"What is NewSpace anyway?

While I have this long definition of NewSpace, a shorthand distinction between conventional space and NewSpace can be summarized as Wholesale vs Retail.

The wholesale paradigm: space markets will never expand beyond a very limited range of government and industrial customers. The public will interact with space only indirectly via services such as GPS systems and satellite TV. The number of rocket launches to orbit per year worldwide will not grow significantly beyond the hundred or so that we see today and getting a payload to space will always cost several thousand dollars per kilogram.

The retail paradigm: the space industry will become much larger by offering new spaceflight applications, such as space tourism, directly to the public. Highly reusable, robust and reliable space transports will bring down the cost of spaceflight significantly as economies of scale are generated with higher flight rates. (This doesn't mean everyone will be going to space anytime soon. A couple of thousand people taking suborbital spaceflights each year and a hundred or so paying to go to orbit per year would revolutionize the industry.) On the long term, large scale human settlement in space will take place."

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/SpecialTopics/Events/2008/Review-2008.html

I think that markets in space are "the answer". This is similar to the "retail paradigm".
But markets seems to me to be more indicative.
It's obvious that one wants to find something in space to sell on earth, but markets in space
are selling things from space to space. It doesn't require humans already in space, just the market
in space.
The suborbital market could be said to not to be a market in space- and it's probably the most promising thing happening in space at the moment. The suborbital market is sort of like the telecommunication satellite market. The telecommunication satellite market is using an aspect or feature of space- high ground. The suborbital market will use another aspect of space- vacuum.

The entertainment aspect of suborbital market is important, but important because it should lead to more practical applications- going from point A to point B- and doing this "better" than other ways of going from point A to B. "Better" does include any entertainment aspect [and novelty and PR value], but speed- the fastest way to get someplace. And economical potential of the least amount energy used to get from A to B are things that we turn this from a billion per year activity to a trillion to tens of trillion dollar activity.
The economic growth potential in the future of anything has inherent value.
The growth potential is why we are sitting in front of super computers.
And it's not taking into account potential growth of computers, that made some imagine that dozen or so mainframe computers was all this world really needed.
The suborbital market has nearly infinite growth- similar to the computers. There is some limit on how fast it can grow. I doubt in less than decade I will travel from LA to NY via suborbital- though it's possible in say 2 decades- that would breakneck speed [unlikely but possible]. Though I would be surprised if this wasn't possible in 50 years.

It's hard to imagine, that if one can buy suborbital tickets similar to Concorde flights, and at same time we don't have people living on the Moon and Mars.

What is important is not the technological capability of being able to go from NY to Paris in less than an hour- spend a couple billion dollars and the Shuttle could do this. If we wanted to do it, the Shuttle could fly the route daily or at least weekly- it's well within the Shuttle's capability.
And with the Shuttle one could theoretically get the cost down to about 200 million dollar per flight- which is simply not good enough- it's too expensive. Though the govt could throw money at anything- there is no need for the govt to be concerned about costs. And that is why we aren't already on the Moon.

The govt can spend billions dollar per year- which a lot of money. But the market can "spend" trillions of dollars per year- and of course possibly make a profit, all of which results in economic growth. Doing anything of significant in regard to the Moon or Mars will require trillions of dollars.

Govt approach is the cost is 1 trillion dollars. We only can get 10 billion dollars per year. Hence spend 10 billion dollar for 100 years. It doesn't work.
Private approach is, what makes money? What can we give to people in which they will pay us more than our total cost to deliver it.
If the private sector fails to do this, then it "should" go bankrupt [not an idea currently not in vogue- because apparently it thought that when monopolies get too big we can't "afford" for them to fail.].

If govt fails give something at a price promised [budgeted], then the govt explains why this happened and how much more money is needed- sometimes as bonus, we get some free drama involving various accusations and red faces- but the effort involved with this is generally considered best to be avoided.

With markets in space you are involving the world economy [$65.61 trillion per year] and the idea is one is going to grow the world economy so that in few decades the world economy may grow to hundreds of trillions with the space sector being some small fraction of the world economy but rapidly growing. In terms of global economy, what does the world need from space? Cheap power is obvious.
But there are other things. How about entertainment/education- do you think some people would pay for real hope in regards to their and their children future. This a HUGE market- but we are so used to false hope- that selling hope is generally considered the same thing as lying.
But what happens if there is real chance that some people could be involved in some way with what is happening in space- which doesn't necessarily mean that they would move to the Moon or Mars. Moving off world could one of possibilities of being involved in activities in space. And if their cousin forth removed is on the Moon that alone would involve them.
What other things could someone living in mud hut in Africa want from space? It could be endless. How about a shrine for one of their gods- on the Moon or in orbit. Now, no doubt, space could be distraction to people who should out tending goats or digging roots. No doubt it will corrupt them.

Probably, the people most affected will live near the equator. Though people living inland regions, far from ship ports, rail, or airports could also be affected.
So, Indonesia because it's at equator, lots islands, high population, and it's people tend toward high tech will probably be most transformed and involved with space as compared to other countries.

The thing about markets is they involve people- because a certain amount of effort is spend in order to involve people, it's desired- unlike entities like NASA.