View Single Post
  #390  
Old November 14th 05, 01:23 AM
Pete Lynn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CEV to be made commercially available

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Pete Lynn" wrote:

I would suggest that NASA currently gets a
monopolistic proportion of total space frontier
commercialisation funding, public and private.
NASA launch vehicle development funding swamps
that of the start ups.


Yes, but it doesn't swamp it because it 'monopolizes'
funding, since its funding isn't from the same 'market'
as entrepreneurial funding for space start-ups.


It is the same market, like government programs, start ups are currently
at the non profit end of the market - where payback is long term and
diffuse. Similar to other government areas like education, health,
defence, pure research, etcetera.

The one true market for space settlement is space settlement. The NASA
manned space budget is in effect existence proof that there is a
significant market for space settlement investment - in the few billion
per year range. Currently NASA is functioning as a singular top down
overly bureaucratic charity where only a very, very small percentage of
that funding is productively reaching the end cause of lowering the cost
of space settlement.

The NASA pork barrel alliance is maintaining a strong grip on all
government derived space settlement funding, preventing a bottom up
approach which would introduce competition into this aid program. As a
consequence start ups are having to bypass the primary government tax
base and depend upon smaller philanthropic funding sources - typically
rich angels who see space settlement more like a voluntary tax - a
charity for the greater good.

As the NASA manned space budget demonstrates, the public at large is
willing to invest a few billions towards space settlement every year.
The current difficulty is in efficiently accessing this investment
market and transferring this funding to a highly competitive
technological development environment - the start ups.

NASA is functioning as a very large leach upon that monetary flow,
unaccountable and unable to reform, it seems necessary to bypass it
completely. This requires an entirely separate tax system. For example,
rich angel investment, an additional tythe on space enthusiasts, sweet
equity, etcetera.

Not only is NASA picking winners, but it is again
picking itself as a winner. In spite of the conflict of
interest and considerable evidence to the contrary.


Nope. NASA is running projects. Nothing about
picking winners or losers in private space.


So NASA not only did not pick itself to decide the architecture, but
also did not pick the architecture to use its own Shuttle derived
systems - I had heard otherwise.

Pete.