General Disclaimer

One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document

This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the 

organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as 

much information as possible.

This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was 

furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy 

available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, 

which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.

Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some 

of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original 

submission.

Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19840007097 2018-05-11T19:33:43+00:00Z
OASA-CR- 170953) COM14BECIALIZATION Of

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MATERIALS PROCESSING IN

LOW GRAVITY Final Report (Brown (W.

I zic.) 35 p HC A03/MF A01 CSCL 22A Unclas

G3/12 43329

FINAL REPORT

NASA CONTRACT NAS8-34901

COMMER CIALIZATION OF OPPORTUNITIE

FOR

MATERIALS PROCESSING IN LOW GRAVIT

Submitted B

W. S. Brown Inc.

1 630 Arlingt^n Drive Salt Lake C i ty, Utah 84103

investigators

s

23 25

Dr. Wayne S. Brown ti

^ 1o^a 

Mr. S. Reed Nixon ©^^ 

P repared For

National Aeronautics and Space Admistration

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Alabama 35812

June 13 1983

0
Final Report

NASA Contract NAS8-34901

Commercialization of Opportunities for Materials Processing

In Low Gravity

Submitted by

W. S. Brown, Inc.

1630 Arlington Drive 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84103

Investigators

Dr. Wayne S. Brown

E Mr. S. Reed Nixon

4

Prepared for

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Alabama 35812 

June 13, 1983

7
1

2

3

5

11

12

15

16

18

18

21

21

21

24

24

25

25

29

29

3(

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background

R=

Objectives

Task A: Assessment of Commercial Potential

Task B: Data Analysis

Business Infrastructure Required to Achieve Commercial MPS

Incentives and Disincentives for MPS

NASA/Industry Working Agreements

Task C: Business Relationships

Existing Corporate Programs

Mechanisms for Encouraging Commercialization of MPS

Contract Research

Small Business Innovation Research Grants

Use of NASA/Industry Agreements

Joint Venture Agreements with Small and Large Firms

Commercial Spinoffs from NASA Science Programs

NASA/Industry Commercial Applications Working Groups

Conclusions

Recommendations

Appendix I

9

Page

0

-i-
n

^t

Introduction

Utilization of the low gravity environment available in space for pro

cessing materials has been a subject of considerable interest since the ea

days of the space program. NASA has sponsored ground-based research, shor

duration low gravity experiments in aircraft and rockets, as well as longe

term experiments in orbiting vehicles, to develop an understanding of the

physical phenomena associated with materials behavior in low gravity. An

active research program is currently underway covering a broad range of

topics. In addition to the scientists working in NASA laboratories, stron

ties have been established with a number of well-qualified scientists from

academic and industrial laboratories who participate in the program.

Through numerous presentations NASA has invited industrial organizati

to participate in the effort to commercialize materials processing in spac

(MPS). Innovative working agreement arrangements have been established by

NASA which permit private industry to utilize NASA facilities , , including t

space shuttle, and to interact extensively with NASA personnel. However,

only a few American companies have become involved in MPS programs. If

America is to fully capitalize commercially on its investment and technica

superior position in space, ways must be found to encourage greater indust

involvement in MPS.

This report presents the results of a study conducted to determine th

status of MPS from a commercialization viewpoint and to find ways to enhan

commercial use of the low gravity environment. Data for the study was gat

from extensive interviews with NASD, scientists and administrators, academi

and industry researchers, and managers of industrial firms either currentl

involved in MPS or anticipating future involvement. This provided the inf

mation necessary to assess the status of commercial MPS and to analyze alt

natives for encouragement of private industry involvement in MPS programs.

:r

f_

C

-I-

r
t

Background

A team of NASA personnel from the Marshall Space Flight Center has been

involved in efl'Urts to encourage U.S. corporations to become involved in MPS

research and development programs for several years. This team has made pres

entations and conducted interviews with numerous American corporations. Discussions between members of the NASA team and the investigators lei to this

contractual effort. The investigators have had extensive personal experienc

with commercializing techni.al innovation in both large and small firms, as

well as experience in the aerospace industry. Dr. Brown is now president

of the Utah Innovation Center and professor of mechanical engineering at the

University of Utah. He has been instrumental in starting several successful

high technology companies. Mr. Nixon is a private consultant with extensive

experience commercializing technology in the nuclear and aerospace industries

Their combined experience provided a viewpoint quite different to that of the

NASA team. It was concluded that this viewpoint could be useful in assistin

the NASA team in their ongoing efforts to encourage private investment into

MPS technology.

e

Cs'

4

k

CI 

C ^

-2-
1

-3-

FR ^.

it

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to review ongoing NASA MPS research

for its commercial potential aid to search out logical combinations of tale

interest and resources needed to foster commercialization of selected promi

ing research or ideas„ Three specific tasks were established to achieve

these objectives. The tasks are summarized in Figure 1.

E

k

st

4 .

6
-4-

O

M

CC

N

zw

W

a..

U

W w H J

© z

z

O

O

w

z

<

<

§

z0W CL C

oWWZ

<X^^ a: C

CL

^ Z w Q a

Q^ U

^ U W

Cl) U)

W w

zaWpU

^ WWU

U) LLJ m

z

E-. -- 

c^

v

< (,nZ

rr

o w0 z¢f

c^ 

w

uA

O°C > a o^ W

^

._,

Q<wo

J

F- 

zwzw U)OY

•W

-^WO

^ WC^Z

ZW 3ww <WoW 0w^OC QJQ

s

Q=

W 

M•W

JQZL

E"'

d

O

CL

wQ

JQ-^

V

w

_W

H" W W J

W v 2¢0 CL

°a

O

0 aU U P }.

LL

¢ `:ww

O ^ILozi Fe- WCC

LLJ wCr^

Do

W zo0 Cl) oC __ w w

• • • •

c

U)Q• Q

a

IMM

C- kl^w UQ

f-ZOU
TASK A: ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL

The primary means of reviewing the current NASA MPS program was reading

documents supplied by NASA and conducting discussions with members of the NA

technical community. Extensive interviews were conducted with a number of

individuals involved in MPS programs or having an interest in MPS. Beginnin

at the Marshall Space Flight Center the investigators had an opportunity to

meet with NASA managers and scientists conducting research related to the MP

pro g ram. Considerable literature was made available which provided an excel

lent overview of the NASA MPS program. A tour of the extensive research

laboratories and drop tubes at MSFC provided an overview of some of the faci

ities available to develop MPS technology on the earth. The space shuttle

mockup was observed as well as some experimental flight hardware to gain an

understanding of the facilities available for conducting materials processin

experiments in the actual space environment.

a

After reviewing a large number of NASA-funded research programs, it was

concluded that interviews should be limited to those projects which appeared

to have the greatest possibility of leading to commercialization. With the

assistance of NASA managers, a representative group of individuals was selec

from the NASA-funded program which included research personnel from NASA lab

oratories as well as from universities and industry. In addition, a list o

companies and private consultants actively involved in NASA projects was

developed. Some of these companies had signed NASA working agreements to

participate in MPS programs.

The interviews were normally held c..t the interviewers' site. In most

cases both of the investigators were present for the interview, however, in 

few cases the interviews were limited to telephone conversations. The inve

tigators also attended MPS workshops, information meetings and Science Worki

Group meetings. Appendix 1 lists the names and organizations of individual

interviewed as part of this investigation. Figure 2 summarizes the researc

review activities and Figure 3 '(llustrates the geographical distribution of

the interviews.

The interviews were extremely informative. They enabled the investiga

tors to gain an understanding of the complexities of the technical problems

and to assess the potential for commercialization. It was also possible

to determine some of the problems associated with working with NASA facilities and the attendant extensive interface problem. Figure 4 summarizes

impressions gained from the interviews concerning MPS. Figure 5 illustrate

the variety of viewpoints which exist among NASA-funded P.I.'s.

The interviews identified several potential commercial areas which are

summarized in Figure 6.

-5-
k ii

ccaw

C/)

W

^ Q w U. mlim

uaCC

aWNWDW

F-N

i

I q

ly

OOM

U) a

LLO

X0

U) zO

ccw

a. WOaWHVNzOC

accz

CL

vs

_U0UQPww

U) z•

^vI V

J

z

wJ

WW

UO o CC

CL Cl) 0.'5i

C) Q m Q ^ .o C) H z

UJ

a

^ J 

w

U w^

Q OC aC

O W w On

cc > a

W

D w 

°

LU ^ cn a

z 

W

W

>

LU

H W

Im

>

WO0

Q 

Q

V

WzwQzwz

il

O
cm

U)0m

co

(D>c

Cl)

n^>

CL Cl)

•mom

c

c

a

m

(L

E0

0

v

C0m

nplr-%Ihffij OR^-L" it?

k
I 

co 

I 

IMPRESSIONS GAINED FROM INT

MPS IS EXPENSIVE 

LONG TERM INVES-rMENT 

UNCERTAIN PAYOUT 

SPACE HARDWARE FOR MPS RESEARCH 

• EXPENSIVE 

• COMPLICATED (NASA INTERFACE) 

• NOT AVAILABLE 

FLIGHT SCHEDULING '-

• COMPLEX 

• UNCERTAtN 

FIGURE4 
U)

CL

t^

U.

Z 

Z

cl)^

W W

OwU

U)^

Q a.

0o w

H0^t U.

Amu)

owO

Qop

J

^ ^ J

wza

z^eQ

i

m

W

r—

wco

0

O

Q w a

J z

_J U)

U

Ux

Q a.

CL a

co w

zC/)

IM

U^

^ZQ=W ^

wx

cr.

Cl)

w

5:

N

un

a

O

w

cc

B

s p.

Y

^x

J

D Q

WEE.. W V

^ a0 U

""JJ pW

^aW 0

cr V) c)0

^ z E- 0xW

a„1-C/)

0 U1

oa

UJ

ch W

Z

=)E._U

W Q 1--

m2w a0 C/'

tyC/)aw

W J

C^uj W m

J

CLow°

(j) 2 0 a,

LU

• W

(nU

QI W cr (n J

w 

Q D

ui .

W= ZW ^° Z^

J ^JC3

>CL mm

o= DwJ

- uw 0 ^

m cn c Z

Q0 ^m

> U t j cn

^^ -7w

^m cc

im ^°° a m

a^: a _. 0 W UW

W z JZ

a. Z (L W

=) Q (L

cn U Qcn

-9-

^Ks 
W

W cc: < y aw

^a

>m M'..

UL OC a 

z

z S wa

W of 00 0 a ^ V z^

=w

z^

^o

U.

^r

F ^. t

ccWO

U. OJ

W Z = cc `s 0

zCJZ

^ r I) U WU L p0,J W zWoz O U z -^ U ^- Qo ^ <

cc m`OVa

wa 2 a CO ^ 1.. O W O OQ a

c

w

C

L

c

e=
I

TASK B: DATA ANALYSIS

The most significant data available from this effort came from the personal interviews with people who were knowledgeaFie of and interested in the

MPS program. Gather useful data came from NASA reports which document the

previous and ongoing MPS-related research programs, describe the facilities

available for MPS research, and discuss NASA programs designed to encourage

p., commercialization of MPS. Published scientific reports from NASA-sponsored

research provided useful information on the status of MPS technology.

The analysis was directed to determining what course of action should

be pursued to encourage commercialization of MPS in the U.S.A. After each

interview the investigators critically reviewed the discussion with the purpose of discovering barriers to commercialization, either perceived or real.

The attitudes, aspirations, frustrations, previous successes, and hopes of

the individuals interviewed assisted the investigators in developing a clear

picture of the current status of the MPS program. The following sections of

the report present the investigators' views on the program resulting from

analyzing the data obtained from the interviews and documents.

t

,a

k

t

-11-
F

P.

Business Infrastructure Re q uired to Achieve Commercial MPS

Successful commercialization of MPS will require a sophisticated infrastructure including at least the following:

o A reliable space delivery vehicle and support system

o A solid basic science research program

o One or more space service companies that can provide facilities

to companies who do not desire to develop their own hardware

and manage the NASA interface problem

o Companies interested in producing products in space

o Financing arrangements that can adequately reward the high risk

involved with MPS

The first element is in place. The NASA space shuttle program has

demonstrated through several nearly flawless flights that a reliable vehicle

with adequate technical support services is available. The principal drawbacks to the system are the high costs and long lead times associated with

its use. This requires that the products produced have a high value per

a

unit volume or be unique to space processing. In time, if private industry

perceives that it can achieve comparable results at lower costs or more

favorable flight schedules with other delivery systems, private rocket

systems will be developed. Several such efforts are already underway. If

these develop successfully, NASA can proceed with other projects of greater

sophistication leaving "routine" MPS to private industry.

The science base element, while not complete, is progressing. NASA

Science Working Groups are functioning in several distinct areas providing

a forum for review and discussion of the science programs among capable

scientists, many of whom have a long history with space science.

These groups meet periodically to assess the state of MPS science and

to advise NASA on directions for future research. They play a strong role

in advancing MPS science. Considerable effort has been expended in groundbased research, both at NASA facilities and at industrial and university

laboratories, to develop an understanding of the influence of low gravity

on physical phenomena.. Actual flight experiments have been limited but

plans for additional experiments are undo°way. The science program is

fundamental to the entire commercialization process. Successful scientific low gravity experiments will be necessary to demonstrate not only

*-

scientific principles, but the viability of low gravity as a significant

. rj commercial process parameter.

Space service companies must be available to provide the facilities

l

and interface with the space delivery system. Many companies having a

E; desire to use materials which have been processed in space will desire

to purchase services from others rather than develop their own capabilities. Several of the large areospace companies have both interest and

capabilities in this area. They represent a significant resource to the

} commercial MPS program. At the same time it is likely that small innovative technical firms may also find it possible to develop capabilities

in their specialties which they may profitably market. ST

K u'

—12—
The most vital element in the infrastructure consists of those companies who desire to produce products in space or from materials processed

in space. The number of companies who are now convinced that MPS can play

a significant rolo in their product line is indeed very small. To date

only McDonnell Douglas appears to be convinced that materials can be commercially processed in space now. Most companies, with interest in MPS,

are taking a passive role waiting for the technology to be further developed.

It is this element of the infrastructure that needs significant cultivation.

The NASA Industry Commercial Applications Working Group project which will

be discussed later is addressed to this area.

Financing of MPS projects is not different from other high risk, longterm projects to which many companies are accustomed. A company must be

convinced that the benefit/cost ratio for an MPS p roject is at least as

high as desirable competing projects. Some companies may make moderate

investments to provide a window on the technology or to enhance their high

technology image with investors and customers, but large investments will

have to be prioritized against competing projects within the company. Small

companies, though lacking resources, probably have more flexibility in funding new projects. For example, R&D limited partnerships may prove to be

viable vehicles for such companies since the investors lower their effective risk by achieving some tax writeoffs in the early stages of the project. For any size company the MPS investment business arrangements must

meet the logical business criteria illustrated in Figure 7.

-13- 

9

r ^ s
-14-

T^

Z ~Z

LJoI

m

m W^Z

^a

C^ ac

OQ

ccWI—O

LU

^e3Wa2Oz

SWWZ— 

rW

W t

ez

O CC

Ca

Uo

W

to

F- W

c^

.j

CL QWn

02- w 2

^- Q

W 0 m~

D W

co C.1 ^Y o

ac 

m

uj

^OQLL

CC s

_0

a^CC -

W J _^

Nz

Z--Q0W

cc

z

E-- cc

W O 2zW n

Z^OV)

a^

oU. <O
^i

Incentives and Disincentives for MPS

The principal goals for MPS are:

o Produce a desirable material or product in the space environment

in a cost effective manner that either cannot be produced on

earth, or has characteristics superior to materials or products

produced on earth

o Utilize the space environment to improve the understanding of

physical phenomena associated with ground-based processes

o Develop model materials which might serve as standards for earthprocessed materials

o Demonstrate the ability to carry out complex materials processing

in space

Several incentives exist for achieving these goals, including:

o National pride in maintaining America's leadership in space

fi

science

o International prestige important to America's economic and political interaction with other countries

Private companies, while generally supportive of the first two incentives, are much more 'interested in financial incentives. It is apparent

that most companies feel the state of knowledge and experience with MPS

does not warrant significant investment of private money at the present

time. Impediments which discourage commercial investment in MPS at this

time include the following:

o The state of knowledge about the low gravity environment and its

effect on processing materials into useful products is weak

o Experience of producing new materials or products in space is

lacking

s o Proven experimental flight hardware is extremely limited

o Flight experiments are both difficult and costly

54

o Flight hardware is extremely expensive

r

o Long lead times are required for experiments and scheduling lacks

flexibility

o The interface problem between the ground-based concept and the

flight requires extensive effort by people familiar with NASA

procedures

o Service companies that can serve as the NASA interface link,

provide and operate sophisticated materials processing facilities, and provide complete flight services are being planned

but are not now operational

-15-
NASA/Industry Working Agreements

NASA has been extremely innovative in developing three agreements

permitting interaction and cooperation between private companies and NASA.

The Technical Exchange Agreement, Guest Investigator Agreement and Joint

Endeavor Agreement permit private companies access to NASA facilities at

three different levels of involvement. The agreements provide a formal

mechanism for sharing NASA-developed technology and facilities with the

private sector while avoiding charges of favoritism or unequal treatment

to individual companies.

A number of companies have signed such agreements with NASA. Clearly

the most successful arrangement to date is the McDonnell Douglas Joint

Endeavor Agreement pertaining to electrophoresus techniques for separating

pharmaceutical materials. This company has been sufficiently impressed

with the commercial potential for separation of biologic compounds using

an electrophoresus device in low gravity to make substantial financial commitments to this program. Corporate funds have been used to design and

perfect an electrophoresus device that produced significant results on

'the STS-3 shuttle flight. The results from an experiment performed for

NASA in accordance with the Joint Endeavor Agreement reported by McDonnell

Douglas to the Bioprocessing Science Working Group meeting held October 24,

1982 in Washington, D.C. were well regarded by the scientists present.

The company has combined its expertise in aerospace engineering with its

biology team to develop a useful production apparatus. Furthermore, the

company entered into an agreement with a large pharmaceutical company

'to package, distribute and market the materials produced. It now appears

` that this will be the first commercial success for the MPS program and

it certainly justifies the Joint Endeavor concept.

However, for small companies the Joint Endeavor approach may not be

viable, at least in the early stages of a .project. The Joint Endeavor

Agreement between NASA and GTI corporation is a case in point. GTI is

headed by a technical entrepreneur with a proven track record. The company entered into the JEA with NASA and recruited several high quality

people including a JPL manager with a proven record of achievement in

directing interplanetary space probe projects, and a very capable senior

marketing manager. GTI's objective was to be in the space services industry providing facilities for space processing on NASA shuttle flights

for other companies. Its first project was to be a relatively simple

furnace capable of heating samples to a given temperature, holding the

temperature constant for a predetermined time and then allowing the specimen to cool. This would permit melting and solidification studies on

small cylindrical samples of materials of interest to other companies.

Preliminary estimates indicated that such a facility could operate on

board the shuttle and be profitable for GTI. This facility would then

be followed by more complex facilities such as furnaces suitable for

crystal growth experiments.

Clearly the concept of a service company that can provide turnkey

space services, including the interface with NASA, is needed if MPS is

 to become commercially viable on a widespread basis. Thus, the basic

business philosophy of GTI was valid. However, as the first project

proceeded it became apparent that the company's preliminary market projections could not be obtained. After considerable expenditure of funds

by GTI the JEA Agreement was terminated and the project disbanded.

-16
Cr

-17-

s f

t

In retrospect it appears that a different course of action than the JEA

Agreement may have been more beneficial to NASA and GTI in the early stages

of this project. For example, if NASA could have funded the design and

fabrication of the furnace and then contracted with GTI to manage the marketing and customer interaction, the program would probably have been successful. The customers could have obtained the service at a much lower

price and a number of private companies would have become involved in the

MPS program. While the initial cost to NASA would have been higher, the

program would have been established on a much sounder basis and proceeding

with much greater industrial involvemelt. Instead GTI and NASA have terminated the agreement with disappointment on both sides. Failure of a wellmanaged small company committed to commercialization of MPS to be successful with the JEA raises doubts about this mechanism for dealing with small

companies in the early stage. If NASA could have provided additional

financial assistance such as supplying the furnace for the project, thus

enabling the company to become established, and then executed the JEA,

the project would have had a higher probability of success.

I

k

C

- •. 4

^. r. ter" - w... ,
f

r'

TASK C: BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS

Existing Corporate Programs

Among the large companies visited only McDonnell Douglas was investing

significant corporate funds in product-related MPS technology, Rockwell

International has an active program underway to sell space services to capitalize on their experience as the major space shuttle contractor. Ball

Brothers is developing sophisticated flight hardware for use in MPS technology and is also interested in providing space services. NASA can provide encouragement to these efforts by being supportive and, where appropriate, providing contract research and development funds. Due to the

special expertise these companies have in aerospace technology they are

also logical candidates as joint venture partners for process-related

companies.

Two small companies have launched specific MPS projects in recent years.

The experience of GTI has already been mentioned. Unfortunately GTI has

recently terminated their MPS activities. More recently Materials Reseat•ch

Associates has signed a Joint Endeavor Agreement with NASA to produce galium

arsenide crystals in space. The company appears to combine the talents of

a dedicated entrepreneur, an established scientist with extensive experience

in crystal research related to MPS, and adequate financial backing. This

is an exciting concept, and if successful, will be a significant achievement

for commercialization of MPS to produce a valuable material. Extensive

effort will be required to demonstrate its success. Funding academic research related to the aims of the company is one effective method NASA

can use to support this company.

Figures 8a and 8b summarize the investigators' views of several company efforts.

:i

P

C

C,

C

-18-
D

¢ 0

w [l. z w cra

.J z ¢ 

~ w CC ^-

Qz<t 0 cr 

W

< 

a.

z z U)

z

^- t^ G U 

w

F-'

Syr

Z (n ^ Yw p W < ^p5 w U ( ^ F- r ^ w zW^w

^

0 W Cl)

LL ^ w

^

> w w wMo -

0♦ ^ Z U- F' 0z>Z

cn 

p

-Q mo C

V w

g Z Om

Q^C^V- L

U Q O mCJZCCC

Ire O z ^ Z F- 0< °o

Cf)

w

X C'3 E

p 0 w Zw0 J < Z dC7FC^ZUcn< WjZ^

w m F 2 2

w

cr 

 w

0U

w0 CC0 f' p^w

> F—JLL.0 z<tn1- V0 cr.

-19-
-20-

cn r

U 

<

t

F

wJ

j

Cj-"

U

LL

Q CO

_ w

O cn

w

U

w

Q

0

O

z

-

w

w

R

C ^ CL (Lw

C)

Or

Z

O

w

¢

0

w

(L

CO

0

cr- m <t

OU

cc

a.

O C7Z

w

U

O

E

w

a

w

0=

CL

a.

<2

d

2

CC

o

m

w

F-

<

CL

r

Z

wo

w

a

Im w^

J

U

Z

Z

Z 

Vwr C3

QZ

W u_

Qwow

Z CLU

to

Q Q F-^

H fw U) F' V^

x

Z

W

O

C) z U

=

>^

w

^

Z 

Z

Z

w

Dw

>- - 2Cl)

=~

Zw

Z

CO ^-

JW

=d

Q

z

W

--o w

QU

Q

UCC

w2

m

Er CC^

2U

U J

tcnm

CCm

a.

U C7

O u- w w w

C^

m

tr
Recognizing the effectiveness of wnall high technology firms in developing innovative technical products and processes in the United States over

the Last two decades, Congress created the Small Business Innovation Research

Program in July 1982. The Act requires ten Federal agencies including NASA

to allocate 0.2 percent of their contract research budget to small firms. F

The legislation was based on a program created by the National Science Foundation and tested over a three-year period. Phase I grants of $30,000 were

provided to the successful small technical companies which responded to

k NSF solicitations for proposals in specified areas. These companies were

eligible to apply for Phase II awards of amounts up to $200,000. The success of the program encouraged Congress to legislate the expanded program.

Under the new SBIR program most of the Phase I awards will be for $50,000

< and the Phase II awards will be for $500,000. It is anticipated that a

small company can make sufficient progress on its project during the Phase

'i II award to attract additional development funds from private sources in

larger amounts to commercialize the product or process.

fi

-21-

. - I..- _.

t

'i

Mechanisms for Encouraging MPS

o Contract Research

A long standing and extremely effective method of encouraging industry

involvement in technology developed by government agencies in the use of contract research funds. This technique has been used extensively by NASA for

many years. It was through NASA contract research funds that McDonnell

Douglas developed much of the aerospace expertise in biology and sophisticated engineering design that enabled the company to utilize electrophoresus

technology in space. This, of course, lead to a Joint Endeavor Agreement

and eventually to successful experiments on board the shuttle.

The Atomic Energy Commission used contract research funds very effectively in the 1950's to encourage U.S. industrial firms to enter the field

of nuclear power. By receiving contract research funds on projects of interest to the government, a number of companies developed expertise in the

nuclear energy field at low risk. This mechanism continued for several

years until some of the companies were able to justify completely private

investments in nuclear power. America would not have developed commercial

nuclear power plants over a relatively short time frame without government

support to private industry. Without arguing for or again t nuclear energy,

the point is made that contract research funds were very useful in meeting

what was at the time a clear government objective.

A similar approach might be considered by NASA on a, much smaller scale

to encourage commercialization of MPS; Contract research can be used effectively with any size company provided the company has the necessary technical capacity to make substantial contributions to MPS technology. Where

appropriate cost sharing could be used to insure genuine interest by the

contractor.

Figure 9 outlines one example arrangement in which NASA and a private

company could jointly participate in a contract research program which

might lead, through the steps indicated, into a successful MPS commercial

endeavor.

o Small Business Innovation Resear r .h Grants
Y

I

c

c

0

Ono `R

Q mz U) w

us ~ < Z w

w w 0 2 _

U) CL U

C)

_z(1) 5 u? a 0 F O

Claw ^ o v w Wa

LL. Lr Q Z 7

m W U o w ZZ > w Z 0

CL 0 own U

JZ LU W =a ^ o^0 az

a) Q

a

L

cc 

a s 

=ww a' a ,U CC >. w CC a aw J Z W Z

Q U- ^:. aU w Z (1)Ul

'^ a m -^ ° O z a s >- >

CL0Q !-cr.

►= U z

wwZ w v 0 0 w Q ^

F- m ¢ w oc CO f-- ^' 1%

C^ z .r., Z p Z w z Z C7^ J < 2 Q

Z >- w w a. U-w -,a. z m w a:

<x o CJ U a

>. 0 W Z

a • • • • a • • • • • Z Z CC

IL a av

v^ 0

1- gwtoto

zc°^ z ^ o>aa 0 z z

-22-
?A

a

Y-.

The SBIR program has interesting possibilities for small technical firms

interested in MPS. Phase I funding would permit small companies to investigate MPS projects with commercial potential. Those companies developing

interesting concepts could be awarded Phase II funding. Once a project is

sufficiently developed it may be possible to attract, additional private

funding from venture capital sources, joint ventures with larger companies,

R&D partnerships, or from public stock sale.

There is certainly no guarantee that the SBIR funding will lead to successful commercial MPS projects, but NASA is obligated to participate in the

SBIR program, and MPS is an area that holds great promise for small firms.

This is particularly true if means can be found to combine the innovative

talents of small companies with the resources of large corporations. Small

companies with commercially interesting, proprietory, technology are often

of great interest to large corporations as partners in joint ventures or

as candidates for acquisition. The SBIR program could serve as an interesting vehicle to combine the innovative talents of small technical companies

with the vast resources of large corporations. It should be considered as

an additional mechanism to the TEA, GIA, and JEA for furthering the commercialization of MPS.

i

4

!

-23-

i L
(11

-24-

Y`

% k

o Use of NASA Industr Agreements

One obvious potential method for a company to interact with NASA in the

MPS program is to utilize the formal arrangements NASA has established. The

Technical Exchange Agreement represents a relatively easy way to establish

working relationships with NASA which could be extended to Guest Investigator

and Joint Endeavor Agreements at an appropriate time. The McDonnell Douglas

experience to date is an excellent example of the validity of the Joint Endeavor Agreement. NASA has benefited from the experimental results and

McDonnell Douglas has enjoyed the benefits of the space shuttle at relatively low cost.

In the future it is likely that use of the working agreements will become more common, but at present the agreements have not been used exten-

.*)ively by U.S. industry, even though they have been given significant

publicity. It appears that most U.S. companies will require either greater

evidence the program will provide reasonably near term financial payoff

or economic subsidies to encourage their participation in tha program.

Joint Venture Arrangements with Small and Large Firms

Small technology firms often succeed by being very innovative and

moving rapidly into areas where opportunities exist. This capability is

one ingredient necessary to succeed in commercial MPS, Large companies

while often unable to achieve the same level of innovation as small :ompanies, are generally much stronger in manufacturing, marketing and distribution, also important ingredients for commercially successful MPS.

In addition the financial resources of large companies are much greater.

One means of combining the innovative talents of small companies with the

extensive resources of large companies in the formation of a joint venture.

Joint ventures between large and small companies may prove useful in

encouraging commercial MPS. The small ampany may initiate the project

and develop it far enough to demonstrate technical feasibility, using contract research funds, R&D partnerships funds, or direct investment capital.

At this point the small company may logically seek a large corporate partner

with market interests related to the project. By forming a joint venture

where the small company contributes the technology and the large company

provides capital and market outlets, both firms could benefit. Joint ventures are fairly common in the United States, and a wide variety of contractual arrangements exist to protect the partners and provide appropriate

rewards.

This mechanism holds considerable promise for commercialization of

MPS providing small companies can be encouraged to develop the necessary

technology.
ij

o Commercial Spinoffs from NASA Science Programs

In the past 20 years in the United States an extremely effective mechanism for achieving commercial success in high technology endeavors has been

the spinoff of small companies from academic institutions or larger organizations. This usually occurs when a capable, well-informed technical entrepreneur senses that a commercial opportunity exists which he feels can be

exploited. With sufficient encouragement he may be inclined to leave his

existing position z"* ,' start his own company. This mechanism has been particularly prevalent ar,- successful in such industries as computers, computerrelated products, biotechnology, and biomedical devices:

The study examined the potential for establishing business relationships for pursuing MPS activities utilizing the talents and knowledge of

NASA-funded researchers who have been actively engaged in MPS-related

research. It was anticipated that there may be score individuals associated with MPS research, particularly the NASA-funded M.'s, with sufficiently interesting ideas to form the basis for a company which could

attract outside investors. During the interviews a special effort was

made to seek out those individuals. While several individuals indicated

an interest in becoming involved with private companies, either as active

consultants or owner-managers, only one was actively engaged in a serious

effort to start a new private company. This company will concentrate initially on providing space services to other organizations including sophisticated furnaces for crystal growth. Another group of researchers has an

interesting product that can be manufactured in space, but it is not clear

that the market for the product is adequate to justify the equipment development costs.

The investigators were convinced that the P.I.'s have little incentive

to risk undertaking new private MPS business ventures. In most instances

the technology is not sufficiently advanced to warrant the risk of losing

research support or academic standing. As future developments delineate

clear cut space opportunities it is likely that some people closely related

to the technology will become interested in starting their own companies.

Under proper circumstances this action should be encouraged.

o NASA/Indust U Commercial Applications Working Groups

As this study proceeded, it became apparent that NASA had established

good rapport with the science community and that scientists from universities

and government were participating effectively in a number of specific science

working groups to evaluate the results of NASA-sponsored research. This

appears to be an excellent method to keep the science community informed

and to obtain useful input and guidance to the NASA science program.

It also became apparent that a significant industrial viewpoint concerned with commercialization of the scientific findings was lacking. It

is not enough to fill the technical literature with results of scientific

investigations and wait for industry to evaluate the results and commercialize them. American industry should be brought into the picture early

to permit industrial assessment of the results of the research and to

x position companies to effectively utilize the results of the research in

commercial endeavors. NASA has made an effort to get industry involved

in MPS with limited success.

-25-
t

An additional approach to encouraging industry involvement would be the

formation of several NASA/Industry Commercial Application Working Groups.

The groups would be formed around specific process technologies and would

include representatives from appropriate U.S. companies with the capabilities and interests to provide significant input into the program, members

of the financial community, invited members from the appropriate NASA

science working group and NASA personnel. Two-day meetings would be held

annually, or more often if appropriate, to inform the industry people of

the status of NASA research, to more fully utilize NASA facilities and

programs, to seek industry input on future research directions, and most

importantly, encourage industry to proceed with commercialization as oppnrtunities develop.

This concept will likely take several years to produce .significant

industry investment. However, it is inexpensive and it will create a cooperative partnership atmosphere that will be beneficial to the entire

program. Figure 10 summarizes the goal and objectives of the NASA/Industry

Commercial Applications Group concept.

Funds have been provided for a trial project to determine the feasibility of this approach. Results of the first meeting of a group focusing

on containerless processing with emphasis on glasses and glassy materials

were encouraging. Figure 11 illustrates a potential interaction scenario

for a company that begins its involvement by affiliation with a Commercial

Applications Group.

-26-

f

a

C
z0Z

U

ac

U

<CL ^-WU) ^LLJ¢

—J

Z = O r— 

z

LL LLj

LLI

CL w 2

CL 

0 

t

Z < < J

J<

a

U CLCL w z

^O^

QwU^

cn=< wF-2

^^^

< cr

I a CL

W2az

cc

CO

Ll zzOzL

C7 ^ ^ 0

G^CL z =

w ()

LL cr

F- ^ 0

^w

cr

CL ?

00

U)V

coO

c:

Fr

.^

cna

Q ^

VO

oc x

w 0o

^z

02

v oc

>Al 0

CAC ^ F- cnz M .

z^^a^v

QJ

z 

4.

a a a°

zw3F-m

zo

QO

NZ

°z

LUzw

zO0O

UT) aCa ^w

zUZz0

C: z^

Q^

0E-

--ZwzQwxwG

U)OwW

oc

-j<

F—z

(nJ<

z

z(/)

^®

w-J<c

_ZOzQ

U

_2

w^^

^--O

<a

c.a

wa:

^<

^U)=

0

wU) ®>O

ct

zzFZF :U--

2Ooo

aC

wU< O a. O w

cn

oc

as

^o

<>- w aC 0>

Op

CC

D

-27-
F.

R

e

W ~

w .0 Z w

CL 

g oc

o W Q Q O a v.

1^ ^ U ^ ^"' U cn

Z ^.. J, Z N = W

^.. Z p,

Z 

O

w

W < W 1- !- Z Lu j ^ z

W

Q W o z

V

j^V mom' Q

.jW OC

I-- >- z >- OC

co OZ 2 Z _^ >- a a ^F- [z Q

O^ ..J U^ z ^,., 

a Q

Q

^'

0 0

U) a °C UO u) 0 Z

Z U W a. a- u- a. J O Z azo W

U)z Z e w V^_ZU) Z Q w

^

w

p - Cl) z u`^.^ ^ O Fes- W - ate.

is Z Q ^; `ate. jX O a. w =) < U)

w 

a 

p z Z o?0W >>.0 U w

N- V cc Z M U^LLJXZ w

W O () a 

Q M

co

W

^^c,^o 4a.0 w

Z w U Q G. mw ^ m©m U Q Q

cc a

Z ^ DOcC O O

a w w

-28-
i

li

f

Conclusions

The principal conclusion from this study is that the current state of

knowledge relating to processing materials in space is insufficient to warrant investment of private funds. With the exception of McDonnell Douglas

and several firms developing businesses to supply space services, U.S.

corporations are unwilling to commit significant funding to MPS. Furthermore, most of the NASA science community agrees that large scale private

investment is not appropriate at present.

Recommendations

Efforts to involve U.S. corporations in commercial MPS programs should

continue. It is recommended that NASA continue to publicize results and

to seek mechanisms that will encourage private involvement. Utilization

of contract funds to encourage private company involvement and eventual

private investment in MPS is recommended. Contract funds must be used carefully on targeted objectives, with cost sharing by the contractor where

appropriate to encourage serious interest in MPS by corporate management.

Efforts to encourage cooperative arrangements between large and small companies should be encouraged. It is further recommended that NASA continue

its experiment with NASA/Industry Commercial Applications Working Groups

to determine if this is a viable mechanism for encouraging commercialization

of MPS.

k

r0

0

-29-
Appendix I Individuals Interviewed

NASA Headquarters - Washington, D.C.

Dr. Louis Testardi

Mr. Charles Yost

Dr. William Oran

NASA MSFC - Huntsville, Alabama

Mr. Richard Brown Mr. Harold Alkins

Dr. Robert Nauman Mr. Walter Wood

Mr. Lowell Zoller Dr. Robert Snyder

Mr. William Vardaman Dr. Alex Lehozky

Dr. Roger Kroes Dr. E. Etheridge

NASA MPL - Pasadena, California

Dr. Taylor Wang

Dr. Martin Barmatz

Dr. Alan Rembraum

Dr. Dan Kerrisk

Dr. Dan Sniederman

t

MdDonnell Douglas - St. Louis, Missouri

Mr. John Yardley (Interviewed in Bethesda, Maryland)

Mr. James Rose

Thiokol Chemical Company - Brigham City, Utah

Mr. Gilbert Moore

-', Lawrence Livermore Laboratories - Livermore, California

Dr. Charles Hendricks

EG & G - Goleta, California

Mr. William F. Schnepple

GTI - San Diego, California

Mr. James LeFleur

Mr. Esker K. Davis

Mr. David Keaton

Polysciences, Inc. - Warrington, Pennsylvania

d

Dr. B. David Halpern

Battelle - Columbus, Ohio

Dr. Kenneth Hughes

r Ms. Beam

Mr. Debiskdor

_30 _

tlyr . I •^.^ ^ - ^

..:o. 1 :w.w...err+!!. .. .«.+.... ....ter..« . , ....,_..,.^'. rii^.......::...r..i
Rockwell International - Downey, California

' Mr. Edward Ash

Ms. Nancy Williamson

Mr. James M. Mansfield

Dr. Y. S. Kim

Mr. Michael J. Martin

Rockwell International - Science Center - Thousand Oaks, California

Dr. Derek T. Cheung

Dr. M. David Lind

General Electric 1,,ompany - Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Dr. Thomas Frost

Mr. Hugh Alvarado

Mr. Frank Viciente

Ball Brothers Inc. - Denver, Colorado

Mr. Ronald Greenwood (Interviewed in Seattle, Washington)

{

Pennsylvania State University

` Dr. Guy Rindone

Dr. Paul Todd

,. Clarkston College

Dr. William Wilcox

Dr. R. S. Sugramanian

Lehigh University

Dr. John Vanderhoff

Dr. Mahamed E1-Aasser

Dr. J. F. Micale

+. University of Arizona - Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Malin Bier

Dr. Richard Mosher

k

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Cambridge, Massachusetts

r

Dr. Merton Flemming

Dr. Harry Gatos

Dr. Gus Witt

Dr. David Roylance

x Mr. Joe Vitale

r

University of Utah

Dr. Franz Rosenberger

Dr. James Brophy

-31-
.ke

^t

University of Missouri - Rolla, Missouri

Dr. Delbert Day

Rennselear Polytechnic Institute - Troy, New York

Dr. Robert Doremus

Dr. Martin Glicksman

Dr. H. Wiedemeyer

Iowa State University

Dr. Verhoven

Seattle Pacific University - Seattle, Washington

Dr. Herbert Kierulf

University of Oregon Medical Center

Dr. Geoffery Seaman

Consultants

Dr. Ted Kern, San Diego, California

Dr. Norbert Kriedl, Santa Fe, New Mexico

-32-

k ^.

Irk

t

^t

C