Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:44 pmMy fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost. There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:44 pmMy fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost. There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!Sorry for the bad news.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 07:32 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:04 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment). DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5. As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies. For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.I certainly respect the work you have done in the past, and your opinions, but what you are saying is "commercial-in-name-only". Without any skin-in-the-game, actively discouraging investors (or maybe more appropriately not wanting them to avoid complications), etc and making this purely a government-funded activity I just don't see how that, in reality, is going to change anything. It still gives all the power to NASA (granted they are needed but, in my opinion, the best way to make them cooperate is to show them they are not the gate-keepers to everything). It also seems this flies in the face of "opening up an entirely new sector of the economy", "creating 1000's of jobs, etc" because you are always tied to the wishes, and funding, of NASA.Also, DARPA is an agency for the DOD that funds pathfinder, high risk, etc projects that may find a use in the DOD someday, somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge these have never been for full-up, operational capabilities that DOD will then use in the field routinely or that these providers can then sell to other customers. So, to me, that seems a bit different. DARPA grants rights to the contractor to the IP created in other transactions, so that may be a partial answer to your point. NIH and related entities let firms patent drugs that are paid for by gov't grant funds.But the core opinion I am promulgating has not been tested by NASA since the extension of the CE&R contract, when t/Space performed a number of hardware demos. One idea I tried to sell to NASA CCDEV was to structure the awards so that contractors requesting less than a couple hundred million for their full program could bid w/o "skin" while if you requested above some threshold you'd have to match 50-50, and above a further threshold you'd be 100% responsible for funding. Obviously, since we didn't win anything, I was not successful.A further point (from my brief) is that I sought NASA funding to "dig us out of the hole" created by NASA's dominance of all things space during the past 50 years. I styled this as "affirmative action" for the small firms, since it was only meant to be a way to level the uneven playing field. I don't see NASA as the be-all and end-all of the marketplace. If it is, then "commercial space" is a failure.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:04 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment). DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5. As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies. For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.I certainly respect the work you have done in the past, and your opinions, but what you are saying is "commercial-in-name-only". Without any skin-in-the-game, actively discouraging investors (or maybe more appropriately not wanting them to avoid complications), etc and making this purely a government-funded activity I just don't see how that, in reality, is going to change anything. It still gives all the power to NASA (granted they are needed but, in my opinion, the best way to make them cooperate is to show them they are not the gate-keepers to everything). It also seems this flies in the face of "opening up an entirely new sector of the economy", "creating 1000's of jobs, etc" because you are always tied to the wishes, and funding, of NASA.Also, DARPA is an agency for the DOD that funds pathfinder, high risk, etc projects that may find a use in the DOD someday, somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge these have never been for full-up, operational capabilities that DOD will then use in the field routinely or that these providers can then sell to other customers. So, to me, that seems a bit different.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment). DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5. As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies. For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that.
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.
I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.
Some interesting music on the telecon......
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 04/18/2011 08:07 pmSome interesting music on the telecon......Anybody recording this?
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:48 pmI can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.I'm sorry! When will you be able to disclose your proposal (if ever)?
RELEASE: 11-102NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTSWASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded four Space Act Agreements in the second round of the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort. Each company will receive between $22 million and $92.3 million to advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements of their systems, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft. The selectees for CCDev2 awards are: -- Blue Origin, Kent, Wash., $22 million -- Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $80 million -- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $75 million -- The Boeing Company, Houston, $92.3 million "We're committed to safely transporting U.S. astronauts on American-made spacecraft and ending the outsourcing of this work to foreign governments," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "These agreements are significant milestones in NASA's plans to take advantage of American ingenuity to get to low-Earth orbit, so we can concentrate our resources on deep space exploration." The goal of CCDev2 is to accelerate the availability of U.S. commercial crew transportation capabilities and reduce the gap in American human spaceflight capability. Through this activity, NASA also may be able to spur economic growth as potential new space markets are created. Once developed, crew transportation capabilities could become available to commercial and government customers. "The next American-flagged vehicle to carry our astronauts into space is going to be a U.S. commercial provider," said Ed Mango, NASA's Commercial Crew Program manager. "The partnerships NASA is forming with industry will support the development of multiple American systems capable of providing future access to low-Earth orbit." These awards are a continuation of NASA's CCDev initiatives, which began in 2009 to stimulate efforts within U.S. industry to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration
RELEASE: 11-102NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTSWASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded four Space Act Agreements in the second round of the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort. Each company will receive between $22 million and $92.3 million to advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements of their systems, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft. The selectees for CCDev2 awards are: -- Blue Origin, Kent, Wash., $22 million -- Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $80 million -- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $75 million -- The Boeing Company, Houston, $92.3 million
