http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-58651 A Victory for Private Space Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:54:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-58651 <p>[...] system, which would have directly competed with the companies selling satellite imagery today. Berin Szoka at Tech Liberation Category : [...]</p> [...] system, which would have directly competed with the companies selling satellite imagery today. Berin Szoka at Tech Liberation Category : [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-65215 Berin Szoka Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:09:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-65215 <p>If we were talking about government handing simple subsidies to private companies, I would absolutely agree with you that those private companies should pay back the government if they succeed. <br><br>But that's not how NextView works. As far as I understand it, the government isn't just handing out cash to private companies in the hopes of sparking an industry, they're saying, "We will buy X amount of imagery from you over the next four years for Y amount of money. You need to come up with the rest of the cost of your systems on your own. The risk--and reward--is yours. We're just trying to be a good customer by buying what we need upfront." This approach actually saves the taxpayer money because the government gets to use a portion of the capacity of new satellites for a fraction of what it would cost the government to build new satellites on its own--which is what BASIC would have involved.</p> If we were talking about government handing simple subsidies to private companies, I would absolutely agree with you that those private companies should pay back the government if they succeed.

But that's not how NextView works. As far as I understand it, the government isn't just handing out cash to private companies in the hopes of sparking an industry, they're saying, “We will buy X amount of imagery from you over the next four years for Y amount of money. You need to come up with the rest of the cost of your systems on your own. The risk–and reward–is yours. We're just trying to be a good customer by buying what we need upfront.” This approach actually saves the taxpayer money because the government gets to use a portion of the capacity of new satellites for a fraction of what it would cost the government to build new satellites on its own–which is what BASIC would have involved.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-65214 Steve R. Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:47:12 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-65214 <p>Thanks for responding. Space commercialization is an important step in moving forward. The process of space commercialization appears to be following the established trend of many other technological advances, those companies that you would expect to be a leader, such a Boeing, in promoting the commercial use of space appear to be reluctant in taking the risk. So it is up to the upstarts to take the plunge, or in this case to launch.</p> Thanks for responding. Space commercialization is an important step in moving forward. The process of space commercialization appears to be following the established trend of many other technological advances, those companies that you would expect to be a leader, such a Boeing, in promoting the commercial use of space appear to be reluctant in taking the risk. So it is up to the upstarts to take the plunge, or in this case to launch.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-65213 Berin Szoka Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:22:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-65213 <p>My explanation wasn't sufficiently clear: When I said that the NextView contracts were "providing the initial cost of the satellites," I didn't mean that quite so literally. I meant that, by agreeing up front to purchase a certain amount of imagery, the govenrment was providing most of the capital necessary to fund construction of the satellite--but not all. The operators have to sell imagery to foreign governments and commercial providers (consistent with certain limitations in their NOAA licenses), to fund the remaining cost of building and operating the satellite.</p> My explanation wasn't sufficiently clear: When I said that the NextView contracts were “providing the initial cost of the satellites,” I didn't mean that quite so literally. I meant that, by agreeing up front to purchase a certain amount of imagery, the govenrment was providing most of the capital necessary to fund construction of the satellite–but not all. The operators have to sell imagery to foreign governments and commercial providers (consistent with certain limitations in their NOAA licenses), to fund the remaining cost of building and operating the satellite.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-56423 Berin Szoka Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:09:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-56423 <p>If we were talking about government handing simple subsidies to private companies, I would absolutely agree with you that those private companies should pay back the government if they succeed. <br><br>But that's not how NextView works. As far as I understand it, the government isn't just handing out cash to private companies in the hopes of sparking an industry, they're saying, "We will buy X amount of imagery from you over the next four years for Y amount of money. You need to come up with the rest of the cost of your systems on your own. The risk--and reward--is yours. We're just trying to be a good customer by buying what we need upfront." This approach actually saves the taxpayer money because the government gets to use a portion of the capacity of new satellites for a fraction of what it would cost the government to build new satellites on its own--which is what BASIC would have involved.</p> If we were talking about government handing simple subsidies to private companies, I would absolutely agree with you that those private companies should pay back the government if they succeed.

But that's not how NextView works. As far as I understand it, the government isn't just handing out cash to private companies in the hopes of sparking an industry, they're saying, “We will buy X amount of imagery from you over the next four years for Y amount of money. You need to come up with the rest of the cost of your systems on your own. The risk–and reward–is yours. We're just trying to be a good customer by buying what we need upfront.” This approach actually saves the taxpayer money because the government gets to use a portion of the capacity of new satellites for a fraction of what it would cost the government to build new satellites on its own–which is what BASIC would have involved.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-56422 Steve R. Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:47:12 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-56422 <p>Thanks for responding. Space commercialization is an important step in moving forward. The process of space commercialization appears to be following the established trend of many other technological advances, those companies that you would expect to be a leader, such a Boeing, in promoting the commercial use of space appear to be reluctant in taking the risk. So it is up to the upstarts to take the plunge, or in this case to launch.<br><br>Government, by providing financial assistance can help jump start these commercial efforts. But when these efforts begin to pay off, the private firms should refund the financial assistance the government provided. (The refunds can be in the form of free use of the satellite(s).) Basically, if our tax dollars are used to assist a private entity, the private entity should feel a degree of responsibility for refunding the taxpayers assistance.</p> Thanks for responding. Space commercialization is an important step in moving forward. The process of space commercialization appears to be following the established trend of many other technological advances, those companies that you would expect to be a leader, such a Boeing, in promoting the commercial use of space appear to be reluctant in taking the risk. So it is up to the upstarts to take the plunge, or in this case to launch.

Government, by providing financial assistance can help jump start these commercial efforts. But when these efforts begin to pay off, the private firms should refund the financial assistance the government provided. (The refunds can be in the form of free use of the satellite(s).) Basically, if our tax dollars are used to assist a private entity, the private entity should feel a degree of responsibility for refunding the taxpayers assistance.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-56421 Berin Szoka Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:22:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-56421 <p>My explanation wasn't sufficiently clear: When I said that the NextView contracts were "providing the initial cost of the satellites," I didn't mean that quite so literally. I meant that, by agreeing up front to purchase a certain amount of imagery, the govenrment was providing most of the capital necessary to fund construction of the satellite--but not all. The operators have to sell imagery to foreign governments and commercial providers (consistent with certain limitations in their NOAA licenses), to fund the remaining cost of building and operating the satellite.</p> My explanation wasn't sufficiently clear: When I said that the NextView contracts were “providing the initial cost of the satellites,” I didn't mean that quite so literally. I meant that, by agreeing up front to purchase a certain amount of imagery, the govenrment was providing most of the capital necessary to fund construction of the satellite–but not all. The operators have to sell imagery to foreign governments and commercial providers (consistent with certain limitations in their NOAA licenses), to fund the remaining cost of building and operating the satellite.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/10/22/a-major-victory-for-space-commercialization/comment-page-1/#comment-56420 Steve R. Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:30:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=13409#comment-56420 <p>Brian, the devil is in the details. <i>"These long-term purchase agreements essentially made the U.S. Government the “anchor tenant” in a new class of remote sensing satellites, <b>providing the initial funding for both companies </b> to build and operate their satellites."</i> (Emphasis added)<br><br>My question, if the Federal government is providing the initial funding for these satellites, is the Government reimbursed for providing these satellites by the companies through their sales? If not, another case of corporate welfare.</p> Brian, the devil is in the details. “These long-term purchase agreements essentially made the U.S. Government the “anchor tenant” in a new class of remote sensing satellites, providing the initial funding for both companies to build and operate their satellites.” (Emphasis added)

My question, if the Federal government is providing the initial funding for these satellites, is the Government reimbursed for providing these satellites by the companies through their sales? If not, another case of corporate welfare.

]]>