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 2020-08-02T22:31:55+00:00Z

ii

OASA-CR- 170953) COM14BECIALIZATION OfOPPORTUNITIES FOR MATERIALS PROCESSING INLOW GRAVITY Final Report (Brown (W.I zic.) 35 p HC A03/MF A01 CSCL 22A Unclas

G3/12 43329

FINAL REPORTNASA CONTRACT NAS8-34901

COMMER CIALIZATION OF OPPORTUNITIESFOR

MATERIALS PROCESSING IN LOW GRAVITY

Submitted B

W. S. Brown Inc.1 630 Arlingt^n Drive

Salt Lake C ity, Utah 84103

investigatorss 23 25

Dr. Wayne S. Brown ti;^^ 1o^aMr. S. Reed Nixon ©^ I

P repared Forrr

National Aeronautics and Space AdmistrationGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Alabama 35812

June 13 1983

ii

0

Final Report

NASA Contract NAS8-34901

Commercialization of Opportunities for Materials ProcessingIn Low Gravity

}Submitted by

W. S. Brown, Inc.1630 Arlington Drive a

Salt Lake City, Utah 84103

Investigators

Dr. Wayne S. Brown.F

E Mr. S. Reed Nixon1

4

Prepared for6

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Alabama 35812 p

June 13, 1983

7

s

O 1.

1

2

3

5

11

121516

18

1821

212124242525

29

29

3(

i

'I

{4

a

I

A

Table of Contents

Introduction

BackgroundR=

Objectives

Task A: Assessment of Commercial Potential

Task B: Data Analysis

Business Infrastructure Required to Achieve Commercial MPSIncentives and Disincentives for MPSNASA/Industry Working Agreements

Task C: Business Relationships

Existing Corporate ProgramsMechanisms for Encouraging Commercialization of MPS

Contract ResearchSmall Business Innovation Research GrantsUse of NASA/Industry AgreementsJoint Venture Agreements with Small and Large FirmsCommercial Spinoffs from NASA Science ProgramsNASA/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 earlydays of the space program. NASA has sponsored ground-based research, shortduration low gravity experiments in aircraft and rockets, as well as longerterm experiments in orbiting vehicles, to develop an understanding of thephysical phenomena associated with materials behavior in low gravity. Anactive research program is currently underway covering a broad range oftopics. In addition to the scientists working in NASA laboratories, strongties have been established with a number of well-qualified scientists fromacademic and industrial laboratories who participate in the program.

Through numerous presentations NASA has invited industrial organizationsto participate in the effort to commercialize materials processing in space(MPS). Innovative working agreement arrangements have been established byNASA which permit private industry to utilize NASA facilities , , including thespace shuttle, and to interact extensively with NASA personnel. However,only a few American companies have become involved in MPS programs. IfAmerica is to fully capitalize commercially on its investment and technicallysuperior position in space, ways must be found to encourage greater industryinvolvement in MPS.

This report presents the results of a study conducted to determine thestatus of MPS from a commercialization viewpoint and to find ways to enhancecommercial use of the low gravity environment. Data for the study was gatheredfrom extensive interviews with NASD, scientists and administrators, academicand industry researchers, and managers of industrial firms either currentlyinvolved in MPS or anticipating future involvement. This provided the infor-mation necessary to assess the status of commercial MPS and to analyze alter-natives for encouragement of private industry involvement in MPS programs.

i

i

k

:r

f_

C

-I-

^1r

^JO

t

Background

A team of NASA personnel from the Marshall Space Flight Center has beeninvolved in efl'Urts to encourage U.S. corporations to become involved in MPSresearch and development programs for several years. This team has made pres-entations and conducted interviews with numerous American corporations. Dis-cussions between members of the NASA team and the investigators lei to thiscontractual effort. The investigators have had extensive personal experiencewith commercializing techni.al innovation in both large and small firms, aswell as experience in the aerospace industry. Dr. Brown is now presidentof the Utah Innovation Center and professor of mechanical engineering at theUniversity of Utah. He has been instrumental in starting several successfulhigh technology companies. Mr. Nixon is a private consultant with extensiveexperience commercializing technology in the nuclear and aerospace industries.Their combined experience provided a viewpoint quite different to that of theNASA team. It was concluded that this viewpoint could be useful in assistingthe NASA team in their ongoing efforts to encourage private investment intoMPS technology.

e

Cs'

3

yR

k

t

4

k

tf

k

CIi^

C ^

-2-

i1

iR

i^

j

1

-3-

FR ^.

it

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to review ongoing NASA MPS researchfor its commercial potential aid to search out logical combinations of talent,interest and resources needed to foster commercialization of selected promis-ing research or ideas„ Three specific tasks were established to achievethese objectives. The tasks are summarized in Figure 1.

Ek

st

i1

4 .

1

f

6

t

-4-

O MCC

N

zwW

a.. UW wH J

© z z OO w z

<<

§

z0W CL CroWWZ

<X^^a: CLCL

^ Z w Qa

Q^ U^ U W

Cl) U)W w

zaWpU ^ WWUU) LLJ

m

zE-. -- LU

c^

v < (,n

Zrr

o w0z¢f- w

c^ w u-A O °C > ao^ W 0_ s

._,Q<wo

J

F- V.

zwzw U)OY

•W -^ W O ^ WC^ZZ W 3ww <WoW0w^OC QJ-

Q

s- t

Q = 9

W j

M•W

JQ

ZLE"' dO wCL QJQ

-^

Vw_W

H" W WJW v 2¢0 CL°a O0 aUU P }.¢LL `:ww^ILoziOWFe- CC

wCr^ oLLJ D

W zo0Cl) oC __ ww

• • • •cU)

Q•

Q

aIMM

C- kl^wUQ

f-ZOU

(i)

TASK A: ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL

The primary means of reviewing the current NASA MPS program was readingdocuments supplied by NASA and conducting discussions with members of the NASAtechnical community. Extensive interviews were conducted with a number ofindividuals involved in MPS programs or having an interest in MPS. Beginningat the Marshall Space Flight Center the investigators had an opportunity tomeet with NASA managers and scientists conducting research related to the MPSpro gram. Considerable literature was made available which provided an excel-lent overview of the NASA MPS program. A tour of the extensive researchlaboratories and drop tubes at MSFC provided an overview of some of the facil-ities available to develop MPS technology on the earth. The space shuttlemockup was observed as well as some experimental flight hardware to gain anunderstanding of the facilities available for conducting materials processingexperiments 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 appearedto have the greatest possibility of leading to commercialization. With theassistance of NASA managers, a representative group of individuals was selectedfrom the NASA-funded program which included research personnel from NASA lab-oratories as well as from universities and industry. In addition, a list ofcompanies and private consultants actively involved in NASA projects wasdeveloped. Some of these companies had signed NASA working agreements toparticipate in MPS programs.

The interviews were normally held c..t the interviewers' site. In mostcases both of the investigators were present for the interview, however, in afew cases the interviews were limited to telephone conversations. The inves-tigators also attended MPS workshops, information meetings and Science WorkingGroup meetings. Appendix 1 lists the names and organizations of individualsinterviewed as part of this investigation. Figure 2 summarizes the researchreview activities and Figure 3 '(llustrates the geographical distribution ofthe interviews.

The interviews were extremely informative. They enabled the investiga-tors to gain an understanding of the complexities of the technical problemsand to assess the potential for commercialization. It was also possibleto determine some of the problems associated with working with NASA facili-ties and the attendant extensive interface problem. Figure 4 summarizesimpressions gained from the interviews concerning MPS. Figure 5 illustratesthe variety of viewpoints which exist among NASA-funded P.I.'s.

The interviews identified several potential commercial areas which aresummarized in Figure 6.

-5-

i

k

ii

ccawC/) W^ Qw U.mlim

uaCC a

WNW

DWF-N

i

I

q

ly

OOMU)

aLLOX0

U)zO

ccwa.

W

OaWHV

NzOC

a-

cc

z

CL

vs

_U

0UQ

Pww

U)z•

^vI

V J

z Jw

W

W UOo CC

CLCl)

0.'5i

C) Q m Q^ .o

H

C) zUJ a

^ J w

U w^Q OC aC

O W w Oncc > aD w °

W LU ^ cn a

z W

W >LU

H WIm >

WO0w

Q L,

QzV)W

zw

Q

zw

z

ill

O

cm

U)

0

m

co(D>c

Cl)n^>

CL Cl)

•mom

c ca

m

(LE00 v

C

0

m

cloI

W

LL

nplr-%Ihffij OR^-L" it?

k

I co

I

IMP

RE

SS

ION

S G

AIN

ED

FR

OM

IN

TE

RV

IEW

S

MP

S IS

EX

PE

NS

IVE

LO

NG

TE

RM

INV

ES

-rM

EN

T

UN

CE

RT

AIN

PA

YO

UT

SP

AC

E H

AR

DW

AR

E F

OR

MP

S R

ES

EA

RC

H

• E

XP

EN

SIV

E

• C

OM

PL

ICA

TE

D (

NA

SA

IN

TE

RF

AC

E)

• N

OT

AV

AIL

AB

LE

FL

IGH

T S

CH

ED

UL

ING

'-

• C

OM

PLE

X

• U

NC

ER

TA

tN F

IGU

RE

4

/7".

U)CL

t^

U.

Z Z

cl)^W WOwUU)^Q a.0o w

H0^t U.Amu)owOQopJ

^ ^ Jwzaz^eQ

i

mW

r—wco0OQ aw zJ

_J U)

U

UxQ a.CL aco wzC/)

IMU^

^ZQ=W ^wxcr.

Cl)

w5:N

un

aOwcc

B

s p.

t

LO

Wt

0

Y

^x

x

JQD VWEE..W

^ a0 U

""JJpW

^a 0W cr V)

c)0^ z E-0xWa„1-C/)0 U1oaUJch W

Z

=)E._UW Q 1--

m2wa0 C/'tyC/)awW JC^uj W m

JCLow°(j) 2 0 a,

LU• W

(nUQI Wcr (n Jw Q D

ui .W= ZW^° Z^J ^JC3>CL mm

Jo= Dw- uw 0 ^

m cn c ZQ0 ^m> U t j cn

^^ -7w^m ccim

^°° a m

a^: a W_. 0 W U

W z JZa. Z (L W=) Q (Lcn U Qcn

-9-

^Ks Vi

WW cc:

< ay

w

^a>m M'..UL OC a z

z S waW of00 0 a^ V z^

=wz^^oU.

^r

F ^.

t

ccW

OU.OJ

Z = cc`sW 0zCJZ^ r I)U WUL p0,J

W zWozO U z -^ U^- Qo ^ <cc m`OVaa CO ^ 1..wa 2O W OOQ a

cow

C^

LL

c

e=

0 s+,a ar

I

TASK B: DATA ANALYSIS

The most significant data available from this effort came from the per-sonal interviews with people who were knowledgeaFie of and interested in theMPS program. Gather useful data came from NASA reports which document theprevious and ongoing MPS-related research programs, describe the facilitiesavailable for MPS research, and discuss NASA programs designed to encourage

p., commercialization of MPS. Published scientific reports from NASA-sponsoredresearch provided useful information on the status of MPS technology.

The analysis was directed to determining what course of action shouldbe pursued to encourage commercialization of MPS in the U.S.A. After eachinterview the investigators critically reviewed the discussion with the pur-pose of discovering barriers to commercialization, either perceived or real.The attitudes, aspirations, frustrations, previous successes, and hopes ofthe individuals interviewed assisted the investigators in developing a clearpicture of the current status of the MPS program. The following sections ofthe report present the investigators' views on the program resulting fromanalyzing the data obtained from the interviews and documents.

t

,a

k

t

t

-11-

A

F

P.

Business Infrastructure Required to Achieve Commercial MPS

Successful commercialization of MPS will require a sophisticated infra-structure 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 facilitiesto companies who do not desire to develop their own hardwareand manage the NASA interface problem

o Companies interested in producing products in space

o Financing arrangements that can adequately reward the high riskinvolved with MPS

The first element is in place. The NASA space shuttle program hasdemonstrated through several nearly flawless flights that a reliable vehiclewith adequate technical support services is available. The principal draw-backs to the system are the high costs and long lead times associated withits use. This requires that the products produced have a high value per

aunit volume or be unique to space processing. In time, if private industryperceives that it can achieve comparable results at lower costs or morefavorable flight schedules with other delivery systems, private rocketsystems will be developed. Several such efforts are already underway. Ifthese develop successfully, NASA can proceed with other projects of greatersophistication leaving "routine" MPS to private industry.

The science base element, while not complete, is progressing. NASAScience Working Groups are functioning in several distinct areas providinga forum for review and discussion of the science programs among capablescientists, many of whom have a long history with space science.

These groups meet periodically to assess the state of MPS science andto advise NASA on directions for future research. They play a strong rolein advancing MPS science. Considerable effort has been expended in ground-based research, both at NASA facilities and at industrial and universitylaboratories, to develop an understanding of the influence of low gravityon physical phenomena.. Actual flight experiments have been limited butplans for additional experiments are undo°way. The science program isfundamental to the entire commercialization process. Successful scien-tific 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 aE; desire to use materials which have been processed in space will desire

to purchase services from others rather than develop their own capabili-ties. Several of the large areospace companies have both interest andcapabilities in this area. They represent a significant resource to the

} commercial MPS program. At the same time it is likely that small innova-tive technical firms may also find it possible to develop capabilitiesin their specialties which they may profitably market.

ST

K u'

—12—a

The most vital element in the infrastructure consists of those com-panies who desire to produce products in space or from materials processedin space. The number of companies who are now convinced that MPS can playa significant rolo in their product line is indeed very small. To dateonly McDonnell Douglas appears to be convinced that materials can be com-mercially 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 willbe discussed later is addressed to this area.

Financing of MPS projects is not different from other high risk, long-term projects to which many companies are accustomed. A company must beconvinced that the benefit/cost ratio for an MPS project is at least ashigh as desirable competing projects. Some companies may make moderateinvestments to provide a window on the technology or to enhance their hightechnology image with investors and customers, but large investments willhave to be prioritized against competing projects within the company. Smallcompanies, though lacking resources, probably have more flexibility in fund-ing new projects. For example, R&D limited partnerships may prove to beviable vehicles for such companies since the investors lower their effec-tive risk by achieving some tax writeoffs in the early stages of the pro-ject. For any size company the MPS investment business arrangements mustmeet the logical business criteria illustrated in Figure 7.

-13- 7

9r ^ s

-14-

T^

Z ~ZLJoI

mm W

Z^a

C^ acOQ

ccW

I—O

LU

^e

3Wa2O

zSW

W

Z W— rW tezO CC

CaUo

Wto

F-

Wc^.jCL

Q

W

n

02-

w 2^- Q

W 0m~D Wco C.1Y o

ac m

uj^OQLLCC s_0

a^CC -W J_^

Nz-QZ-0W

cc

z

E-- cc

W O2zW nOV)Z^a^oU.<O

Wcc

_FdLL

.\^

'T7,001-

^i

Incentives and Disincentives for MPS

The principal goals for MPS are:

o Produce a desirable material or product in the space environmentin a cost effective manner that either cannot be produced onearth, or has characteristics superior to materials or productsproduced on earth

o Utilize the space environment to improve the understanding ofphysical phenomena associated with ground-based processes

o Develop model materials which might serve as standards for earth-processed materials

o Demonstrate the ability to carry out complex materials processingin space

Several incentives exist for achieving these goals, including:

o National pride in maintaining America's leadership in space

fiscience

o International prestige important to America's economic and poli-tical interaction with other countries

Private companies, while generally supportive of the first two incen-tives, are much more 'interested in financial incentives. It is apparentthat most companies feel the state of knowledge and experience with MPSdoes not warrant significant investment of private money at the presenttime. Impediments which discourage commercial investment in MPS at thistime include the following:

o The state of knowledge about the low gravity environment and itseffect on processing materials into useful products is weak

o Experience of producing new materials or products in space islacking

s o Proven experimental flight hardware is extremely limited

o Flight experiments are both difficult and costly54

o Flight hardware is extremely expensive

ro 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 NASAprocedures

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

provide and operate sophisticated materials processing facili-ties, and provide complete flight services are being plannedbut are not now operational

-15-

NASA/Industry Working Agreements

NASA has been extremely innovative in developing three agreementspermitting interaction and cooperation between private companies and NASA.The Technical Exchange Agreement, Guest Investigator Agreement and JointEndeavor Agreement permit private companies access to NASA facilities atthree different levels of involvement. The agreements provide a formalmechanism for sharing NASA-developed technology and facilities with theprivate sector while avoiding charges of favoritism or unequal treatmentto individual companies.

A number of companies have signed such agreements with NASA. Clearlythe most successful arrangement to date is the McDonnell Douglas JointEndeavor Agreement pertaining to electrophoresus techniques for separatingpharmaceutical materials. This company has been sufficiently impressedwith the commercial potential for separation of biologic compounds usingan electrophoresus device in low gravity to make substantial financial com-mitments to this program. Corporate funds have been used to design andperfect an electrophoresus device that produced significant results on'the STS-3 shuttle flight. The results from an experiment performed forNASA in accordance with the Joint Endeavor Agreement reported by McDonnellDouglas 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 itsbiology team to develop a useful production apparatus. Furthermore, thecompany 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 andit certainly justifies the Joint Endeavor concept.

However, for small companies the Joint Endeavor approach may not beviable, at least in the early stages of a .project. The Joint EndeavorAgreement between NASA and GTI corporation is a case in point. GTI isheaded by a technical entrepreneur with a proven track record. The com-pany entered into the JEA with NASA and recruited several high qualitypeople including a JPL manager with a proven record of achievement indirecting interplanetary space probe projects, and a very capable seniormarketing manager. GTI's objective was to be in the space services in-dustry providing facilities for space processing on NASA shuttle flightsfor other companies. Its first project was to be a relatively simplefurnace capable of heating samples to a given temperature, holding thetemperature constant for a predetermined time and then allowing the spe-cimen to cool. This would permit melting and solidification studies onsmall cylindrical samples of materials of interest to other companies.Preliminary estimates indicated that such a facility could operate onboard the shuttle and be profitable for GTI. This facility would thenbe followed by more complex facilities such as furnaces suitable forcrystal growth experiments.

Clearly the concept of a service company that can provide turnkeyspace services, including the interface with NASA, is needed if MPS is

to become commercially viable on a widespread basis. Thus, the basicbusiness philosophy of GTI was valid. However, as the first projectproceeded it became apparent that the company's preliminary market pro-jections could not be obtained. After considerable expenditure of fundsby 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 JEAAgreement may have been more beneficial to NASA and GTI in the early stagesof this project. For example, if NASA could have funded the design andfabrication of the furnace and then contracted with GTI to manage the mar-keting and customer interaction, the program would probably have been suc-cessful. The customers could have obtained the service at a much lowerprice and a number of private companies would have become involved in theMPS program. While the initial cost to NASA would have been higher, theprogram would have been established on a much sounder basis and proceedingwith much greater industrial involvemelt. Instead GTI and NASA have termi-nated the agreement with disappointment on both sides. Failure of a well-managed small company committed to commercialization of MPS to be success-ful with the JEA raises doubts about this mechanism for dealing with smallcompanies in the early stage. If NASA could have provided additionalfinancial assistance such as supplying the furnace for the project, thusenabling the company to become established, and then executed the JEA,the project would have had a higher probability of success.

I

k

a

i

I

C

- •. 4 ^. r. ter" - w... ,

VV

f

r'

TASK C: BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS

Existing Corporate Programs

Among the large companies visited only McDonnell Douglas was investingsignificant corporate funds in product-related MPS technology, RockwellInternational has an active program underway to sell space services to capi-talize on their experience as the major space shuttle contractor. BallBrothers is developing sophisticated flight hardware for use in MPS tech-nology and is also interested in providing space services. NASA can pro-vide encouragement to these efforts by being supportive and, where appro-priate, providing contract research and development funds. Due to thespecial expertise these companies have in aerospace technology they arealso logical candidates as joint venture partners for process-relatedcompanies.

Two small companies have launched specific MPS projects in recent years.The experience of GTI has already been mentioned. Unfortunately GTI hasrecently terminated their MPS activities. More recently Materials Reseat•chAssociates has signed a Joint Endeavor Agreement with NASA to produce galiumarsenide crystals in space. The company appears to combine the talents ofa dedicated entrepreneur, an established scientist with extensive experiencein crystal research related to MPS, and adequate financial backing. Thisis an exciting concept, and if successful, will be a significant achievementfor commercialization of MPS to produce a valuable material. Extensiveeffort will be required to demonstrate its success. Funding academic re-search related to the aims of the company is one effective method NASAcan use to support this company.

Figures 8a and 8b summarize the investigators' views of several com-pany efforts.

:i

i

P

C

C,

C

-18-

D¢ 0 w[l. z

w cra.J

z ¢ ~ w ^-CC

0 cr WQz<t a. z< z U) z^- t^ G U w

F-'

Syr Z (n ^Yw p W < ^p5w U ( ^ F-

r

^ w zW^w ^0 W Cl)

LL ^ w ^> w w o - wM0 Z U- F' 0z>Z♦ ^ cn p - Q mo C3V w g Z Om Q^C^V- LL

U Q O mCJZCCCIre O z ^ Z F- 0< °o

Cf) w X C'3 E

p 0 w Zw0

J < Z dC7F-

C^ZUcn< WjZ^w m F 2 2

wcr w

0

U w 0 CC0 f' p^w> F—JLL.0 z<tn1-

V

0 cr.

t

-19-

-20-

cn rU <t

F

wJ

jCj-"

ULL

Q CO_

w O cnw U w Q

0 O z - ww

RC ^ CL(L

w C) Or Z O

w ¢ 0 w(L

CO

0

cr-m <t

O U

cca.

O C7Z w U OE w a

w0=

CLa.

<2

d2

CC o m w F- <CL r Z w o w a

I- m w^ J U Z ZZ Vwr C3 Q Z W u_ Q w o wZ CL

Uto

Q QF-^ H f- w U) F' V^ x Z

W OC) z

U=

>^ w^

Z Z Z w Dw

>- - 2Cl)=

~Z

wZ CO ^-

JW = d Q zW

--ow

QU

QUCC

w2 mEr CC

^2

UU J

tcn m

CCm a. U C7

Ou- w w w

C^ m

t

r

.a

.G

wcc

C7

Recognizing the effectiveness of wnall high technology firms in devel-oping innovative technical products and processes in the United States overthe Last two decades, Congress created the Small Business Innovation ResearchProgram in July 1982. The Act requires ten Federal agencies including NASAto 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 Foun-dation and tested over a three-year period. Phase I grants of $30,000 wereprovided to the successful small technical companies which responded to

k NSF solicitations for proposals in specified areas. These companies wereeligible to apply for Phase II awards of amounts up to $200,000. The suc-cess 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 asmall company can make sufficient progress on its project during the Phase

'i II award to attract additional development funds from private sources inlarger 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 industryinvolvement in technology developed by government agencies in the use of con-tract research funds. This technique has been used extensively by NASA formany years. It was through NASA contract research funds that McDonnellDouglas developed much of the aerospace expertise in biology and sophisti-cated engineering design that enabled the company to utilize electrophoresustechnology in space. This, of course, lead to a Joint Endeavor Agreementand eventually to successful experiments on board the shuttle.

The Atomic Energy Commission used contract research funds very effec-tively in the 1950's to encourage U.S. industrial firms to enter the fieldof nuclear power. By receiving contract research funds on projects of in-terest to the government, a number of companies developed expertise in thenuclear energy field at low risk. This mechanism continued for severalyears until some of the companies were able to justify completely privateinvestments in nuclear power. America would not have developed commercialnuclear power plants over a relatively short time frame without governmentsupport to private industry. Without arguing for or again t nuclear energy,the point is made that contract research funds were very useful in meetingwhat was at the time a clear government objective.

A similar approach might be considered by NASA on a, much smaller scaleto encourage commercialization of MPS; Contract research can be used effec-tively with any size company provided the company has the necessary tech-nical capacity to make substantial contributions to MPS technology. Whereappropriate cost sharing could be used to insure genuine interest by thecontractor.

Figure 9 outlines one example arrangement in which NASA and a privatecompany could jointly participate in a contract research program whichmight lead, through the steps indicated, into a successful MPS commercialendeavor.

o Small Business Innovation Resear r .h Grants

N

Y

I

c

c

0Ono `R

Q

mz U) w

us ~ < Z ww w 0 2 _

U) CL U C)

_z (1) 5 u? a 0 F O

Claw ^ o v w Wa

LL. Lr Q Z 7m W U o w ZZ > w Z 0

CL 0 own U

JZ LU W =a ^ o^0 aza) Q

a L cc

a s =ww a' a

,U

CC >. w CC a aw J Z W ZQ U- ^:. aU w Z (1)Ul

'^ a m -^ ° O z a s >- >0Q cr. wwZ w v 0 0 wCL Q ^

!- ►= U zF- m ¢ w oc CO f-- ^' 1%

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

Z >- w -,a. z <x o CJ U aw w a. U- m w a: Z>. 0 Wa • • • • a • • • • • Z Z CCIL a av

v^ 01- gwtotozc°^ z ^ o>aa0 z z

-22-

01

Woc

t^

?A

a

Y-.

The SBIR program has interesting possibilities for small technical firmsinterested in MPS. Phase I funding would permit small companies to investi-gate MPS projects with commercial potential. Those companies developinginteresting concepts could be awarded Phase II funding. Once a project issufficiently developed it may be possible to attract, additional privatefunding 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 suc-cessful commercial MPS projects, but NASA is obligated to participate in theSBIR 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 innovativetalents of small companies with the resources of large corporations. Smallcompanies with commercially interesting, proprietory, technology are oftenof great interest to large corporations as partners in joint ventures oras candidates for acquisition. The SBIR program could serve as an interest-ing vehicle to combine the innovative talents of small technical companieswith the vast resources of large corporations. It should be considered asan additional mechanism to the TEA, GIA, and JEA for furthering the commer-cialization of MPS.

i

i

r

y}

4 t

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 theMPS program is to utilize the formal arrangements NASA has established. TheTechnical Exchange Agreement represents a relatively easy way to establishworking relationships with NASA which could be extended to Guest Investigatorand Joint Endeavor Agreements at an appropriate time. The McDonnell Douglasexperience to date is an excellent example of the validity of the Joint En-deavor Agreement. NASA has benefited from the experimental results andMcDonnell Douglas has enjoyed the benefits of the space shuttle at rela-tively low cost.

In the future it is likely that use of the working agreements will be-come more common, but at present the agreements have not been used exten-.*)ively by U.S. industry, even though they have been given significantpublicity. It appears that most U.S. companies will require either greaterevidence the program will provide reasonably near term financial payoffor 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 andmoving rapidly into areas where opportunities exist. This capability isone ingredient necessary to succeed in commercial MPS, Large companieswhile often unable to achieve the same level of innovation as small :om-panies, are generally much stronger in manufacturing, marketing and dis-tribution, 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 theextensive resources of large companies in the formation of a joint venture.

Joint ventures between large and small companies may prove useful inencouraging commercial MPS. The small ampany may initiate the projectand develop it far enough to demonstrate technical feasibility, using con-tract research funds, R&D partnerships funds, or direct investment capital.At this point the small company may logically seek a large corporate partnerwith market interests related to the project. By forming a joint venturewhere the small company contributes the technology and the large companyprovides capital and market outlets, both firms could benefit. Joint ven-tures are fairly common in the United States, and a wide variety of con-tractual arrangements exist to protect the partners and provide appropriaterewards.

This mechanism holds considerable promise for commercialization ofMPS providing small companies can be encouraged to develop the necessarytechnology.

,ai

^c

Iij

o Commercial Spinoffs from NASA Science Programs

In the past 20 years in the United States an extremely effective mechan-ism for achieving commercial success in high technology endeavors has beenthe spinoff of small companies from academic institutions or larger organi-zations. This usually occurs when a capable, well-informed technical entre-preneur senses that a commercial opportunity exists which he feels can beexploited. With sufficient encouragement he may be inclined to leave hisexisting position z"* ,' start his own company. This mechanism has been parti-cularly prevalent ar,- successful in such industries as computers, computer-related products, biotechnology, and biomedical devices:

The study examined the potential for establishing business relation-ships for pursuing MPS activities utilizing the talents and knowledge ofNASA-funded researchers who have been actively engaged in MPS-relatedresearch. It was anticipated that there may be score individuals associ-ated with MPS research, particularly the NASA-funded M.'s, with suffi-ciently interesting ideas to form the basis for a company which couldattract outside investors. During the interviews a special effort wasmade to seek out those individuals. While several individuals indicatedan interest in becoming involved with private companies, either as activeconsultants or owner-managers, only one was actively engaged in a seriouseffort to start a new private company. This company will concentrate ini-tially on providing space services to other organizations including sophis-ticated furnaces for crystal growth. Another group of researchers has aninteresting product that can be manufactured in space, but it is not clearthat the market for the product is adequate to justify the equipment devel-opment costs.

The investigators were convinced that the P.I.'s have little incentiveto risk undertaking new private MPS business ventures. In most instancesthe technology is not sufficiently advanced to warrant the risk of losingresearch support or academic standing. As future developments delineateclear cut space opportunities it is likely that some people closely relatedto 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 establishedgood rapport with the science community and that scientists from universitiesand government were participating effectively in a number of specific scienceworking groups to evaluate the results of NASA-sponsored research. Thisappears to be an excellent method to keep the science community informedand to obtain useful input and guidance to the NASA science program.

It also became apparent that a significant industrial viewpoint con-cerned with commercialization of the scientific findings was lacking. Itis not enough to fill the technical literature with results of scientificinvestigations and wait for industry to evaluate the results and commer-cialize them. American industry should be brought into the picture earlyto permit industrial assessment of the results of the research and to

x position companies to effectively utilize the results of the research incommercial endeavors. NASA has made an effort to get industry involvedin MPS with limited success.

-25-

P^

J

I

I

w, a

t

An additional approach to encouraging industry involvement would be theformation of several NASA/Industry Commercial Application Working Groups.The groups would be formed around specific process technologies and wouldinclude representatives from appropriate U.S. companies with the capabili-ties and interests to provide significant input into the program, membersof the financial community, invited members from the appropriate NASAscience working group and NASA personnel. Two-day meetings would be heldannually, or more often if appropriate, to inform the industry people ofthe status of NASA research, to more fully utilize NASA facilities andprograms, to seek industry input on future research directions, and mostimportantly, encourage industry to proceed with commercialization as oppnr-tunities develop.

This concept will likely take several years to produce .significantindustry investment. However, it is inexpensive and it will create a co-operative partnership atmosphere that will be beneficial to the entireprogram. Figure 10 summarizes the goal and objectives of the NASA/IndustryCommercial Applications Group concept.

Funds have been provided for a trial project to determine the feasi-bility of this approach. Results of the first meeting of a group focusingon containerless processing with emphasis on glasses and glassy materialswere encouraging. Figure 11 illustrates a potential interaction scenariofor a company that begins its involvement by affiliation with a CommercialApplications Group.

-26-

f

a

C

G

Oui

C7

LL.

z0

Z U Uac<CL^-WU)^LLJ¢—JZ =O r— z

LL LLjLLI

CL w 2CL

0 t

Z << JJ< aU CL

CL

w

z^O^QwU^cn=<wF-2^^^

< crI a CL

W2

azcc

CO

Llzz

O

z

LC7 ^^ 0G^CLz =w ()LL crF- ^0^wcrCL ?

00

U)

V

coO

c:

IA /,fieFAX

F

r

.^cn a

Q ^VOoc xw 0o

^z02v oc>Al 0CAC ^F-cnzM

.

z^^a^vQJz

4.

a aa°

zw3F-m

zoQONZ

°zLUzwz

O

0

OU-

T)

aaCa^wzUZ

z

0

C:

z

^

Q^

0E-

--Zw

zQwxwG

U)O

wWoc-j<F—z

(nJ<z

z(/)

^®

w-J

<

c

_Z

O

zQ U_2

w^

^

^--O

<ac.a

wa:^<^U)

=

0wU)®>Oct

zzFZ

F :U--

2OooaC

wU<

O a. Owcn

oc

as

^o<>-w aC0>OpCC

D

-27-

ID, 4

F.

R

e

W ~

w .0 Z w

CL g oc

o W Q Q O a v.

1^ ^ U ^ ^"' U cnZ ^.. J, Z N

= W

^.. Z p, O wZ W < W 1- !-Z Lu j ^ zW

Q W o zV

j^V mom' Q

.jW OCI-- >->- z OC

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

O^ ..J U^ z ^,., a Q

Q ^'

0 0U) a °C UO u) 0 Z

Z U W a. a- u- a. J O Zazo WU)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

Q M WW O () a co ^^c,^o 4a.0 wZ w U Q G. mw ^ m©m U Q Q

cc a

Z ^ DOcC O O

T.-rui

C7

U.

a w w

It

-28-

o.

;l

i

li

f

Conclusions

The principal conclusion from this study is that the current state ofknowledge relating to processing materials in space is insufficient to war-rant investment of private funds. With the exception of McDonnell Douglasand several firms developing businesses to supply space services, U.S.corporations are unwilling to commit significant funding to MPS. Further-more, most of the NASA science community agrees that large scale privateinvestment is not appropriate at present.

Recommendations

Efforts to involve U.S. corporations in commercial MPS programs shouldcontinue. It is recommended that NASA continue to publicize results andto seek mechanisms that will encourage private involvement. Utilizationof contract funds to encourage private company involvement and eventualprivate investment in MPS is recommended. Contract funds must be used care-fully on targeted objectives, with cost sharing by the contractor whereappropriate to encourage serious interest in MPS by corporate management.Efforts to encourage cooperative arrangements between large and small com-panies should be encouraged. It is further recommended that NASA continueits experiment with NASA/Industry Commercial Applications Working Groupsto determine if this is a viable mechanism for encouraging commercializationof MPS.

t

k

r-

0

0

3

ti

-29-

.r<. ^+.-.aw a^lr Mr..r ,Y t n.} ♦"e _.. ^.. a^. '^rrr a ! w Y.

60

Appendix I Individuals Interviewed

NASA Headquarters - Washington, D.C.

Dr. Louis TestardiMr. Charles YostDr. William Oran

NASA MSFC - Huntsville, Alabama

Mr. Richard Brown Mr. Harold Alkins

Dr. Robert Nauman Mr. Walter WoodMr. Lowell Zoller Dr. Robert SnyderMr. William Vardaman Dr. Alex LehozkyDr. Roger Kroes Dr. E. Etheridge

NASA MPL - Pasadena, California

Dr. Taylor WangDr. Martin Barmatz

Dr. Alan RembraumDr. Dan KerriskDr. Dan Sniederman

tMdDonnell 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 LeFleurMr. Esker K. DavisMr. David Keaton

Polysciences, Inc. - Warrington, Pennsylvania

dDr. B. David Halpern

Battelle - Columbus, Ohio

Dr. Kenneth Hughesr

Ms. BeamMr. Debiskdor

_30 _

tlyr . I •^.^ ^ - ^ ..:o. 1 :w.w...err+!!. .. .«.+.... ....ter..« . , ....,_..,. ^'. rii^.......::...r..i

Rockwell International - Downey, California

' Mr. Edward AshMs. Nancy WilliamsonMr. James M. MansfieldDr. Y. S. KimMr. Michael J. Martin

Rockwell International - Science Center - Thousand Oaks, California

Dr. Derek T. CheungDr. M. David Lind

General Electric 1,,ompany - Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Dr. Thomas FrostMr. Hugh AlvaradoMr. Frank Viciente

Ball Brothers Inc. - Denver, Colorado

Mr. Ronald Greenwood (Interviewed in Seattle, Washington)

{Pennsylvania State University

` Dr. Guy RindoneDr. Paul Todd

,. Clarkston College

Dr. William WilcoxDr. R. S. Sugramanian

Lehigh University

Dr. John VanderhoffDr. Mahamed E1-AasserDr. J. F. Micale

+. University of Arizona - Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Malin BierDr. Richard Mosher

k

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Cambridge, Massachusettsr

Dr. Merton FlemmingDr. Harry GatosDr. Gus WittDr. David Roylance

x Mr. Joe Vitaler

University of Utah

Dr. Franz RosenbergerDr. James Brophy

-31-

1

.ke

^t

University of Missouri - Rolla, Missouri

Dr. Delbert Day

Rennselear Polytechnic Institute - Troy, New York

Dr. Robert DoremusDr. Martin GlicksmanDr. 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, CaliforniaDr. Norbert Kriedl, Santa Fe, New Mexico

i

Y

-32-

k ^.

Irk

t^t

C

k ^ 1

M

Mt

{

{I

1

a