Commercial Space and Why Are We Doing It?

[Valerij]

Commercial Space and Why Are We Doing It?
 
Мурзилка: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/ ~ fiso/telecon/McAlister_11-7-12/McAlister_11-7-12.pdf
 
Аудио запись: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/ ~ fiso / telecon/McAlister_11-7-12/McAlister.mp3
 
November 7, 2012
Philip McAlister
NASA HQ, HEOMD
 
А теперь просто слайды из презентации:
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Valerij]

А теперь об авторе этой "мурзилки":

Phil McAlister
.

  
Special Assistant for Program Analysis
 Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation
 NASA Headquarters
  
Phil McAlister is a veteran of the space industry with over 20 years of experience in civil, military, and commercial space programs. He is currently in the Studies and Analysis Division, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, NASA Headquarters. The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation is an independent assessment organization that provides objective, transparent, and multidisciplinary analysis to inform NASA's strategic decision-making.
  
Prior to NASA, he was the Director of Futron's Space and Telecommunications Industry Analysis Division where he managed a Division of approximately 20 people involved in space industry analysis and market research. Before joining Futron, he served as a Senior Manager during a ten-year career at TRW's Aerospace and Information Systems Division (formerly BDM International). Prior to that, he worked as a Technical Analyst for ANSER, Inc.
   
Over his career, he has participated in the design and development of new launch vehicles, the redesign of the International Space Station, plus several commercial satellite endeavors. He is an experienced program/project manager with extensive demonstrated successes in business development. In addition, he is a recognized member of the aerospace industry with 11 publications to his credit.
  
Phil has an MBA degree fr om Averett University, an MS in Systems Engineering from George Mason University, and BS in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland.

 http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/mcalister-bio.html
  
Кто не знает язык может воспользоваться любым онлайн переводчиком. Вот начало перевода от Google:
   

Phil McAlister
  
Специальный помощник для анализа программ
Управление анализа и оценке программ
Штаб-квартире НАСА
  
Phil McAlister является ветераном космической отрасли с более чем 20-летний опыт работы в гражданских, военных и коммерческих космических программ.
  

Вот еще одна биография автора нашлась вот здесь: http://www.ispcs.com/bio_philip_mcalister.php Там есть еще один интересный факт:
 

Prior to this assignment, he was in NASA's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation wh ere he served as the Executive Director for the "Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee" (also known as the Augustine Committee).

Ну что, кто готов оспорить мнение бывшего исполнительного директора Комитета Августина?

[Valerij]

Первого ноября сего года в Вашингтоне, в Институте Маршала был проведен  "Круглый стол по вопросам науки и государственной политики" http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=1141 По итогам этого круглого стола на http://www.thespacereview.com появилась одна очень интересная статья:
   

How the US can become a next generation space industrial power
   
by Charles Miller
Monday, November 5, 2012
   

Editor's Note: the following is an address given by Charles Miller at a Marshall Institute event titled "Exploring Space: Considering U.S. Goals and Aspirations for Its Space Exploration Programs" in Washington, DC, on November 1.

I want to thank the Marshall Institute, Jeff Kueter, and Eric Sterner for holding this important discussion about the "why" and the "how" of space exploration and development. Their wisdom shows in first discussing the "why", and then the "how". To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, "If you don't care where you are going, any road will get you there."
   
First to "why". My answer is simple. Our goal should be to extend human civilization across the solar system. A human civilization led by free people, and founded upon free enterprise.
   
It behooves us to ask "Why?" again.
   
Human civilization needs a new frontier, to challenge the best in us, and to seed the greatest new ideas. That frontier is space. Permanent human expansion into space, led by free people and founded upon free enterprise, is the tonic humanity needs.
   
The heart and soul of America, the core values of America, were born on the frontier. The Declaration of Independence, which declared that "all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" would have died a bloody death on the continent of Europe. Indeed, the French Revolution was quite bloody. The powers in Europe did not hold these truths to be self-evident. The same is true around the rest of the established world. Billions still live under tyranny.
   
"The Blessings of Liberty" and the "Bill of Rights" were born as part of the Constitution, which was born in America. All of these ideas would survive, grow, and then flourish on the American frontier. Freedom is a disruptive innovation, a disruptive cultural innovation. The existence of a new geographic market to take root in—where the competing tyrannies and powers were weak—has accelerated the growth of freedom for all people on this planet.
   
We declared, "We are a free people." We established our self-identity and image on the frontier. We then fought our greatest wars—a war to end slavery and a war to defeat fascism—because of who we said we are. While we have our failings, as we are forever becoming a more perfect union, America has led the charge for freedom for all humanity across the planet these last several centuries.
   
But the American frontier is now closed. I watch as we increasingly turn inwards, becoming more self-absorbed, more bureaucratic, and more divided. I fear that America is the metaphorical frog, sitting quite cozily in a pot of water, and slowly becoming more like Europe.
   
Human civilization needs a new frontier, to challenge the best in us, and to seed the greatest new ideas. That frontier is space. Permanent human expansion into space, led by free people and founded upon free enterprise, is the tonic humanity needs. This human civilization will be the ultimate light on the hill. This human civilization, if only by example, will contribute to the elimination of the last vestiges of darkness here on Earth.
   
While this goal is persuasive to me, and perhaps to some of you and to a few others, there is a major problem. There is a trap that we must avoid. We represent the visionaries, and leading adopters, but most Americans (including our elected representatives) have much more pragmatic concerns.
   
The vast majority of Americans cannot, and will not, put a high priority on space exploration, or extending human civilization across the solar system. This was Newt Gingrich's mistake in Florida in late January. Newt mistook the repeated standing ovations he received fr om the hundreds of space industry people in the room for something that the far larger electorate cared about. We all need to learn fr om his mistake.
   
We need an answer to the "why" question that appeals to the pragmatic majority. We need a pragmatic strategy that ties near-term national and economic security to a fiscally-responsible but visionary economic development plan for the solar system.
   
I will now lay out a pragmatic general strategy, and a five-point plan to achieve it. I have two simple prescriptions to lay the foundation.
   
Prescription 1: complete the analysis before prescribing a solution. Stop doing what does not work. Do more of what is working.
   
American free enterprise is working in space. Let's build off America's strength—we are the land of free enterprise innovation. Our strategy must be to do things that amplify and reinforce market forces. China is scared we will figure this out. So too is Europe.
   
While China can copy our rocket designs, and steal our satellite technology, please tell me how they are going to copy our American free enterprise system. They can steal, and they can imitate. But they can't copy our value system without becoming us.
   
Prescription 2: commercial space and national security space can be fundamentally aligned at the strategic level.
   
Alfred T. Mahan, a visionary sea power theorist from the late 19th century, figured out the linkage between power and free enterprise a long time ago. Admiral Mahan, the father of the Steel Navy, wrote the following about sea power:
   

"If sea power be really based upon a peaceful and extensive commerce, aptitude for commercial pursuits must be a distinguishing feature of the nations that have at one time or another been great upon the sea."

Let's extend Mahanian theory to space. In the 21st century, an aptitude for commercial space is the distinguishing feature of nations, who are, or will be, great in space. The corollary is also true: the nation that dominates future commercial space markets will accrue great advantage to its national security, as well as great wealth for its people.
   
With this as context, I propose that America's national space strategy should be to become a Next Generation Space Industrial Power. Here is my five-point plan to do so.
   
Point 1: America must recapture world leadership in commercial space transportation. We are now fourth in the world in commercial space transportation, behind Russia, Europe, and Ukraine. China and India are coming on fast. This is completely unacceptable. The loss of these markets is an economic tragedy.
   
With a radical reduction in launch costs, and high flight rates, we are a next generation space industrial power. Without it, we are not.
   
If this was only about jobs and profits, I would say let the markets decide. But this is a national security problem. Our national security is harmed because US launch vehicles are more expensive, and less reliable, because they fly less often. Our national security is harmed because of the hollowing out of the space industrial base. Our national security is harmed when it depends on Russian rocket engines.
   
Becoming number one again in commercial space transportation is an easy first goal. We may already be on a path to achieve this goal because of the American entrepreneurial spirit. But we need to declare this an important goal, and take effective action to see it through.
   
Point 2: We should set the national goal of low-cost, reliable access to space—an order of magnitude reduction in cost, and an order of magnitude increase in reliability.
   
Low-cost access is a critical national and economic security issue. It is the one key point to becoming a Next Generation Space Industrial Power. It is the one key point to expanding human civilization across the solar system. With a radical reduction in launch costs, and high flight rates, we are a next generation space industrial power. Without it, we are not.
   
Whichever country achieves low-cost and reliable access to space first will start a virtuous cycle that will deliver tremendous national and economic security benefits. This nation will dominate the carrying trade, which will create new markets, which will drive new technologies and new capabilities, which will increase flight rates and lower launch costs, which will allow us to expand into more new markets and so on. Low-cost access is Mahanian theory in action.
   
At NASA, in the summer of 2011, a team I led that included all mission directorates and all centers unequivocally concluded that low-cost and reliable access to space was the number one priority from among all emerging commercial space opportunities.
   
This NASA team came to two other critical conclusions:
   

American industry can build a two-stage reusable launch vehicles with today's technology. Technology was the primary barrier forty years ago. Technology is not the primary barrier today.
The primary problem is that we can't close a traditional business case. The flight rate from existing markets does not justify the investment.

In another business, private risk-taking capital would take over at this point, and make the investment. But the huge size of the required investment, combined with the speculative nature of the future markets, makes the risks far too high for any private investor. This has much in common with the Transcontinental Railroad, which could not be justified as a pure commercial investment. Both are examples of market failure at the national strategic level.
   
The key to closing the business case is not for government to take over design and development. It is not loan guarantees. It is not a multibillion-dollar 2nd Generation RLV technology program. The key is to stimulate on the demand side, to create incentives that drive up the flight rate and close the business case for reusable systems.
   
The easiest and best methods to close the business case for commercial RLVs are large prizes and commercial propellant delivery.
   
Prizes are demand-side incentives that only pay for success. Further, they prevent government bureaucracies from picking winners. It leverages the power of the private investment market, as private investors (like Paul Allen) will ultimately take the risks and pick the winners.
   
No matter who wins the election, we are probably looking at a return to a Clinton-era policy wh ere human spaceflight is the ISS and only the ISS. Deep space human exploration is on the verge of being deferred for another decade as a luxury we can't afford.
   
Beyond prizes, we need a hard requirement for high flight rates. That large demand market is right in front of us. We only need to separate propellant from expensive, valuable exploration spacecraft. Propellant is cheap and easily replaceable. If there is a launch failure, you fill up and fly again. It is the perfect commercial market opportunity. It is also 70–80% of the mass needed for deep space exploration. This one decision could close the business case for commercial investment in RLVs.
   
Point 3: We need an affordable human space development strategy that flies soon, often, and advances us as a space industrial power.
   
Right now I fear that our national leadership is on the verge of cancelling all deep space human exploration. I don't care who wins this week: both parties are face-to-face with trillion-dollar deficits and $16 trillion in debt. I have talked to senior space policy thought leaders in both parties, and we are on the edge of a cliff. No matter who wins, we are probably looking at a return to a Clinton-era policy wh ere human spaceflight is the ISS and only the ISS. Deep space human exploration is on the verge of being deferred for another decade as a luxury we can't afford.
   
With this in mind, I propose point #3 in my plan: we should set the goal of returning humans to the surface Moon in a decade in partnership with commercial industry for the primary purpose of using the resources of the Moon to open up the solar system, and do so within the existing NASA budget.
   
At NASA, I led a six-center NASA team that developed a plan to do this entirely with commercial launch. This plan withstood multiple independent reviews from all human spaceflight centers. The numbers add up.
   
Point 4: We should completely privatize all US launch systems. The process of privatization started over 25 years ago, when Ronald Reagan removed commercial satellites from the Space Shuttle in 1986 by executive order. It continued when a Democratic Congress passed the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, which was signed by a Republican President. Then, again, when a Republican Congress passed the Commercial Space Act of 1998, which was signed by a Democratic President. Finally, a second President Bush proposed the Commercial Crew and Cargo program in 2004, and President Obama made it his top space policy priority.
   
The government does not design or develop airplanes, or trucks, or trains, and it should not be designing launch vehicles. Based on their written policies, I believe that both President Obama and Governor Romney would agree.
   
There is a critically important role for NASA in helping industry be successful with launch, but it is based on the highly successful model of the NACA that helped create the world's most advanced airline industry, and Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS). Which leads to point 5.
   
Point 5: COTS works. It saves money. Lots of money. We should expand the now proven COTS-commercial service purchase procurement model to other areas.
   
We now have definitive proof that the COTS model works, and can save the US taxpayers billions of dollars. NASA's cost experts used the NASA-Air Force Cost Model, or NAFCOM, to estimate what it would cost to develop the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, plus new engines and avionics, using the traditional NASA approach. The answer: $3.9 billion. The SpaceX cost? Less than half a billion dollars.
   
This factor of eight difference shocked many at NASA, but not me, because I knew my history. In the early 1990s, SpaceHab spent $150 million to design, develop, and manufacture two pressurized modules that had to be human spaceflight certified to go on the Space Shuttle. Price Waterhouse worked with NASA, using NASA's then standard cost model, and estimated that it would cost $1.2 billion using traditional methods. This was eight times what it cost SpaceHab to develop the same system using commercial practices. In other words, SpaceHab demonstrated the exact same magnitude of cost savings that SpaceX demonstrated almost two decades later.
   
We now have definitive proof that the COTS model works, and can save the US taxpayers billions of dollars.
   
Another fact. Most people don't realize that the COTS-model now has three successes in a row. It is three-for-three. They are called Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9. The EELV development process followed the COTS model. The EELV program used the DOD's other transactions authority, and commercial industry put major skin in the game. In each case, the private company (not the government) was in control of the development process. This is a critical point. All three of them took exactly four years to develop a new rocket. All three of them have succeeded on their first, second, and third launch. COTS works.
   
So when you see lists by others of all the "failures" of the last two decades, that is only half of the story. Ask them, "Where is your list of successes?"
   
Let me make clear that there will be COTS failures. But based on the multiple hard empirical data points we now have, I can say with certainty that there will be fewer failures, and more successes, than among traditional programs.
   
It is fine to develop a list of failures, but before we start discussing changes in national policy, we need to also look at all the data, including what works. The COTS-CRS model works. The Launch Service Purchase Act worked. The NGA "NextView" model worked.
   
There are many existing services and systems that we might consider for applying these models. At the top of the list, I think we should seriously consider, again, privatizing and commercializing Landsat, TDRSS, and even our weather satellites. The Carter Administration was right to say we should privatize all these functions. The Reagan Administration was right to try to do so.
   
Obviously, better and smarter people have tried and failed. Some of you are in this room. But we have three decades of lessons learned about how—and how not—to commercialize these systems.
   
More importantly, the American commercial space industry now dwarfs US government space budgets in total funding. There is no good reason we cannot find a way to buy these important but routine and repeatable services in a commercial manner.
   
Considering our trillion-dollar deficits, it is time to consider commercial approaches again.
   
Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2184/1
     
Charles Miller is the President of NexGen Space LLC, which provides client-based services at the intersection of commercial space, civil space and public policy. Mr. Miller served recently as NASA Senior Advisor for Commercial Space. Prior to coming to NASA, Mr. Miller co-founded Nanoracks LLC, was co-founder and CEO of Constellation Services International, Inc., and was the founder and President of ProSpace.
   
В общем, здесь сказано о многом. Я специально процитировал всю статью, потому, что во вводной ее части есть здравое утверждение, что Америка, точнее, дух Америки родился на границе. Надо ли мне напоминать здесь об истории России? В общем, это интересно. Но далее Charles Miller переходит к изложению предлагаемой им стратегии: "Нам нужна прагматическая стратегия, которая связывает ближайшее национальной и экономической безопасности в финансово-ответственных но дальновидный план экономического развития Солнечной системы."
   

Если морская сила действительно опирается на мирную и обширную торговлю, то стремление к коммерческой деятельности должно быть отличительной чертой наций, которые, в то или другое время, были велики на море. История подтверждает это почти без исключений; кроме истории римлян, мы, действительно, не находим ни одного серьезного примера, противоречащего этому заключению. (Мэхэн, Алфред Тайер)

http://militera.lib.ru/science/mahan1/01.html
   
Это было написано еще в девятнадцатом веке. Мы хотим повторить историю древних римлян на новом этапе?
   
В качестве цели для американской национальной космической стратегии Charles Miller предложил сделать США "космической индустриальной державой нового поколения", и предложил план из пяти пунктов, как достичь этого. Пункт 2: "Мы должны, в качестве национальной цели установить недорогой и надежный доступ в космос".....
Пункт 3: Мы должны, в качестве промежуточной цели, установить возвращение на поверхность Луны в течении десятилетия, в партнерстве с коммерческими фирмами, и должны сделать это для того, чтобы использовать лунные ресурсы для дальнейшего освоения Солнечной Системы.
Пункт 5: COTS работает. Это экономит деньги. Много денег.
   
В общем, это стоит прочитать. Даже если не знаешь языка, в сети достаточно переводчиков.

[Valerij]

Позавчера, пятого декабря, Форбс опубликовал новый список самых влиятельных людей в мире. http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/
В этом списке семьдесят один человек, по одному на сто миллионов жителей нашей планеты. 
 
Первое место в списке занял Барак Обама, переизбранный президент США. На третье место в списке занял Владимир Путин, на втором месте Ангела Меркель, на четвертом - Билл Гейтс, на двадцатом Сергей Брин, на шестьдесят первом - наш премьер министр, Дмитрий Медведев.
На пять мест ниже, на шестьдесят шестом месте в этом списке Элон Маск.....
Из трех нынешних основных его бизнесов назван только один - SpaceX

The World's Most Powerful People
David M. Ewalt, Forbes Staff
Tech 12/05/2012
 
There are nearly 7.1 billion people on the planet. These are the 71 that matter the most.
 
What do the president of the United States, the Pope and the founder of Facebook all have in common? They're all featured on Forbes' 2012 ranking of the World's Most Powerful People –an annual look at the heads of state, financiers, philanthropists and entrepreneurs who truly run the world.
 
To compile the list, we considered hundreds of candidates from various walks of life all around the globe, and measured their power along four dimensions. First, we asked whether the candidate has power over lots of people. Pope Benedict XVI, ranked #5 on our list, is the spiritual leader of more than a billion Catholics, or about 1/6th of the world's population. Michael Duke (#17), CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, employs two million people.
 
Next we assessed the financial resources controlled by each person. Are they relatively large compared to their peers? For heads of state we used GDP, while for CEOs, we looked at measures like their company's assets and revenues. When candidates have a high personal net worth –like the world's richest man, Carlos Slim Helu (#11)– we also took that into consideration. In certain instances, like Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud (#7), we considered other valuable resources at the candidate's disposal –like 20% of the world's known oil reserves.
 
Then we determined if the candidate is powerful in multiple spheres. There are only 71 slots on our list – one for every 100 million people on the planet – so being powerful in just one area is often not enough. Our picks project their influence in myriad ways: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (#16) has power because he's a politician, because he's a billionaire, because he's a media magnate, and because he's a major philanthropist.
 
Lastly, we made sure that the candidates actively used their power. Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin (#3) scored points because he so frequently shows his strength — like when he jails protestors.
 
To calculate the final rankings, ten senior Forbes editors ranked all of our candidates in each of these four dimensions of power, and those individual rankings were averaged into a composite score.
 
U.S. President Barack Obama emerged, unanimously, as the world's most powerful person, for the second year running. Obama was the decisive winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, and now he gets four more years to push his agenda.The President faces major challenges, including an unresolved budget crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and renewed unrest in the Middle East. But Obama remains the unquestioned commander in chief of the world's greatest military, and head of its sole economic and cultural superpower.
 
The second most powerful person in the world also happens to be the most powerful woman: Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, jumps up from #4 last year to take the runner-up spot on the list. Merkel is the backbone of the 27-member European Union and carries the fate of the Euro on her shoulders; she's shown her power through a hard-line austerity solution for the European debt crisis.
 
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (#25) is one of the youngest persons on the list, at age 29; he dropped significantly from last year's top-ten ranking after Facebook's much-anticipated IPO turned out to be a flop. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff (#1  is one of the list's biggest gainers: At the midpoint of her first term, Rousseff's emphasis on entrepreneurship has prompted a slew of new startups and energized Brazilian youths.
 
Apple CEO Tim Cook (#35) made a big upward move, too: A year after he succeeded iconic founder Steve Jobs, the company is the most valuable in the world. Apple stock hit an all-time high in September, reaching above $700 a share.
 
New members of the list include LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman (#71), the world's most powerful venture capitalist and the most-connected man in Silicon Valley. Elon Musk (#66), the entrepreneur behind PayPal and Tesla Motors, is the most powerful man in space: His company SpaceX is a leader in the private space industry, and with that business set to boom, Musk stands to make out like a 19th-century railway tycoon.
 
A number of prominent people fell off the entirely. Last year's #2, Chinese President Hu Jintao, is on his way out of office; he's already handed over some of his duties, and will surrender the rest early next year. We removed U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the list for the same reasons: They're both not expected to return to their powerful posts for Obama's second term.
 
Any ranking of the world's most powerful people is going to be subjective, so we don't pretend ours is definitive. It's meant to be the beginning of a conversation, not the final word. So tell us what you think: Is ex-president Bill Clinton (#50) really more powerful than the current Prime Minister of Russia (#61)? Does someone like the chief of the Internal Federation of Association Football (#69) belong on the list at all? Who did we miss? What did we get wrong? Join the conversation by commenting below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/12/05/the-worlds-most-powerful-people/

[SFN]

Форбс - это американский взгяд. Спросите у китайцев!

[саша]

Valerij пишет:

Another fact. Most people don't realize that the COTS-model now has three successes in a row. It is three-for-three. They are called Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9. The EELV development process followed the COTS model. The EELV program used the DOD's other transactions authority, and commercial industry put major skin in the game.

выделил

[саша]

Мэхэн с его теорией морской силы, как теоретическая основа космической политики США, автор жжёт

[Valerij]

SFN пишет:
Форбс - это американский взгяд. Спросите у китайцев!

Компания Apple потратит сто миллионов долларов на перенос части производства из Китая в США
07 декабря 2012 | 15:32
 
Об этом пишет газета Файненшнл Тайм со ссылкой на исполнительного директора компании Тима Кука.
 
 В течение последних десяти лет все производство Apple было сосредоточено в Китае, хотя дизайн разрабатывался в США. Однако в последнее время китайская компания, которая является партнером Apple оказалась замешанной в нескольких скандалах. Они в основном были связаны с забастовками работников. Все это, безусловно, влияло на репутацию Apple.
 

http://echo.msk.ru/news/963936-echo.html

[Valerij]

   

саша пишет:
Мэхэн с его теорией морской силы, как теоретическая основа космической политики США, автор жжёт

Тем не менее Мэхэн один из основателей геополитики, а принципы его теории морской силы вполне применима при разработке космической политики. Во всяком случае процитированный постулат.
   
А предыдущее ваше сообщение я не понял. Что вы хотели сказать?

[саша]

Valerij пишет:
 
 А предыдущее ваше сообщение я не понял. Что вы хотели сказать?

тут лили горькие слёзы по поводу доли пусковых услуг на рынке и соответственно  их важности(вы в том числе)
Эти парни явно другого мнения
---
Ряд носителей, к Вашему спору со Старым, приведён

[саша]

Valerij пишет

саша пишет:
Мэхэн с его теорией морской силы, как теоретическая основа космической политики США, автор жжёт

Тем не менее Мэхэн один из основателей геополитики, а принципы его теории морской силы вполне применима при разработке космической политики.

Вам медаль из "пентагона" уже доставили?

[Valerij]

саша пишет:
тут лили горькие слёзы по поводу доли пусковых услуг на рынке и соответственно  их важности(вы в том числе)
Эти парни явно другого мнения

Вообще, если приглядеться, то "эти парни" ни слова не говорят о сравнительном размере или особой роли пусковых услуг. Речь идет о стоимости пуска и доставки ПН на орбиту ракетами разных классов и назначений, созданных по различным организационным принципам.
   

саша пишет:

Valerij пишет:
Тем не менее Мэхэн один из основателей геополитики, а принципы его теории морской силы вполне применима при разработке космической политики.

Вам медаль из "пентагона" уже доставили?

Смотрим тут:
   

Альфред Тайер Мэхэн (англ. Alfred Thayer Mahan; 27 сентября 1840, Уэст-Пойнт, Нью-Йорк — 1 декабря 1914, Куог, Нью-Йорк) — американский военно-морской теоретик и историк, контр-адмирал (1906), один из основателей геополитики.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CC%FD%F5%FD%ED,_%C0%EB%FC%F4%F0%E5%E4_%D2%E0%E9%E5%F0
   
И тут:

Наряду с Челленом классиками геополитической науки считаются британский географ и политик Хэлфорд Маккиндер, американский историк морской стратегии А. Мэхэн, германский географ, зачинатель политической географии Ф. Ратцель, германский исследователь К. Хаусхофер, американский исследователь международных отношений Н. Дж. Спикмэн.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Геополитика
   
Нет, я, конечно, понимаю, Россия - родина слонов.....

[саша]

Valerij пишет:

 Вообще, если приглядеться, то "эти парни" ни слова не говорят о сравнительном размере или особой роли пусковых услуг. Речь идет о стоимости пуска и доставки ПН на орбиту ракетами разных классов и назначений, созданных по различным организационным принципам.
 

Об этом говорили в том числе Вы утверждая что роль пусковых услуг следует оценивать по массовой доле их на рынке.
 Вы сами то текст прочли?

[саша]

 пишет:
Альфред Тайер Мэхэн (англ. Alfred Thayer Mahan; 27 сентября 1840, Уэст-Пойнт, Нью-Йорк — 1 декабря 1914, Куог, Нью-Йорк) — американский военно-морской теоретик и историк, контр-адмирал (1906), один из основателей геополитики.

Вы даже в Вики читаете только первые абзацы? поздравляю, Вы попали в число "полезных идиотов" которым даже платить не надо.

[Valerij]

саша пишет:
Об этом говорили в том числе Вы утверждая что роль пусковых услуг следует оценивать по массовой доле их на рынке.

.
Да, экономический потенциал ниши нужно оценивать по доле этой ниши на рынке. А вы как предлагаете?
   
Но это не означает, что смотреть на ниши нужно только с одной стороны. Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию. А если вы все это умеете, то сам бог велел применять эти умения не только "на поле боя", но и в мирной жизни, элементарно для того, что бы деньги заработать.

[Valerij]

саша пишет:
Вы даже в Вики читаете только первые абзацы? поздравляю, Вы попали в число "полезных идиотов" которым даже платить не надо.

Нет,  и кроме того, я читаю не только Вики.
Кстати, вас тоже нужно поздравить, вы попали в число "вредных идиотов", готовых присоединить свой голос к любой ахинеи, если за это кто-то денежку зашлет?

[саша]

Valerij пишет:

 Нет, и кроме того, я читаю не только Вики.
 
 Кстати, вас тоже нужно поздравить, вы попали в число "вредных идиотов", готовых присоединить свой ​​голос к любой ахинеи, если за это кто-то денежку зашлет?

Нет не читаете даже Вики, Вы не узнали цитату и переделали якобы мои слова как капризный ребёнок.

[саша]

Valerij пишет:
 Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию.

А может разделить всё таки? Если автомобиль везёт компьютеры, это же не означает что производство автомобилей и компьютеров находиться в одной рыночной нише?

[LRV_75]

Valerij пишет:
 

Но это не означает, что смотреть на ниши нужно только с одной стороны. Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию

Валерий, Вы преподаватель начальных классов?

[Valerij]

LRV_75 пишет:

Valerij пишет:
Но это не означает, что смотреть на ниши нужно только с одной стороны. Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию

.  
Валерий, Вы преподаватель начальных классов?

.  
Нет, но иногда на этом форуме приходится объяснять так, чтобы и мой внук понял. Люди, которых мы сейчас цитируем, говорят в "своем кругу", для себя. У Штатов нет проблем с производством ПН для спутников, с передачей информаци в гражданский сектор экономики, с обработкой и использоваием полученной информации. В Штатах, по большому счету, есть единственная проблема - в высокой стоимости доставки ПН на орбиту. Поэтому Штаты уделяют этой проблеме столько внимания.