Ever since manned spaceflight began, a vocal minority has been asking, "Why?" It seems so wasteful--there is no real benefit--there are better things to spend the money on. The carping was somewhat muted around the Apollo timeframe; the inspiration Apollo gave to the whole human race was hard to naysay. Today, however, with constrained government budgets and urgent terrestrial priorities, it is not going too far to say that US human spaceflight is in trouble.
This was recognized by NASA in 2009, when it assembled the "Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee," informally known as the Augustine commission. The committee issued a report entitled "Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation." The title suggests the "why" that the committee had in mind: greatness; worthiness. But one must ask: in the face of global shortages of food, energy and water, uncertainty about the Earth's climate, the emergence of pandemic-capable microorganisms, and massive politically-motivated violence, is pursuing a human spaceflight program on the basis of "greatness" justifiable? The committee viewed the spaceflight question in isolation, not in the context of these global issues.
Jeff Greason, CEO of XCor Aerospace and a member of the Augustine panel, helped advance the thinking with his magnificent address at ISDC 2011. He began by proposing a structure for the discussion: goal--strategy--objectives--tactics, terms that one might use in military history. He believes that the goal of U.S. human spaceflight, at the highest level, is "settlement," and he finds this goal embedded in Presidential and NASA pronouncements. With that as a goal, one could develop a strategy, within which are objectives, which are supported by tactics. Merely by suggesting this structure for the debate, Jeff made a major contribution.
But is the U.S. goal for human spaceflight really settlement (of the Moon, Mars, or other bodies)? Since Jeff had to find it "between the lines" of many space policy speeches, that in itself suggests that the goal is tentative--that the nation, the Obama Administration, and NASA are uncommitted to it. And critics have always derided the idea of settlement by saying, "Oh, yes, when we're done ruining this planet we can just move to another one."
Last Wednesday, at the Future Space 2013 conference, the NASA Deputy Administrator and the former chair of the House Science Committee gave us the latest high-level discussion of goals and strategy. One argued that we should pick a goal (location) and go there, developing whatever technology is needed; the other argued that we should work on the technology primarily, and choose appropriate missions that mesh. Neither mentioned "settlement." Neither connected the human spaceflight program to global crises and challenges. The two debaters have widely differing views of where to go and how to get there, but they share a parochial, space-flight-for-its-own-sake viewpoint.
Such myopia is a recipe for the collapse of the program. As Jeff emphasized in his talk, human exploration of Mars is unachievable on government funding alone. There is competition for NASA money; NASA budgets will be level at best, and likely declining, for decades.
The parochial advocacy for human spaceflight contrasts strongly with the non-human-spaceflight part of NASA, which enthusiastically embraces missions of tangible benefit to humanity. NASA spacecraft have made crucial, invaluable contributions to understanding atmospheric chemistry, climate change, meteorology, solar cycles, land use, and disaster monitoring. No knowledgeable person could demean the contributions of these instruments. But the human spaceflight aspect of NASA remains, so far, disconnected from Earth's problems.
Toward the end of Jeff's talk, he opined that commercial activities might fuel the long-term success of human space exploration. Literally fuel--he referred to the idea of propellant being mined commercially and sold to NASA as one of many customers. This, he said, could make the difference between failure due to budget shortfalls, and success. Obviously if NASA were the sole customer, there is no advantage to this approach, but if off-Earth-mined propellants are being purchased by others, the overall cost is lower and the system can be sustainable.
What we're talking about here is an interplanetary economy.
And is there any benefit for the people back on Earth? Well, there could be. Recall that 870 million people are chronically undernourished. 1.5 billion people have no electricity nor clean cooking methods. These basic human needs would be expensive to address, and would require additional resources, particularly energy. Interplanetary mining of propellant and structural materials could make space-generated power an affordable addition to current terrestrial energy production. And this energy production would not pollute the atmosphere, scar the soil, nor create radioactive waste.
Having the goal of "resources for Earth" for U.S. human spaceflight is a unifying theme. No longer would the various components of the space flight program have to be defended tooth and nail against budget competitors; these systems are urgently needed to obtain resources to help the Earth at a time of critical population growth and resource insufficiency.
By the way, if a robust interplanetary economy is established, we get "settlement" for free. It's merely a spinoff of the activities required to keep the infrastructure running. "Settlement" now occurs for a valuable economic purpose--robot repair, teleoperation, whatever--and not merely as an activity for its own sake.
How much of the economic work is done by robots and how much by humans is what Jeff would call a tactic, or even sub-tactic. Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries are eying all-robotic architectures; Shackleton Energy has emphasized human operators. The important thing is for NASA to cooperate with these fledgling industries, helping to develop the technologies they think they need, and assigning its experts to make the interplanetary economy a reality as soon as possible.
Space operations are expensive; those involving humans are more so, and dangerous as well. They can be justified if the goal is to address urgent human needs on Earth. If we do that, the inspiration that humanity will feel will even exceed Apollo. Helping humanity address its resource challenges with economically sustainable space activities is the unifying "why" that we must adopt.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
A real space hero for Australia
I had lunch the other day with Kirby Ikin, the president of Deep Space Industries and Managing Director of Asia Pacific Aerospace Consultants. While I was already a fan of his, I learned more about the many forays Kirby has made into the commercial space arena, and the high esteem in which he is held by the community.
Here is a signature Ikin accomplishment, from APAC's website: "For ten years he worked as a space insurance underwriter at GIO in Australia and in 1998 was appointed Managing Director of the newly created GIO Space [his own initiative]. GIO Space was one of the largest space insurance underwriters in the world with annual premium income of over A$175m (approximately US$110m at the time)." That's not just PowerPoint, folks.
In addition to being a highly capable businessman, Kirby is helping to spread the "gospel of space." He is the chairman of the board of directors of the worldwide National Space Society, formerly the L5 Society. He succeeded in that position none other than Buzz Aldrin. He is also organizing the biennial Australian Space Development Conference to be held in Adelaide in July.
The new ventures in off-Earth mining will be more successful for the influence and management of people like Kirby Ikin. Australia can look at him as a real space hero.
Here is a signature Ikin accomplishment, from APAC's website: "For ten years he worked as a space insurance underwriter at GIO in Australia and in 1998 was appointed Managing Director of the newly created GIO Space [his own initiative]. GIO Space was one of the largest space insurance underwriters in the world with annual premium income of over A$175m (approximately US$110m at the time)." That's not just PowerPoint, folks.
In addition to being a highly capable businessman, Kirby is helping to spread the "gospel of space." He is the chairman of the board of directors of the worldwide National Space Society, formerly the L5 Society. He succeeded in that position none other than Buzz Aldrin. He is also organizing the biennial Australian Space Development Conference to be held in Adelaide in July.
The new ventures in off-Earth mining will be more successful for the influence and management of people like Kirby Ikin. Australia can look at him as a real space hero.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Looking at Australia from space
Earth observation satellites aren't exactly New Space. In fact, they are as Old Space as you can get. But some nations are just starting to appreciate how important that data from space can be.
Australia has just announced its first Government Space Policy. Coincidentally, my year in Australia has been spent on a team developing an Earth-observing radar satellite for measuring the water in Australia's soils.
In this article published online today in The Conversation, I argue that there is no more important data for Australia than its water resources. What's curious about the Space Policy is that it doesn't make any commitments to develop this or any other capability.
That discussion is just beginning.
Australia has just announced its first Government Space Policy. Coincidentally, my year in Australia has been spent on a team developing an Earth-observing radar satellite for measuring the water in Australia's soils.
The Garada synthetic aperture radar satellite. Image: EADS Astrium.
In this article published online today in The Conversation, I argue that there is no more important data for Australia than its water resources. What's curious about the Space Policy is that it doesn't make any commitments to develop this or any other capability.
That discussion is just beginning.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Astronauts to an asteroid: yes or no?
My April 6th post called for a mission shift for NASA: help commercial space industries succeed, don't compete with them. Other US government departments understand this. The Energy Department sponsors research that helps make electricity more efficient, renewable sources more efficient, and even funds some large-scale projects. The Food and Drug Administration imposes strict tests on pharmaceuticals, which tend to make them more expensive, but in the end add to their safety and hence their desirability. The FAA runs an air traffic control system in order that commercial airlines can be safe and, yes, profitable.
NASA doesn't seem to get this. Case in point: the newly proposed NASA mission to capture an asteroid, tug it to a Lagrange point, and then have astronauts visit it.
The mission was called into question as the NASA Administrator testified before the House Science Committee. He said that "the goal is to remain the world's leader in space exploration." Well, at least there IS a goal. One Congressman asked, "Wouldn't going to the Moon be better preparation for an eventual manned Mars mission?" The Administrator said that "both are good" but that the Moon would be more expensive.
Sadly, the idea that NASA ought to be supporting the fledgling space resources industry didn't show up.
The choice of asteroid over Moon was apparently based on money. The Administrator stated, "Going to the Moon is a factor of three times more expensive." Really? I would pose several questions based on that statement:
1. Does that claim include the $18 BILLION being spent on the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule? In other words, would it cost $54 BILLION for a manned mission to the Moon? Of course not.
2. Then does the Administrator mean that the MARGINAL cost of the asteroid mission, $2.5 billion ABOVE the SLS and Orion development, is 1/3 of the MARGINAL cost of a Moon mission? This suggests that his mental model for re-developing the LEM is $7.5 billion. That seems about right.
3. Has the Administrator spoken to any member of the space resources industry, at Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries or Shackleton Energy? How do they assess the value of manned asteroid and lunar missions to their own business plans? What would they find most helpful?
The Administrator's statement of purpose, "exploration," can only represent the first phase of human expansion into the solar system. As has happened throughout history:
I'd propose an alternative goal: an interplanetary economy. This concept emphasizes the role of robots, because human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous, and tends not to add much to the mission set that robots can already perform. NASA and its Congressional supporters are protecting human spaceflight because that was the source of past glory.
And let's go ask Planetary, Deep Space and Shackleton to help put together the long-term strategy. You won't get the same answer from the three of them: Shackleton wants to use astronauts (commercial employees, not NASA ones) to generate fuel from lunar ice. The other two want to extract minerals from asteroids. Where a manned mission to a captured asteroid fits with either of these, I don't know. Couldn't the money be better spent on developing autonomous technologies, robotic on-orbit assembly, and lightweight space robotic components? Perhaps. NASA should be asking people with skin in the game.
NASA doesn't seem to get this. Case in point: the newly proposed NASA mission to capture an asteroid, tug it to a Lagrange point, and then have astronauts visit it.
The mission was called into question as the NASA Administrator testified before the House Science Committee. He said that "the goal is to remain the world's leader in space exploration." Well, at least there IS a goal. One Congressman asked, "Wouldn't going to the Moon be better preparation for an eventual manned Mars mission?" The Administrator said that "both are good" but that the Moon would be more expensive.
Sadly, the idea that NASA ought to be supporting the fledgling space resources industry didn't show up.
The choice of asteroid over Moon was apparently based on money. The Administrator stated, "Going to the Moon is a factor of three times more expensive." Really? I would pose several questions based on that statement:
1. Does that claim include the $18 BILLION being spent on the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule? In other words, would it cost $54 BILLION for a manned mission to the Moon? Of course not.
2. Then does the Administrator mean that the MARGINAL cost of the asteroid mission, $2.5 billion ABOVE the SLS and Orion development, is 1/3 of the MARGINAL cost of a Moon mission? This suggests that his mental model for re-developing the LEM is $7.5 billion. That seems about right.
3. Has the Administrator spoken to any member of the space resources industry, at Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries or Shackleton Energy? How do they assess the value of manned asteroid and lunar missions to their own business plans? What would they find most helpful?
The Administrator's statement of purpose, "exploration," can only represent the first phase of human expansion into the solar system. As has happened throughout history:
- The Spanish court sent Columbus to the New World on 4 missions of exploration. But after that, Spain's interest was in settlement, commerce and conquest.
- James Cook came to the South Pacific on 3 missions of exploration. But after that, Britain needed a place for its prisoners, so Australia was colonized.
- Lewis and Clark explored the Louisiana Purchase, but the intent was to understand where America's growing population could live, farm and prosper.
I'd propose an alternative goal: an interplanetary economy. This concept emphasizes the role of robots, because human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous, and tends not to add much to the mission set that robots can already perform. NASA and its Congressional supporters are protecting human spaceflight because that was the source of past glory.
And let's go ask Planetary, Deep Space and Shackleton to help put together the long-term strategy. You won't get the same answer from the three of them: Shackleton wants to use astronauts (commercial employees, not NASA ones) to generate fuel from lunar ice. The other two want to extract minerals from asteroids. Where a manned mission to a captured asteroid fits with either of these, I don't know. Couldn't the money be better spent on developing autonomous technologies, robotic on-orbit assembly, and lightweight space robotic components? Perhaps. NASA should be asking people with skin in the game.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Government's role in the space economy: help it grow
My article on the space economy ended with a comparison to commercial aviation. It noted how modest government investments, such as air mail and an air traffic control system, helped that industry bootstrap itself into the economic powerhouse it is today.
A colleague added:
"The role of government is to provide infrastructure and assume large investments and risks that a fledgling private industry cannot carry.
"A
good analogy is the US Eisenhower Interstate highway system which has
been estimated to have an ROI of 6:1 for the public money invested. The
trucks that roam the highways are not owned or operated by the
government but they do rely on the good roads, law and order, and gas
station amenities."
Some US government agencies certainly get this. For example, here's the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." By including efficiency in their mission, the FAA is supporting the profitability of commercial air lines.
Similarly the mission of the Department of Commerce is "a business environment that is productive, innovative, fair and safe." They don't actually use the other P-word, profit, because somehow that's politically tainted, but clearly they want to see American business be successful.
Now, what about NASA? Here's what we learn from their vision statement:
"What Does NASA Do?
"NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.
"To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?"
Does this vision actually support successful space economic activities? If so, it's implicit, not explicit.
NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are underway. Justifications include wanting a backup ISS access capability, not wanting to rely on Russian rockets, and bringing back experiments. But there's nothing there about wanting to see a robust, diverse, sustainable space economy. Nothing about supporting space tourism, off-Earth mining, or space solar power. There's also nothing there about leveraging commercial launch capabilities to make human space exploration more affordable.
In fact, the present emphasis on development of the Space Launch System is competing with commercial launch providers, denying them a valuable market. To quote from Walker and Miller's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?"
But the launch controversy is only one aspect of the larger issue. NASA is focused on its own heritage and image, not on the huge benefits to humankind to be gained from exploiting off-Earth resources. I wonder if NASA and its political supporters even subconsciously feel as though that would be somehow immoral? Does NASA feel as does this commenter of my article:
"The idea of interplanetary harvesting absolutely astounds and appals me!
"Have we humans not learned anything from the impact of over harvesting of resources on planet earth?
"What in heavens name will the repercussions be if we start messing with resources on other planets??? I for one shudder to think what they might entail."
Hmm. There are 870 million chronically undernourished people in the world. One quarter of the world's population lacks electricity. Is it important to address these inequities? If so, more resources will be required. Obtaining those resources off-Earth will reduce the scarring of the surface from mining, reduce the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and reduce the production of wastes. Those resources will not be available if they cannot be obtained economically, even profitably.
And speaking of ROI, a very thorough study of the UK's space industry shows it to be one of the most productive of all industrial sectors. I don't know of a corresponding study for the US, but anecdotally, I understand that NASA typically uses the figure of $8 returned for every $1 invested.
Government support of the space resources industry should become like government support of aviation, electrical transmission, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other economic sector. It will help the companies flourish, and make new benefits available to all.
An updated NASA vision should support this.
A colleague added:
"The role of government is to provide infrastructure and assume large investments and risks that a fledgling private industry cannot carry.
"The role of
private industry is to use the legal framework, infrastructure and new
technologies to enhance economic activity in nimble ways.
Some US government agencies certainly get this. For example, here's the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." By including efficiency in their mission, the FAA is supporting the profitability of commercial air lines.
Similarly the mission of the Department of Commerce is "a business environment that is productive, innovative, fair and safe." They don't actually use the other P-word, profit, because somehow that's politically tainted, but clearly they want to see American business be successful.
Now, what about NASA? Here's what we learn from their vision statement:
"What Does NASA Do?
03.12.13
"To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?"
Does this vision actually support successful space economic activities? If so, it's implicit, not explicit.
NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are underway. Justifications include wanting a backup ISS access capability, not wanting to rely on Russian rockets, and bringing back experiments. But there's nothing there about wanting to see a robust, diverse, sustainable space economy. Nothing about supporting space tourism, off-Earth mining, or space solar power. There's also nothing there about leveraging commercial launch capabilities to make human space exploration more affordable.
In fact, the present emphasis on development of the Space Launch System is competing with commercial launch providers, denying them a valuable market. To quote from Walker and Miller's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?"
But the launch controversy is only one aspect of the larger issue. NASA is focused on its own heritage and image, not on the huge benefits to humankind to be gained from exploiting off-Earth resources. I wonder if NASA and its political supporters even subconsciously feel as though that would be somehow immoral? Does NASA feel as does this commenter of my article:
"The idea of interplanetary harvesting absolutely astounds and appals me!
"Have we humans not learned anything from the impact of over harvesting of resources on planet earth?
"What in heavens name will the repercussions be if we start messing with resources on other planets??? I for one shudder to think what they might entail."
Hmm. There are 870 million chronically undernourished people in the world. One quarter of the world's population lacks electricity. Is it important to address these inequities? If so, more resources will be required. Obtaining those resources off-Earth will reduce the scarring of the surface from mining, reduce the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and reduce the production of wastes. Those resources will not be available if they cannot be obtained economically, even profitably.
- Do airline companies make profits? Yes, and low-cost air transportation is available even to those of modest incomes.
- Do pharmaceutical companies make profits? Yes, and their products save millions of lives.
- Do electric utilities make profits? Yes, and cheap, reliable electricity keeps food refrigerated, houses warm or cool, and cell phones charged.
And speaking of ROI, a very thorough study of the UK's space industry shows it to be one of the most productive of all industrial sectors. I don't know of a corresponding study for the US, but anecdotally, I understand that NASA typically uses the figure of $8 returned for every $1 invested.
Government support of the space resources industry should become like government support of aviation, electrical transmission, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other economic sector. It will help the companies flourish, and make new benefits available to all.
An updated NASA vision should support this.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Articles on space economy ignite conversation
A couple of months ago, I posted an article in the online academic journal The Conversation. The theme was the great progress that space robots have made. My purpose was to create some buzz in advance of our off-Earth mining forum. We certainly got that--we received international media attention. For a week I was a TV figure.
All the attention and exhausting interview schedule caused me to forget that article completely. But several weeks later, I noticed that it had been viewed 1,700 times. Hmm, thought I, not bad!
So I wrote another one. The theme, this time, is how the global economy might some day become interplanetary. The central discussion point is how to put a value on resources found in space. Protection of Earth's environment, while providing energy to raise living standards for billions on Earth, provides the motivation.
It has been viewed 1,500 times in the last 24 hours. The buzz continues.
All the attention and exhausting interview schedule caused me to forget that article completely. But several weeks later, I noticed that it had been viewed 1,700 times. Hmm, thought I, not bad!
So I wrote another one. The theme, this time, is how the global economy might some day become interplanetary. The central discussion point is how to put a value on resources found in space. Protection of Earth's environment, while providing energy to raise living standards for billions on Earth, provides the motivation.
It has been viewed 1,500 times in the last 24 hours. The buzz continues.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
What are asteroids worth?
It is just fascinating to watch the worldwide interest in space mining grow. Our Off-Earth Mining Forum at the University of New South Wales drew international media attention.
As you might expect, as in other "viral" phenomena, there is some craziness. It's a great ride!
One crazy thread is the discussion about "What are asteroids worth?" Deep Space Industries kicked off the topic as they breezily suggested that asteroid 2012 DA14 might be worth $195 billion. Since we are so early in the space resources business, such speculation might not be too harmful. (Our friends engaged in actual mining on Earth remind us that value estimation of mineral resources is subject to strict regulation, and mis-stating values can get you sued or even imprisoned.)
But, in fact, DSI's comment was probably useful, because it keeps the conversation going. And indeed it has: one tech blogger in Forbes countered that the asteroid's value is zero. Well, that bounds the problem!
Both DSI and the Forbes chap are inexcusably wrong. DSI's $195 billion estimate is wrong because it doesn't cost the tech development. Tim Worstall's estimate of zero is wrong too. If someone gave me $50 billion, I could CERTAINLY develop a complete asteroid mining architecture. Technology doesn't have to be completely in hand for things to have value. The oil industry is constantly developing new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible but known oil reserves.
But unlike the oil case, if there is no market, valuation is very challenging.
If we decide that resources mined in space are going to be brought back to Earth, then there are existing markets. But we also know that it's hard to compete in those markets. I have created a new aphorism which addresses this: "Reentry burns up value." We suspect that our mining products have significant value in space, because of launch cost avoidance. But THERE ARE NO MARKETS IN SPACE. Yet. And to state the obvious: there is no justification for developing a commercial technology if there is no commercial market.
This work led to the realization of how ephemeral the concept of "value" is. An
early output of our tool was a set of design points for an
imaging spacecraft system--many cameras in space looking at the Earth,
able to downlink images in real time. The optimal design point would
change as the number of images per day was varied. If you're only
interested in 1000 images per day, you don't need 100 cameras, but if
you're interested in 100,000, you need several, etc., and the processing
power, downlink, etc., all varied.
But the question is: how many images per day do you want? If
this is a commercial system, the question becomes, how many images per
day CAN YOU SELL? It's not an engineering question, it's a MARKETING
question. The engineer should not proceed to design until the customer
has made a decision on this point.
Which brings us back to space mining and the value of
asteroids. For the sake of credibility, the industry needs to be doing CO-DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND MARKETS FOR
SPACE RESOURCES. This actually represents a fascinating intellectual challenge. How does a given technology IMPROVE the ultimate market?
As you might expect, as in other "viral" phenomena, there is some craziness. It's a great ride!
One crazy thread is the discussion about "What are asteroids worth?" Deep Space Industries kicked off the topic as they breezily suggested that asteroid 2012 DA14 might be worth $195 billion. Since we are so early in the space resources business, such speculation might not be too harmful. (Our friends engaged in actual mining on Earth remind us that value estimation of mineral resources is subject to strict regulation, and mis-stating values can get you sued or even imprisoned.)
But, in fact, DSI's comment was probably useful, because it keeps the conversation going. And indeed it has: one tech blogger in Forbes countered that the asteroid's value is zero. Well, that bounds the problem!
Both DSI and the Forbes chap are inexcusably wrong. DSI's $195 billion estimate is wrong because it doesn't cost the tech development. Tim Worstall's estimate of zero is wrong too. If someone gave me $50 billion, I could CERTAINLY develop a complete asteroid mining architecture. Technology doesn't have to be completely in hand for things to have value. The oil industry is constantly developing new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible but known oil reserves.
But unlike the oil case, if there is no market, valuation is very challenging.
If we decide that resources mined in space are going to be brought back to Earth, then there are existing markets. But we also know that it's hard to compete in those markets. I have created a new aphorism which addresses this: "Reentry burns up value." We suspect that our mining products have significant value in space, because of launch cost avoidance. But THERE ARE NO MARKETS IN SPACE. Yet. And to state the obvious: there is no justification for developing a commercial technology if there is no commercial market.
There
have been some suggestions of markets that could develop. Jeff Greason,
CEO of XCor Aerospace, was a member of the Augustine commission that
reviewed US plans for human spaceflight. Jeff suggests that the US
government could pay for propellants in order to make human planetary
exploration more efficient. Surely I've included Jeff's ISDC 2011 talk in previous blog entries, but if not, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The
Augustine report itself also
makes reference to propellant depots--but does not say how they will be
filled!
Wannabe space resource developers must address the establishment of
markets for their space products, thereby addressing the value question. DSI has actually been very open about its business case, as have Planetary Resources and Shackleton Energy. Shackleton is focusing on the propellant market.
The
question of value versus system design was at the core of my work as a principal investigator for the DARPA F6 project developer's kit.
The inventor of that concept, my good friend Owen Brown, published
several articles on introducing real options into spacecraft engineering. Owen and co-authors found that a fractionated architecture gave options
that enhanced the value of the architecture as a whole, and value of
each participant's piece. My own work built on the advances of computer scientist Dr. Tatiana Kichkaylo to develop an automated design
tool, which searched for optimal designs within fractionated (and
non-fractionated) design spaces.
Let us not be daunted by our current lack of market understanding. The computer industry, as did most of the revolutionary technologies of the 20th century, developed with significant misunderstanding of the market. Bill Gates, one of the world's most successful businessmen, has at least three huge misapprehensions attributed to him: "We'll never develop a 32-bit operating system," "No one needs more than 640k of RAM," and "OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system of all time."
Perfect understanding doesn't seem to be required. What is required is courage and determination. Gates had them. I hope the space resources community maintains its courage and determination too. The good stuff is out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)