things to do with what's left of my Sunday.

Space Cynic

2006-05-19T21:47:00.000-07:00

Space Cynic A market!! There is a need right now for regular (monthly?) launches of 50-100 Kg to LEO by big pharma. There is a smaller market for such launches with recovery after days to weeks.

No Love in an Elevator

2006-05-18T13:46:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the short hiatus in posting, folks....

(cue Maxwell Smart voice) would you believe, I was trapped in an elevator waiting for the technicians to get the doors unstuck and me back safely on terra firma. (uncue voice)

Actually, i was just traveling to Japan and Hong Kong and am now back in Sydney and will begin catching up with all of the easy pickings that came out of the ISDC. Man am I sorry i missed that!

(apologies to aerosmith for the title of this posting)

NASA Announces Plan To Launch $700 Million Into Space

2006-05-07T22:38:00.000-07:00

In the Art Imitatating Life Category (courtesy of The Onion - because i'm not that funny):

CAPE CANAVERAL, FL—Officials at the Kennedy Space Center announced Tuesday that they have set Aug. 6 as the date for launching $700 million from the Denarius IV spacecraft, the largest and most expensive mission to date in NASA's unmanned monetary-ejection program.

"This is an exciting opportunity to study the effect of a hard-vacuum, zero-gravity environment on $50 and $100 bills," said NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who noted that prior Project Denarius missions only studied space's effect on fives and singles. "Whether the money is immediately incinerated because of hard radiation, or freezes in the near-absolute-zero temperature and shatters into infinitesimal pieces, or drifts aimlessly through the cosmos before being sucked through a black hole into another dimension, it will provide crucial information for our next series of launches, which will consist of even greater sums of money, in larger denominations."

Breaking News From ISDC!

2006-05-05T09:26:00.000-07:00

Virgin Galactic announced yesterday that they will not, repeat, will not, have hostesses on their flights when they are inaugurated. Richard Branson is firm on this.

More breaking news will be reported in this space as it happens, live, from the International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, CA.

Logos on the Moon?

2006-05-04T18:22:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know Heinlein wrote about it. Now it appears to have made CNet News:

"Logos to Replace Man In The Moon, Ad Man Predicts"

I wonder how long until the moon is "tagged"?

On a serious note, however, this does open up a whole range of issues related to space property rights, etc. After all, who gets to decide which ad(s) get placed on the moon? What's to stop someone from superimposing their ad over a rival's ad?

For example, imagine Microsoft pays to have the Windows 2044 (codename "Vaporware") logo beamed onto the moon for everyone on Earth to see. Then imagine Google pays to have a big red circle and slash beamed over it...

What is a Cynic?

2006-05-04T13:13:00.000-07:00

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)

Main Entry: doubter

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: nonbeliever

Synonyms: agnostic, cynic, disbeliever, doubting Thomas, headshaker*, questioner, skeptic, unbeliever, zetetic

Antonyms: believer, worshipper

Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

* = informal or slang

Asteroid Mining vs. Cloud Mining

2006-05-03T01:04:00.000-07:00

Many of you already know my views on the claims of asteroid mining proponents - in particular the "I've never taken an Econ 101 class and don't know the most fundamental concepts of supply, demand, and market-clearing prices" claim that many asteroids have TRILLIONS of dollars of precious metals just waiting for a smart VC to fund Company X to go extract.

Well, i've found a much more achievable mining opportunity, courtesy of this brilliant website:

Cloud Mining

Because, you know, every cloud has a silver lining...

...and that silver has a market value.

Stupid Space Tricks

2006-05-01T22:17:00.000-07:00

Thanks (i think) to Monte for forwarding the link to this website. Hours of endless fun filling in the sign in the astronaut's hand.

Just a shame they can't spell outer space...

All Hat, No Cattle

2006-04-30T16:47:00.000-07:00

I've decided to do this as a new posting, but would like to give credit where it is due for the starting thought - the previous posting which looked at why/how a company morphs into TransConX (insert name here) from a championed space startup...

First off: Hi back at you, Monty!

Now, to the matter at hand - what makes a company a "white hat" vs. a "black hat" in the minds of the alt.space community?

I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, but i will make a few observations on the matter, which you may agree or disagree with.

White hat companies seem to fall into two categories in the alt.space community: true seed-stage startups funded by believers in their particular cause (space solar power, RLV, space elevators, etc), and "startups" being driven by well-heeled investors that are tackling a specific segment of the market (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites, Bigelow, etc).

Black hat companies, also referred to at various times as the Military/Industrial Complex, Big Aerospace, or just Satan, are large established aerospace companies (Boeing, LockMart, NG, etc) which are considered behemoths, ossified, in the way, and generally the primary reason why the White Hats aren't successful - that if they would simply get out of the way, not take all of the government funding, etc., the White Hats would prove and develop a robust private sector commercial space economy for the masses.

Interesting concept.

Apparently, you can go from being a White Hat to a Black Hat in a not-very-easy-to-understand process, as Orbital Sciences has done. I've yet to hear of a Black Hat becoming a White Hat, though. Anyone?

And yet, i have to wonder: it seems as if the underlying prerequisite for becoming a "black hat" is that you are either (a) large, established, and not living off credit cards in your mom's basement, or (b) not backed by a rock-star dot Com bazzilllionaire, or (c) surviving primarily on government largesse (read: contracts).

So here's the question for those following along: how many of the White Hats are either currently the recipient of government funding or loan guarantees of some sort? How many White Hats (and WHSs - white hat supporters) are lobbying for more government money to flow in the direction of the alt.spacers?

The Journal of Irreproducible Results

2006-04-29T21:36:00.000-07:00

There's a great publication, the Journal of Irreproducible Results, which bills itself as "The fact-filled, fun-filled, thoughtful science humor magazine".

For those who are unfamiliar with the JIR, it is a magazine which has a go at the more dubious claims coming out of the scientific community. Hence the title.

Here's what Omni magazine has to say about JIR:

"There are few outlets in the world where scientists with a sense of humor can poke fun at themselves and publish theoretical breakthroughs. The finest one today is the Journal of Irreproducible Results."

So what? you might ask.

Well, today i had the pleasure of stumbling across a new publication which at first I thought must be satire, but in fact appears to be serious. In fact, the tagline reads "the world's 1st monthly magazine focusing on Space Tourism and Commercialization!"

Of course, there is no option to actually VIEW a bit of the content in advance, before deciding if one might want to subscribe to this publication. I'm almost tempted to sign up for it anyways - at a bit over $8/issue, it's pricey for something which I would be hard-pressed to believe could run more than 4 pages (after all, how much can you write about a non-existant business on a recurring monthly basis? Wait. Scratch that...)

I'd be particularly interested in seeing the questions on this topic:
"In addition each issue (starting with the May issue) of the magazine includes an educational space tourism quiz !!"

Exciting times.

I just wonder if they recall that little, well funded publication known as "Space Illustrated"?

Feel free to click on the link under the google sponsored ad - that way we too can say we are making money off an alt.space idea ;-)

Space Tragic (definition)

2006-04-27T23:40:00.000-07:00

Space Tragic - n. someone who passionately believes in the long term development of space, and desperately wants to go to space for him/her self. often confused with an alt.space-tragic, who believes in the viability of commercial space development by the private sector, if only (a)big government would get out of the way, and (b) investors would just see the obvious value of their great project.

Walking Eagle Award Nominations

2006-04-27T20:05:00.000-07:00

Now open.

Name of Company and/or Individual, along with category of venture (tourism, space solar power, lunar mining, etc) is all that is required.

Winners will be announced after ISDC.

Space Cynic

2006-04-27T11:40:00.000-07:00

Space Cynic

TEACHER IN SPACE:
Recently, three alt.space companies (RocketPlane, XCOR, and Armadillo) announced donations of suborbital space rides for teachers. This was hailed by the Kool-Aid crowd as a generous gift, and the donors are the heroes of the day in alt.space. How is it generous?
None of the three companies has yet flown a person into space. None of the companies has ever put aything into suborbital space. In fact, none of the companies has a vehicle capable of taking a person into suborbital space. To their credit, all three companies are working on varied concepts that might ultimately reach suborbital space, but that is not the same as having a capability.
Therefore, the "generous gift" is nothing more than an announcement of an intention off sometime in the indefinite future. In the meantime, the energy wasted on celebrating this announcement as some kind of milestone would be better spent on developing a real capability of attaining suborbital space. Whoever accomplishes that goal would then have something substantial to give and we all would have something to celebrate.

Cynic or Critic?

2006-04-26T18:41:00.000-07:00

I think this new blog is a great idea - thanks, Shubber, for starting it and inviting us to participate. I'm already out there blogging on a variety of other issues, so I look forward to sharing views with some of my good friends on the seemingly interminable challenges involved in getting people into space in our lifetimes.

For a long time now, as many of you know, I've been working on the concept of a "populist" funding mechanism to get some projects going and expand the enabling business infrastructure. At this point I have to admit I've also drunk the kool-aid to some extent. The core premise was that so-called "new space" companies had a lot of great engineering and business concepts that were being ignored by VCs, institutions, and Wall Street in general - ergo, We the People would bypass those old stodgy institutions and create something new.

Turns out Wall Street may have been looking at this industry after all, and came to some conclusions. After spending several years of my own life looking under the hood, I came to the very reluctant conclusion, myself, that most of these firms, while filled to the brim with incredible engineering talent, were sadly lacking when it comes to business principles and planning.

The entire New Space premise seems to be "build it and they will come" - but not enough building is happening, and, predictably, no one is coming. No one seems to accept that we're about 25 years behind Silicon Valley and there's at least that much work to do. There's no other option but to roll up our sleeves and do it, however long it takes. There will be no shortcuts.

So, in this forum, I consider myself more of a critic than a cynic - I want new things to happen in space, but I'm highly critical at this point of the business skills of the new crop of "alt.space" entrepreneurs. I intend to hold their feet to the fire from here on in.

Many decry the insider status of NASA/DoD contractors exemplified by the term "BoLockNor", but it seems that several are jockeying simply to be the next generation of contractors, as opposed to being true space-commercial entrepreneurs. If they succeed, good for them, but everyone else, 20 years from now, will be railing against "TransConX". What does that do for our children and grandchildren, to work hard simply so that a fortunate few can be the last guys in the Country Club?

tao

Why?

2006-04-26T13:22:00.000-07:00

Space Tragic.

This is the term - so aptly used in Australia - which conveys its meaning without the need for any subsequent definition. You know if you are a space tragic.

And yet, the seemingly simple question: why? or, perhaps more elaborately:

why am I a "space cynic"?

why do i bother with the alt.space community if I am so cynical?

why do i feel the need to "attack" other space project ideas?

(the list goes on)

actually doesn't have a simple answer.

There are a number of reasons why I'm both passionate about space and at the same time cynical about it. Those who know me, or have had the misfortune of seeing me speak at various space conferences around the world, already have a pretty good idea of my views on space development, and the seemingly unending parade of space projects that are forever being "unveiled" to the public and investor communities.

I suppose the true answer will become clearer over time as i post to this blog.

Perhaps some of you will find it of interest - many of you may disagree with some or all of what I write, which is certainly your right. And maybe some of you will benefit from the discussions and postings to this blog - either through making/changing a career choice, or perhaps rethinking an investment decision - in which case I believe i will have achieved my goal.