Leonard David has a good piece this morning on the prospects for commercial space.

There was actually a mini debate between Elon Musk and Alex Tai at their press conference at the Personal Spaceflight Symposium last month, in which Alex expressed skepticism as to whether New Space can be comparable to the Dotcom industry, in terms of the potential for huge returns and wealth generation. Elon thought that there would be some sort of significant funding event that would open the investor floodgates, as happened with IT, and Alex thought that this was a more conventional industry, with more conventional rates of return. But he also expressed hope that he’s wrong.

We may find out in the next couple years, given the list of potential events that could occur in that time frame that Leonard lays out.

Leonard David has a good piece this morning on the prospects for commercial space.

There was actually a mini debate between Elon Musk and Alex Tai at their press conference at the Personal Spaceflight Symposium last month, in which Alex expressed skepticism as to whether New Space can be comparable to the Dotcom industry, in terms of the potential for huge returns and wealth generation. Elon thought that there would be some sort of significant funding event that would open the investor floodgates, as happened with IT, and Alex thought that this was a more conventional industry, with more conventional rates of return. But he also expressed hope that he’s wrong.

We may find out in the next couple years, given the list of potential events that could occur in that time frame that Leonard lays out.

Leonard David has a good piece this morning on the prospects for commercial space.

There was actually a mini debate between Elon Musk and Alex Tai at their press conference at the Personal Spaceflight Symposium last month, in which Alex expressed skepticism as to whether New Space can be comparable to the Dotcom industry, in terms of the potential for huge returns and wealth generation. Elon thought that there would be some sort of significant funding event that would open the investor floodgates, as happened with IT, and Alex thought that this was a more conventional industry, with more conventional rates of return. But he also expressed hope that he’s wrong.

We may find out in the next couple years, given the list of potential events that could occur in that time frame that Leonard lays out.

The one that never happened. Retro artists’ depictions from the early space age.

Jeff Foust has a transcript of an interview with him, on the subject of Blue Origin. It’s good that he has a passion for the project, given his skepticism about the market.

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

This looks like an interesting engine development, but just what is the “critical mission need”? What is the specific application for it?

Over at Space Politics.

I have to confess that I don’t envy Neil Woodward–I have no idea what should be done with COTS. It may well be that there is a fundamental impedance mismatch between available dollars and market, but we’re in uncharted territory here. I do agree that the RpK protest is one of sheer desperation, and as is noted over there, if successful could essentially wipe out the Space Act, which has been able to provide NASA and other agencies with flexibility for procurement innovation. It also seems to me like a way to guarantee no reaward to them in the current bidding round. If I were them, I’d be more focused on Bigelow than COTS right now. It seems to me that’s a more promising market with which to persuade investors to ante up than COTS is.