From: Forrest Bishop (forrestb@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 15 2002 - 07:06:03 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 10:32 PM
Subject: `let the market rule in rocketry and spaceflight'
> At 05:34 PM 7/14/02 -0400, Dan wrote:
>
> >Yeap. I suggest scrapping NASA all together and let the market rule in
> >rocketry and spaceflight.
>
> I've been wondering how those who extol the market's unparalleled success
> in getting things done faster and cheaper and better account for the lack
> of a free enterprise space flight system superior to NASA's. I gather that
> in the US certain things are forbidden by law, but surely the market can't
> be stalled by petty national restrictions? Or is it the looming presence of
> a vast state-funded entity that is (allegedly) incompetent but *at least
> there in place*, that inhibits potential rivals? Still, why doesn't someone
> do what Venter did--use the publicly-funded and hence free data and
> industrial support system and zoom away in parallel *with superior outcomes*?
>
> Damien Broderick
> [just wondering]
==========
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2877
"...Unfortunately, development of a reliable low cost system is simply not enough to insure commercial viability. Several
uncertainties remain that are totally beyond our control and put our entire business at risk. The most insurmountable risk is the
desire of the U.S. government and NASA to subsidize competing launch systems. NASA has embarked on a plan to develop a "second
generation" launch system that will be subsidized by U.S. taxpayers and that will compete directly with the private sector. In my
capacity as founder and chairman of Beal Aerospace, I previously testified to a congressional subcommittee that government subsidies
to competing launch providers constituted the private sectors biggest business risk. ...
"Other significant and uncontrollable risks we face include (1) federal laws mandating our potential liability for pre-existing
environmental contamination at the only available cape canaveral launch pads, and (2) uncertainty over U.S. government state
department approval to launch from our own launch facilities in the foreign country of Guyana. In spite of these additional risks
which we have faced for some time, we would have remained in business if the government would have simply guaranteed that NASA's
subsidized launch systems would never be allowed to compete with the private sector.
There will never be a private launch industry as long as NASA and the U.S. government choose and subsidize launch systems. While
Boeing and Lockheed are private entities, their launch systems and components are derivatives of various military initiatives. Very
little new effort takes place without significant government subsidy, control, and involvement. While we believed we could compete
successfully against the government subsidized EELV launch vehicles, the characteristics and depth of subsidy for NASA's new
initiative as well as its ultimate performance are impossible to determine or evaluate.
Once it became clear that NASA and Congress intended to proceed with their new competing launch systems, our only remaining choice
was whether to cease operations entirely, or to evolve into a government contractor role like Boeing and Lockheed and seek
government contracts to assist the development of the NASA system. We have elected to cease operations."
Sincerely,
[Original signed.]
Andrew Beal
===========
-- Forrest Bishop Chairman, Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering www.iase.cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:27 MST