Tag: space

Conference Report: 43rd Space Congress, Part 3

by Bart Leahy, posted in Space Congress, space exploration

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Apologies for the delay…

Panel: New Space in Florida – Small Companies and Innovators

I found myself calling this the 30-Something Panel in my head because the group comprised folks at least 10 years younger than me–the only panel to do so, which probably says a lot about the “New Space” industry.

First up to speak was Ruben Nunez, who works as a space consultant for a variety of organizations. He spoke of the general state of New Space, where it’s going, and what its needs are. Among its needs, paradoxically, are the young and the seasoned–engineers fresh-out of college and experienced engineers who can serve as mentors for those young folks entering the workforce.

Among the markets New Space is starting to tap are suborbital space payloads via Virgin Galactic, XCOR Aerospace, and Swiss Space Systems; space debris and satellite tracking; and high-altitude skydiving.

The next speaker was my friend (and, like me, former HAL5 member) Laura Seward Forczyk. Laura is currently running Swiss Space Systems’ (S3) business development office in Cape Canaveral. S3 is looking to launch humans on suborbital tourism flights, small payloads to low-Earth orbit (LEO), and eventually provide high-speed, point-to-point suborbital transportation here on Earth. Their primary vehicle is based on HERMES, an abandoned European Space Agency spaceplane project. It would be flown on the back of an Airbus A340, much like the Space Shuttle, and would either provide a pressurized cabin for tourists to float around or a cargo bay that would open to release a small payload at high altitude, serving effectively as a second stage.

As a way of building money for the venture, S3 is in the process of certifying their A340 carrier aircraft to be used as a zero-g “vomit comet” for zero-gravity experiences closer to Earth. In addition to zero-g tourism, the aircraft has space for suborbital, low-gravity payloads. Prices for the A340 flights range from $2,700 for the “Party Zone” to $6,700 for the “Premium Zone” of the aircraft.

John Stryjewski of Vision Engineering talked about a private venture he’s working on to observe and track satellites and space debris, first from Earth, and then from space. Space debris is becoming an increasing problem, as “space junk” can collide with useful hardware with a velocity of several kilometers per second, thereby creating even more debris.

Stryjewski’s hardware includes a gimbal for mounting a tracking telescope and the telescope itself, which has an aperture diameter of about half a meter (~1.6 feet). A privately run system would be of great interest to private industry and foreign nationals seeking information on orbital debris, as the U.S. Air Force is sensitive about releasing their best data (if you know what they can see, you can guess their targeting abilities in military situations). In addition to the tracking hardware, Vision Engineering is working on the data collection systems attached to them.

Along with the debris problem, Vision hopes to be able to visually inspect the physical state of satellites in LEO. Close-up views of these satellites could determine if they’ve been damaged or if they are in danger of colliding with another satellite.

Last up for the panel was Gabriel Rothblatt, whom I met and chatted with at Cape Canaveral’s Yuri’s Night last month. As President of the Florida Space Development Council and an enterprising individual, he is involved with multiple projects, including:

  • Florida Agriculture Conversion Task Force (FACT), which identifies suitable idle NASA facilities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to be used as sites for analogue farming systems for Mars.
  • Society of Pastors for Advocating Celestial Exploration (SPACE), a group designed to bring together people of faith to support space exploration.
  • FLorida Oceanic Analogue Training (FLOAT–don’t you love acronyms?), which is a project that uses the Aquarius underwater habitat as an analogue for off-world exploration.
  • The Pioneering Space Declaration, which is an online petition to get the U.S. Congress to state directly that the purpose of the nation’s space activities–particularly the human space ventures–should be for human settlement of the solar system.

The Space Declaration project was interesting to me because of Rothblatt’s reasoning for it: “There is not a business case for putting humans in space…we are losing that race [to robotics].” When you take away most of the technical activities, the only things remaining are human activities, such as making homes, starting businesses, and raising families–things that robots do not do.

The Q&A session for this panel was quite animated, covering everything from satellite insurance to S3’s payload capacity to whether Florida has what it takes to compete among the states for New Space business. The general consensus was yes, with a few suggested caveats. For example, Texas and California have more access to venture capital. Florida needs to build resources and infrastructure that allow entrepreneurial space ventures to thrive. I’ll probably have more to say on this topic in the future.

Panel: Economic Indicators, Economic Development Tools, and Recent Successes

I showed up a tad late to this panel, but when I arrived, Lynda Weatherman from the Florida Space was well into her talk about the state of business on the Space Coast. (One of the notes in my journal suggested that she try decaf, but she was firing off good information at a brisk pace.) She explained the need for economic diversity so that a community is not wiped out when one major employer goes away or loses funding, as happened in Brevard County, FL, after the end of the Apollo and Shuttle/Constellation Programs. However, Weatherman counseled against “diversity for diversity’s sake,” advocating instead for communities to play to their existing advantages and strengths.

Weatherman also described some of the specific tactics or tools local or state governments can use to support or grow economic growth, including (in Florida) Ad Valorem tax abatement or beneficial tax treatment for specific types of businesses.

Tony Burkart, Director of Business Development at Enterprise Florida, the official state agency responsible for bringing businesses to Florida, shared a lot of statistics regarding the State’s aerospace industry, specifically Brevard County, and gave a basic pitch explaining why FL was a good place for aerospace companies to do business. Since I’m a resident and fan of the State of Florida, I don’t mind passing along those stats as well:

Florida is now the 4th largest economy among the 50 states, making it also the 21st largest economy in the world. Fast Company rated us the #1 state for innovation and #2 state for aerospace. While hurt badly by the Shuttle/Constellation shutdown in 2010, Florida still has a strong aerospace industry, with 2,000 aero-related companies here and over 87,000 industry employees. Since 2010, Lockheed Martin has added 200 jobs in the state, Pratt & Whitney 230, Embraer 1,000, Northrop Grumman over 2,800 jobs, and Harris Corp. over 6,000 jobs.

Burkart explained that Florida’s advantages as a business site are similar to the U.S. as a whole: our workforce costs (compared to other nations building aerospace products), our university system, and our protections for intellectual property. Florida, because of its long history with KSC, also has a cultural appreciation for the aerospace industry along with a workforce acquainted with working in it. We also have a lot of “transplants,” not just from northern states, but internationally, making it feasible for overseas firms like Embraer to build a plant here and find people who speak their language. Florida also prides itself on a good port system, no personal income tax, a corporate income tax rate of 5.5%, and a business climate rank of #5 nationwide.

The top business opportunities for Florida (or maybe just Brevard County), according to Burkart, included commercial space, defense, and aviation. The skill sets for all three have some overlap, while the economic drivers are different, avoiding a situation where an economic slowdown in one sector affects the whole state.

I asked about the disconnect regarding finding venture capital in Florida, since most of our biggest buildings are banks. I was told that most of the VC money here goes into real estate, vs. places like Texas, where there’s been a long habit of money going into oil, “but the money’s out there.” Aerospace is tricky, however, because it’s capital-intensive and takes a long time to show a return on investment.

Other questions included local concerns about Harris potentially moving its corporate HQ to the Beltway or Northrop Grumman’s commitment to keep work here. Burkart seemed confident that both companies were here to stay.

While Florida’s weather and quality of life might seem like a slam-dunk for some, generally the cost of doing business and the ability to recruit good people locally were the prime considerations. Anyone wanting to sell a business on coming to Brevard County, however, needs to sell them on Florida first.

More to come on this topic in the next entry!

Conference Report: 43rd Space Congress, Part 2

by Bart Leahy, posted in Space Congress, space exploration

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

It’ll take a while for me to get through all of the sessions I recorded, but bear with me: there was some good stuff to be learned. The following two sessions were hosted on the afternoon of April 28.

Panel: KSC’s Transformation to a Multi-User Spaceport

Tom Engler from KSC‘s Center Planning and Development (CPD) Office kicked off this session by sharing the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) vision for the future of NASA’s Florida spaceport. GSDO’s primary mission is to upgrade the Center’s facilities and hardware to support both the agency’s upcoming vehicles–Orion and SLS–as well as future commercial customers. Engler explained that GSDO has two elements to it: Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) and the 21st Century Space Launch Complex (yet another acronym, 21CSLC). These two groups are responsible for upgrading or completely rebuilding iconic sites and equipment such as the Mobile Launch Platform, Launch Complex 39B, Vehicle Assembly Building, and the Crawler-Transporter.

As I mentioned in my previous entry, High Bay 3 in the VAB is slated to support the Space Launch System (SLS) while High Bay 2 will be refitted to support commercial customers. Much of High Bay 2 has been completely gutted, with the multi-level platforms originally built for Apollo and modified for Shuttle now refitted with adjustable inserts capable of supporting multiple launch vehicles. The Crawler-Transporter is being modified to carry up to 18 million pounds for SLS vehicles, as opposed to its previous 12 million-pound limit for Shuttle. Additionally, Launch Complex (LC) 39B will feature a “clean pad” layout, with most of the launch vehicle servicing and assembly happening in the VAB and the service tower added to the mobile launch pad, rather than being a permanent fixture out in the Florida seabreeze.

Other construction projects include a new flame trench under LC 39B, a new small-class launch site in one corner of the 39B complex, as well as updates to Control Room 4 in the Launch Control Center (LCC) to support commercial operations…and GSDO still isn’t finished. Other old equipment is being upgraded, including the data uplink station, gaseous nitrogen pipeline, and wind profiler. If there isn’t a lot of fire and smoke happening at KSC now, by 2017, there will be…a lot!

The next speaker, Darren Bedell, was from NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP). LSP is a NASA service that helps uncrewed payloads–both NASA and NASA-sponsored satellites and planetary missions–find launch vehicles to ride. They have been busy acquiring launch vehicles for multiple missions, including SMAP, DSCOVR, MMS, and Jason-3. In addition to these missions, LSP is now looking at launch vehicles for “Venture Class” (small) Earth observation missions; however, the organization is capable of identifying launch vehicles for payloads ranging from cube sats (~4 cubic inches/10 cubic centimeters) to something the size of a school bus.

Lisa Colloredo, Associate Manager for the Commercial Crew Program, walked the audience through the various phases NASA has gone through to get from experimenting with commercial launch vehicles (CCDev1) to commercial crew services. She explained that the goal of the commercial cargo and crew efforts has been to ensure that they meet safety and performance requirements without being too prescriptive beyond that. Companies that were awarded commercial crew/cargo contracts–Boeing and SpaceX–are guaranteed a minimum of two launches per contract.

Colloredo also made a point of explaining that NASA did not mandate a specific launch site or facility for commercial crew delivery. The point being, commercial launch services are not obligated to use KSC–a point of which the Center is keenly aware.

Other updates included:

  • SpaceX will be conducting a pad abort test May 5. They are pushing for their first crewed flight in late 2016, with crewed flight certification coming in 2017.
  • LC 39A is being modified to support Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy.
  • SpaceX is building a Horizontal Processing Facility at the LC 39A site.
  • KSC is still working with Sierra Nevada Corporation and Blue Origin on their launch vehicles even though they did not win the commercial crew contracts.

Bill Dowdell from KSC’s Exploration Research & Technology Program took some time to discuss the Center’s science and technology efforts. These included the BRIC-21 mission, which studied the resistance of microbes to antibiotics in zero gravity; the Portable Onboard (three-dimensional) Printer (POP-3D) on the International Space Station; the use of carbon nanotubes on the Astrobiology Exposure and Micrometeoroid Capture Experiments (ExHam) mission; and the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NEXTSTEP) program.

Bottom line: KSC is multitasking as much as it can to meet current and future space launch needs.

Paper Presentations: Spinoffs from Space Technology

I’ll confess, I didn’t pay as close attention to this session as I could have. However, I did note some interesting statistics from NASA’s Spinoff (Technology Transfer) office. At present, the program has generated the following results:

  • Over 1,100 active patents
  • Over 400 NASA Tech Brief articles
  • Over 300 active patent licenses (i.e., private-sector companies licensed to use NASA-developed patents)
  • Over 18,000 jobs
  • Over $5 billion in revenue

Companies interested in learning about the types of technologies NASA has patented can visit the Technology Transfer Portal. The general process spinoff inventions follow is:

  1. Develop
  2. Patent
  3. Solicit interest from the private sector
  4. Start discussion(s) with interested company(ies)
  5. Negotiate license

The rest of the session was devoted to two success stories:

A third presentation in this session reviewed the KSC “Swamp Works” technology team’s efforts to create simulated lunar regolith (another word for dirt found on any planet besides Earth) in an effort to facilitate in situ resource utilization (ISRU) on future exploration missions. The point of ISRU is to use on-site materials on the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies for useful functions, such as metals to build tools or habitat shielding or water ice to make water for drinking, hydrogen and oxygen for propellant, or other crew purposes.

Conference Report: 43rd Space Congress, Part 1

by Bart Leahy, posted in Politics, Space Congress, space exploration

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

I’m spending some quality time at the 43rd Space Congress on the Space Coast learning what sorts of space activities are going on in the neighborhood of Kennedy Space Center. Short version: a lot!

Background

The Congress has apparently been a longstanding institution on the Space Coast (run since 1969), but it went off the radar after 2010, the year the Shuttle Program and Constellation were shut down. The event has been resurrected by the Canaveral Council of Technical Services and other local organizations. They’ve managed to bring in a lot of smart, informative speakers. A shame it isn’t being better attended.

In parallel with the Congress, some folks associated with the local chapter of the Project Management Institute are hosting some classes about topics like managing in an Agile software development environment. Since I arrived ridiculously early, I sat in on the Agile Development session, learning quickly that I’m not wired for that stuff, but the speaker had a solid command of his subject. He’d better: he was promoting his business, which provided test preparation for the PMI-Risk Management Professional exam.

NASA & Air Force Innovation at Cape Canaveral Spaceport

“Cape Canaveral Spaceport” is a relatively new name for the Kennedy Space Center (KSC)/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) complex, which is presented to potential launch customers as a single entity. This panel discussed the efforts being made by the two “sides of the house,” NASA and the Air Force, as well as Space Florida, to promote the Spaceport. The participants included Mark Bontrager, a Space Florida Vice President; Tom Eye, Director of Plans & Programs from the 45th Space Wing; and Scott Colloredo, who’s Director of KSC’s Center Planning & Development Group.

Bontrager kicked things off by assessing the economic environment the Spaceport faces now compared to the environment 35 years ago. In 1980, the U.S. controlled 100% of the world commercial space launch market. By 2010/2011, that domination had been completely lost, with zero U.S. commercial launches in those years. Things have changed in the last five years, with SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and other commercial providers springing up or actually providing launch services.

In response to this uptick in commercial launch providers, Space Florida–an entity created by the State of Florida to facilitate commercial space activity here–has been helping fund infrastructure that allows space-tech firms to get established on the Space Coast. Much of this infrastructure has come in the form of converting unneeded Space Shuttle buildings like the Orbiter Processing Facilities (OPFs) into places where the X-37B and CST-100 can be processed for flight.

Tom Eye, in discussing the Air Force side of things, was quite proud of the fact that over 800,000 square feet of office space has been leased or given to space-related businesses at CCAFS. In addition, Launch Complexes 37 and 41 are being run by United Launch Alliance, LC 40 is being used by SpaceX to launch Falcon 9 while LC 13 is being set up for SpaceX to land first stage boosters. LC 36 and 46 are being administered by Space Florida. The Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) is being looked at by multiple customers. And while all this activity–real and potential–is happening, NASA needs to upgrade its launch infrastructure. There were 18 launches at CCAFS in 2014; there are 26 on the manifest for this year; and 2016 could see 30+ launches. That’s a lot of work ahead, but it’s exciting. Eye explained that 57% of launches at CCAFS are now commercial.

Meanwhile, on the NASA side of the house, there isn’t so much fire and smoke–yet–but a lot of construction is underway. Scott Colloredo laid out KSC’s vision to become a “multi-user spaceport,” supporting NASA’s future missions like SLS/Orion, transferring ownership of unneeded facilities to commercial users, and operating “leaner and greener.” KSC has been busy converting OPF-1 and -3 for Boeing as well as the Vehicle Assembly Building’s High Bay 2 for other potential commercial users. Launch Complex (LC) 39A is being leased to SpaceX for Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy launches.

Meanwhile, to keep its commercial customers happy, Space Florida has been helping commercial launch providers by working with NASA to streamline safety and other requirements. The point is not to provide someone like SpaceX or Boeing with a 500-page prescriptive document for how they must run their operations, but instead give them a shorter list of requirements, which say things like “Must be compliant with OSHA and FAA regulations.” Another strategy Space Florida is pursuing is long-term agreements with commercial launch providers to give them time to build a sustainable business. SpaceX, for example, has a 20-year agreement with NASA to get things rolling at LC 39A. In addition to the more well-known entities, KSC is building two new launch sites near LC 39 to support small satellite launchers. Not much of this makes fire and smoke–but it will in the next few years. SpaceX is hoping to launch Falcon 9 from LC 39A by 2017.

All of this speaks well of the Spaceport’s future prospects, but the panel still cautioned the audience not to expect a 16,000-person civil service workforce like the Space Coast had during the Shuttle era. Still, it’s a far cry from the dark days of 2010, when KSC faced the end of the Shuttle program, the cancellation of its follow-on Constellation, and a drastic downsizing of the civil service and contractor workforce. In short, the Space Coast is not “closed.”

Emerging State/Local Government Roles in Space

Jim Ball, a consultant with Spaceport Strategies, LLC, started off his talk by explaining the obvious: “This is not your father’s space industry.” Indeed, in addition to the resurgence of American commercial launch providers, other states are starting to building spaceports of their own to lure some of that business to their region. At present, New Mexico, Alaska, and Virginia have built spaceports. Texas is “in the game, but not operating yet,” and other states believe they can host spaceports of their own once reusable vehicles make it safe to do so. In short, KSC’s natural advantages–relative proximity to the Equator, open ocean, useful launch azimuth directions, and suitable port facilities–are not necessarily enough to guarantee that launch providers will automatically look to Florida as a place to do business.

Ball explained that launch service providers have a long laundry list of things they want from a state before they set up shop. On the technical side of things, they want a safe, license-able site that is operationally suitable for their needs and with access to infrastructure (highways, seaports, airports, etc.). On the business side of things, they want assurance that they will be able to launch on time, that they have launch decision authority, and that they have a reasonable amount of autonomy in how they conduct their operations. Their top three priorities, according to Ball, are unencumbered access to their facilities and equipment, commercial standards for launch operations, and operational flexibility. Like any other businesses, they want some consistency in regulations, rules, and taxes.

The State of Florida, recognizing the need to bring in more customers once it was confirmed that Shuttle was retiring, established Space Florida out of three separate state entities to smooth the way for commercial entities to do business in the state. To that end, this quasi-state organization (“a county without geography” was one colorful description I heard today) has a charter to promote and grow Florida’s space industry and capabilities; identify, plan, and fund space infrastructure; own, manage, and operate Spaceport Florida; and of course ensure public safety. Other states will establish similar entities eventually, but for now Florida is unique in creating this organization.

Keevin Williams, a VP of Special Projects at Space Florida, focused on the financing and regulatory efforts Space Florida has promulgated in support of the space industry. To that end, the Florida legislature has put spaceflight informed consent laws into effect; as well as a research and development tax credit for space-tech companies. In 2008, the Florida Growth Fund was empowered to invest up to 1.5% of the Florida pension fund in high-tech companies, including space entities. Meanwhile, the Florida Opportunity Fund makes $500K-$2M investments in small companies. In addition to these financial votes of confidence, Space Florida has facilitated the hand-over of Shuttle Program facilities to commercial industry, leaving them to pay only operations and maintenance fees so they can concentrate on developing their technologies. Williams describes much of what Space Florida does for the space industry as “blocking and tackling” regulatory and financial problems.

Leigh Holt, who has advocated for the space industry at the county level, explained that all these policies have become institutionalized into the Florida law books and budget by convincing the legislature that space infrastructure is, in fact, a transportation service, akin railroads or highways. Money for space is always scarce, but the highway budget in Florida is well funded, which might explain why we have construction year-around. A $1.5M line item for “space” gradually morphed into a $22M transportation infrastructure item. These sorts of changes occurred at the local level because Space Florida and NASA couldn’t and wouldn’t “lobby” for them.

And while this forward-thinking legislation and funding puts Florida out ahead of the other 49 states, a lot of the space-friendly lawmaking was born out of the panic that ensued once the locals in Brevard County realized that Shuttle was going away. The area had suffered massive layoffs and a long recovery period after the end of the Apollo program, and the locals were determined to prevent a repeat of that downsizing as much as possible. They haven’t been completely successful, but the current state of business on the Space Coast owes a lot to the efforts Space Florida has made and to the successes of SpaceX.

These two panel sessions provided great background for understanding the state of the space business here in Central Florida. I will share other insights in the near future. But for now, I must crash. Back at it again tomorrow. Part 2 can be found here.

Making a Better Future

by Bart Leahy, posted in better future, Philosophy, Politics, Technology

STAR TREKI’m a big fan of Star Trek. I like the notion of a high-tech, idealistic future with attractive architecture and clean streets. So I do wonder, occasionally, what it will take to get there and whether specific policies enacted now can make that future happen. Or, if not THAT exact future, something like it.

Politically it seems like most of the folks interested in making the environment clean are on one side of the political spectrum–but their primary political methods for ensuring that we get that clean environment are coercive: more government rules, regulations, and taxes. Such policies interfere with economic growth and even freedom in some cases, causing many folks to resent the policies even if they result in a better environment for everyone.

On the other side of things, we have capitalism, which depends on continual growth, which means continual expansion of products and services, which in turn means we must extract more resources and very often create more pollution. Many people believe that growth can continue unchecked without any consequences.

This endless hostility between environmentalism and economic growth doesn’t need to be permanent. There have to be policies that can be pro-economic growth that also support the environment. I’d like to see cleaner streets, self-driving electric cars, clean air and water, trash heaps used for resources or fuel, and more greenery in cities and towns.

  • Why not talk tax breaks (not subsidies, which are direct payments of taxpayer monies) for such technologies?
  • Why not streamlined regulations to bring newer, safer nuclear power plants online?
  • Why not treat space as an economically undeveloped area (“enterprise zone“), where space-based solar power and asteroid mining can be developed tax-free for 20 years until the space above our heads has an economy strong enough to produce growth?
  • Why not zoning laws that set aside space for and encourage greener technologies?
  • Why not capitalist-based incentives to develop carbon sequestration or other technologies?

bosco-verticale-on-the-move-upScience fiction author David Brin calls these technological efforts TWSBDA (Things We Should Be Doing Anyway). If you find a way to provide incentives for building world-improving technologies that lead to profit (without direct government spending), you might eliminate some of the political friction in the climate change debate. We can do all these things–create a better, growing economy with more clean energy and more technology–without coercion and without sticking it to “the system.”

Or perhaps I’m just being too optimistic again. Jeez, I hope not. I really want to see someone build a starship.

A Modest Proposal

by Bart Leahy, posted in Philosophy

“The Arts–our public officials and political pundits agree–are “humanity’s hobby.” They’re not required for basic sustenance, nor do we lose physical well-being by being deprived of them. And let’s face it: the world is in a bad state. We’ve got economic challenges, climate shifts, wars, terrorism, and demographic problems ranging from population collapse to overpopulation. We need to get our global house in order and focus on the practical matters necessary to make our home world perfect before we start creating any new works of art, whether they be literature, sculpture, painting, or music. Our people and our world will not be ready and doesn’t have the right to attain self-actualization needs until every individual meets their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Therefore, as a measure of bipartisan pragmatism and goodwill, the Congress of the United States will hereby cease funding the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.”

This would never happen, right? The arts and the humanities have widespread support because they are seen as necessary attributes of our civilization. They enrich our lives with new discoveries, new ideas about how to live, new aesthetic experiences, and (sometimes) new sources of wealth. Why, then, is the above logic seen as perfectly logical when it comes to funding ventures in space–public or private? Isn’t art “selfish?” Isn’t it “optional?” Haven’t great works of art been created in the midst of (or despite) great poverty or squalor?

The thing is, space exploration and development can result in the above benefits and more. Anyhow, the next time someone suggests to me that we should cut NASA’s budget or not send humans to other worlds, I will make the proposal above and see what arguments they use to defend NEA or NEH. It should be an entertaining conversation. Of course, there might be some who would agree to cut both. That, I believe, would be a mistake, but that’s a different conversation.