Joe Katzman has a piece on it, and progress to date.

Alan Marty, an investment consultant speaking at the Space Investment Summit yesterday, drew the comparison of semiconductor fabs right before the boom and the orbital access market. That there is $500 million of government assistance reducing the barrier to entry now for launchers and then for fabs. He said he thought the window for launching an orbital company is open now but will be closing. This suggests RpK and SpaceX will enjoy a long profitable run if they are successful.

Bob Werb, co-founder of the Space Frontier Foundation, said, “The window is opening and will open again and again,” in his remarks at the closing of the event.

I don’t see a big drop in access prices if these are the only entrants. Musk and French will reduce prices enough to shut out more expensive launchers, but then split the market and prices will drop no further. But that high price will continue to attract entrants once the subsidized entrants make good.

Jeff Foust has some tea leaves, in several posts, here, here, and here.

He also has a sign that Dr. Griffin has worn out his welcome on the Hill:

One of the presentations at the Space Investment Summit was on Lunar solar power. Solar satellites were also referred to. One presentation noted that if a government agree to buy solar at $0.85/kwh (about a 900% subsidy) that space solar would pay. Great. You can make $50 billion if they give you a $70 billion subsidy. Hand me a glass of ethanol.

My previous best efforts on solar are here, here, and here.

I think there is a fairly simple case against. Grant that space solar is 4x as efficient per kilogram as Earth solar. Ignore the fact that people want more power during the day than at night. Grant that we can take raw silicon and turn it into solar cells with minimal remote human input. Grant that we can beam it. Ignore that if we import solar power in quantity that the price of coal and uranium will drop until they are competitive again as fuels.

Can’t we just set one of the ‘bots that will build the cells loose in an Earth desert? Doesn’t it require the transportation cost to space be on the order of 4 times the manufacturing cost for space solar to be economically effective? Even if we are just talking about the regolith eating robot, don’t we have to get transportation cost down to three times the cost of producing a sand eating robot and letting it loose in the desert? Am I missing something? I think this argument means space solar will never be competitive.

“I’ve decided to launch an effort through my Share Space Foundation….Share Space Stakes! A sweepstakes or raffle. Proceeds benefit space related and scientific and educational goals. Donations open possibility of winning prizes. Starting with parabolic flights. Expanding to suborbital flights.

“Soyuz costs…millions of dollars…. The cost could be paid for by hundreds of thousands of people donating $50.

“We have not yet developed the rules, but it will be posted on our Share Space web site. Share Space Stakes is scheduled to be launched this year.

“Winners will have to be 18, satisfy certain health restrictions. This will be non-transferable.

“Space travel is poised to go from the few to the many. I hope to play a role with Share Space Foundation…. Who knows who will be one of the lucky winners about to take their own space adventure.”

—

Thanks Buzz! Welcome to the party.

Art Dula speaking at the Space Investment Summit in Manhattan today called for Congress to reform the Outer Space Treaty to cap the unlimited liability that signatory countries have for their nationals’ space accidents. “They don’t have this for oil tankers or airplanes.”

[Update by Rand Simberg]

One of the reasons they don’t have it for airplanes is the Warsaw Convention. Did he propose extending that to space?

[Update by Sam Dinkin]

He proposed getting an act of Congress passed to unilaterally limit the US federal government liability.

I feel your pain, Clark. You’ve done yeoman’s work in keeping us all informed on space stuff. The rest of us will just have to try to pick up the pace so that you can take a well-earned break, or at least, easing off.

And I agree with the commenters that we have to figure out a way to make this more remunerative for him.

Karl Gallagher as some thoughts on how too many requirements can kill a program. This happened to both Shuttle and station.

Unfortunately, because the way NASA has traditionally done things is so expensive, the assumption is made that they can only afford one of them (a National Space Transportation System, a national space station). That means that multiple requirements (often, or usually, conflicting) tend to get laid on them, to satisfy all of the political constituencies. The program as a result bloats, and becomes very expensive (in time and money), making the original assumption a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It probably is overdue, with all the other carnivals over the years. Henry Cate has decided to kick it off, so he’s looking for contributions.

Clark Lindsey has an interesting post on the prospects, now that people more responsive than NASA are going to offer research opportunities. I’ve always been a skeptic on it, and thought it vastly overhyped, particularly with regard to how it was used to sell the space station, but at least now, it will get a fair shot. And I agree with how he opens the piece:

One of the unfortunate tendencies of NASA is for the agency to implement a good idea in a bad way and thereby discredit that idea. Prime examples include RLVs and space tethers.

Yes, when people ask what harm it is to have NASA doing its own thing, and to just ignore it while we do ours, this is the answer. Few people really understand how much damage NASA has done over the decades in this manner. X-33 by itself probably set back the cause of low-cost spaceflight by over a decade, and we’re only just starting to recover from that debacle, with the Air Force finally starting to take space transports seriously again, even if NASA continues to refuse to do so.