"Pete Lynn" wrote:

:"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,

I quite disagree.

:... 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
er year range.

This is a preposterous statement! Of course, you then go on to refute
it yourself.

:Currently NASA is functioning as a singular top down
verly bureaucratic charity where only a very, very small percentage of
:that funding is productively reaching the end cause of lowering the cost
f space settlement.

But is that NASA's "end cause"? Is that what it is supposed to be
doing?

: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.

You talk like you think the money currently going to NASA would go to
"the start ups" if NASA wasn't there. That's merely a silly idea, I'm
afraid. If there's no NASA space program, my best guess would be that
entrepreneurial funding for the start ups would also dry right up.

Again, it's not the same market or funding stream. Entrepreneurial
funds are funny. They're VERY nervous. The mere fact that the
government wasn't interested (as evidenced by cutting NASA spending)
would probably cause money to flee the space 'start up' market.

: 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.

Now go back and read what I said again.

NASA is running projects. If you want to run a project, you can pick
your project architecture and your own systems, too.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn