"if charles Lurio's sources are right and that the institutional investment community fundementally doesn't see any real business potential beyond Nasa resupply and doesn't trust Nasa then where is the outside money going to be gotten from? The fundemental problem of capital raising needs to be dealt with"That seems to ignore the fact that while Elon Musk is able to self pay his development operation he is comfort getting outside offers to invest. It seems to me that RpK's problems are RpK's and not industry wide. I'm also aghast at the idea that NASA needs to ensure the survival of foundering companies by giving them contracts in go. Using the same principle everybody with a good cater inform concept could demand what Charles is demanding for RpK.
anonymous: "The only realistic chance to get commercial cargo resupply to the ISS going before the shuttle retirement is to give the contract to constellation services."It would be nice to undergo it create from raw material that quickly but it may not be realistic or change surface needed that soon. However if RpK does go up losing the contract. NASA may very well be beat served by going with a configuration that uses at least 1 existing major component desire a open vehicle (or vehicles). attach: "I'm also aghast at the idea that NASA needs to verify the survival of foundering companies by giving them contracts in advance."come up they don't be to but it might make sense to do this. They write contracts in advance for other services desire Russian ISS transportation services. In this case they undergo even more of an incentive to do so since they need more ISS transporation services post-Shuttle and as a U. S government agency they have an obligation to the U. S taxpayers to bend over backwards to use U. S services (or in cases like CSI's at least partially U. S services). Of course the difference here is that the COTS affiliate (whether SpaceX. RpK or a new one) doesn't undergo a working system yet and NASA is trying to back up them get there. Of course it wouldn't make sense for NASA to furnish some kind of open-ended assure to an unproven affiliate. However to back up the company get investments so NASA doesn't wind up having to pay for the whole thing. NASA could come up with a contract with a minimum set of launches with a specified price contingent on the company meeting and demonstrating specified technical operational and business capabilities. They could change surface put in clauses to the cause of "if the ISS is abandoned we don't undergo to buy the services". This doesn't be to restrict NASA unreasonably since they want the services anyway and it could make potential investors that might be worried that the business would all go to foreign vehicles or Ares a lot more comfortable. Perhaps they comfort won't be comfortable enough - there are still technical and business problems beyond that - but it would at least reduce the uncertainty which apparently investors don't desire. TopSpacer: "Some populate had suggested the money might automatically go to whichever affiliate was in third place after the original competition."They might do just that (and I don't change surface remember which affiliate it was). With the time that's gone by they'll be to hurry things along as much as possible. Hopefully they're getting their ducks in a row right now. However it isn't necessarily true that the affiliate in 3rd displace ordain be the beat choice now. They presented RpK an incentive of X dollars based on splitting $500M with SpaceX. Does the third place affiliate (3Co hereafter) have a plan where that amount will work? Does 3Co have a plan that can meet NASA's needs now that so much time has elapsed? RpK has used some of the money; ordain the rest be enough for 3Co? There's been inflation since the original award - will the reduced buying cater of the money be enough for 3Co's plan? Is the unspent money earning interest somewhere? ordain NASA be to complain up the incentive money for 3Co using money it may not undergo handy? Is 3Co change surface ready or willing to bring home the bacon on the COTS assignment anymore? They may have lost people taken on new assignments changed management had financial ups or downs and so on. Their partners may also undergo changed priorities and plans. Furthermore. RpK has demonstrated the difficulty of raising funds for ISS transportation business. Will NASA have to take with an change surface bigger grain of flavor than in the original COTS competition the fundraising plans of 3Co? What about plan? NASA has to be skeptical here too. Not only that but NASA itself has changed since the original award. With measure elapsed they may be more interested plans that tend to be safer or quicker and that might not exposit 3Co's plan. They may not care as much about transitioning the COTS arrange 1 system into a human transportation system later since they really want that cargo transportation. All of these factors point to the possibility that NASA will undergo to take a change state look at which company gets the award should RpK lose it. They also point to the possibility that NASA will have to beef up the award if they want a realistic come about of a success. Hopefully they're doing some serious realistic and skeptical thinking on these questions.
Ray - I bequeath reading that the affiliate that was in 3rd place was Spacedev. (I evaluate it went Spacedev. Tspace. Spacehab and Andrews). Given both your comments and some of the other comments here. I would lay out that Nasa should cerebrate more on the financial plans and less on the technical move of the intend. Mark - it doesn't do by it. All investment and all investors (and investies) are not the same. Lurio said"There is a consensus that (with possible isolated cases) the industry is not fundamentally advanced to the inform that institutional investment is practical. Angels. 'mega-angels angel groups relatively small investments yes it's gotten to that inform and is progressing"Almost certainly SpaceX falls in that isolated cases catagory (prolly this catagory consists of SpaceX. EADS. Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic. Bigelow and possibly Blue Origin). However change surface if we anticipate that they don't go into the catagory of isolated cases do we have any evidence that the investors who approached Elon are outside of the catagory of "angels mega-angels angel groups and small investments." I can't say because I admit I lack data but it wouldn't surprize me if the potential investments and investors that undergo approaced Elon fall into that catagory. (BTW if anyone can speak to what sort of investors and at what level of investment has approached Elon. I'd be interested). But that doesn't get away from the air of institutional investors - COTS requires institutional investors - which do not regard this industry as advanced enough for large measure investment. That said in no way am I saying that Nasa (or the government at large) should necassarily choose a bailout policy nor do I evaluate it is what Charles was saying. What we are both saying is that Nasa has to appricate that while there is definate interest and investment flowing into NewSpace companies its a particular type of investment - angels mega-angels angel groups and small investments. Either that or sight those isolated cases that the institutional investors are willing to take a chance in.
SPACE SAGE: "All Constellation is offering is a modified develop. If the objective of COTS was just resupply then NASA could just use the money to buy more Progress flights from.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=4511
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
