Of India and ICBMs: two current concerns for American small-satellite launch, Space Review
“A primary argument of the launch companies is that lifting the ban on the PSLV will enable vehicles subsidized by foreign governments to compete against American industry. The Antrix Corporation is mainly an administrative agent of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), India’s national space agency. ISRO provides the technical operations supporting Antrix’s commercial launches. The PSLV was developed as an ISRO program, and the profits made off commercial launch feeds back into India’s space budget. This does constitute government subsidy of the Indian launch market; in contrast, the American companies developing small launch vehicles have done so largely through private investment, with NASA purchasing their services through fixed-price contracts. Of course, those issuing counter-arguments to the preservation of the ban note that the United States does not hold such bans against the use of equivalent and similarly-subsidized Russian, European, or Japanese launch vehicles, such as the Dnepr, Vega, and Epsilon. According to the FAA Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation, the Dnepr is a medium-class vehicle used for multimanifested launches of small satellites at prices of around $29 million. The Epsilon is specifically suited for small payloads at launch prices starting at $39 million. The Vega is a small-class vehicle launching at prices also of $39 million.”
– Commercial Launch: All Government Subsidies Are Not Created Equal, earlier post
Oh, sure. Why not use Indian rockets? We’ve been sold down the Free Trade River by administrations R and D for decades while our industry crumbles. Let’s abandon space access, too.
Free trade is not really the issue here, it’s government subsidy. If India, as it has made noises about doing, actually spins off the PSLV infrastructure to a genuinely private entity, only then does it really become a trade question.
As the author of this article, I feel I should offer the other side of the argument. These are interesting topics, I would look forward to constructive dialogue!
To quote myself from later in the piece:
“In the end, the developments of the launch side of commercial space will
support improved access for the satellite industry and foster an
expanded array of space assets and applications. While a gap in
small-launch capability has persisted for longer than what satellite
companies planned for in their business cases, the launch industry is
actively responding to those needs……
Until these vehicles reach operational status, the United States
government can and should continue to issue case-by-case waivers to
small-satellite companies for rides aboard the PSLV. While not an
optimal solution, it is a temporary one: doing so would provide the
satellite industry enough breathing room to wait until suitable American
capabilities to come online.”
And, to quote Peter Seldings’s SpaceNews article on the ban:
(http://spacenews.com/u-s-sp…
“It goes beyond launch services, this official said. India has not fully
opened its satellite telecommunications market to non-Indian satellite
service providers, funneling all satellite bandwidth contracts through
the Indian Space Research Organisation. “This is a country that is
basically closed to us, and that’s an understatement,” this official
said. “Why are we unilaterally allowing access to the U.S. market?'”
Hard to see, at least in a larger sense, how using Indian launchers is conceptually different from the proposal to dump Minuteman and similar aging solids on the market, at least in the sense that both will depress our nascent industry.
I’m sympathetic with the Indians and have close personal ties with India. Nonetheless trading with a subsidized product is shooting out space industry in the foot.
Again.
I’ve already seen a lot of jobs shift to India where I work. We can hire three to four people in India for the same amount of money here in the states. Over the years, it’s dragged down salaries stateside. The absolutely huge difference in wages is mostly due to the standard of living In India being far less than it is in the US. For example, in India, cars are a luxury, even in the middle class. Most people either take public transportation to work or they buy a cheap scooter or motorcycle. If they do eventually buy a car, they might be 30 years old by the time they can afford it.
Dragging down the standard of living in the US by “openly competing” with a country struggling to go from third world status to first world status is not something I want to do.
We are engaged in a race to the bottom. First destroy unions that provide strength in solidarity and then “compete” your job with economies with standards of livings a fraction of what we consider minimal, and without adequate health, safety, security, or environmental protections. Not a winning formula.
Nobody had to “destroy” unions, the private-sector unions destroyed themselves by destroying the companies that employed their former members.
With respect to the space field, you might want to consider that Boeing, LockMart, Northrop-Grumman, ULA and much of the rest of legacy aerospace is heavily unionized. Labor-management relations at many of these firms are, to put it mildly, not cordial. That is particularly true at Boeing.
On the other hand, I’m unaware of even a single New Space company that is unionized. Certainly SpaceX and Blue Origin are not.
Entrepreneurial dynamism or unionization – choose one.
By-the-by FWIW, I realized a few months ago that you irreparably atrophied into a mindset decades ago and cannot see the world in any complete fashion. So, after wasting vast times debating points that no one reads, I decided to handle you as any denier, by ignoring you. Feel free to decorate any threads you wish, but it will empty in a vacuum.Live long and prosper,