Improving On ISS Vs Just Copying It
Keith’s note: According to a tweet by @jeff_foust “Axiom Space’s Mary Lynne Dittmar on commercial LEO destinations panel at the FAA conference: worried that if NASA continues with four competitors for very much longer, will dilute a nascent sector and extend timelines for building comm’l stations admi competition with China.” I replied: “On the other hand @DittmarML having multiple competitors in the real world – as well as in the space bubble – is how you drive up innovation and drive down cost and ensure redundancy and flexibility. Picking winners too early stifles that. Just sayin'” and added: “There’s a bit of the “Highlander Syndrome” at work when it comes to people talking about commercial follow-ons to #ISS in meetings i.e. “there can be only one”. If that is what happens then the entire space community has failed – and this has zero to do with China. Just sayin'”
2 responses to “Improving On ISS Vs Just Copying It”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, what _should_ be the federal govt role here?
Could it successfully be nothing more than issuing a statement of interest that this is what we need, this is what we’ll pay, and of you need money up front, we encourage you to find some stable investors….
Or are we still thinking EELV?
There aren’t **any** competitors until one of them can put together a business case that closes, and that requires funneling a large enough group of customers to a small enough set of providers to make a go of it.
This isn’t a liquid market yet. It needs NASA to pay for enough of the R&D to defray the risks. Down-selection is a well-understood method for that to happen. I don’t know if four, three, or two providers is the correct number, but it’s possible to fail if you spread the money too thin. Then there wouldn’t be any innovation at all.