Thoughts
on Commercial Space, Part I
I
decided to officially kick off my blog with some thoughts on commercial space. I anticipate three parts. This first part will contain some general
observations. Part II will chronicle the
somewhat torpid history of commercial space activities and a few key lessons
learned. Part III will be my thoughts on
the future of commercial space and how we can escape the doldrums.
I am passionate about
space in general, but commercial space occupies a special place in my heart. It represents an intersection of many of my
beliefs: my libertarian political
philosophy, my capitalist economic philosophy, my overarching philosophy of
power which elevates human exploration and exploitation of space to a moral
imperative. You see, for the space
enterprise to be sustainable and grow, we must harness the power of the free
market. And that means commercial space.
Over the years, I participated
on several commercial space panels that bogged down in defining what it is we
mean by commercial space. I, for one, am
tired of discussing the question so hopefully I can settle it here once and for
all. There are many definitions and
which is appropriate depends on the context.
The real distinction is between the public sector and the private
sector. Any given space activity can
include a mixture of both elements. The purest
form of commercial activity takes place entirely within the private
sector. It is performed by private-sector
companies for the benefit of private-sector customers using private-sector
capital. At the other end of the spectrum is a pure public-sector activity
where the activity is performed entirely by public-sector agencies using public-sector
employees, entirely funded by public funds for a public purpose. In between are all manner of hybrids
involving a mix of investment funds, executing entities and customers.
A few examples from current
space activities illustrate the spectrum.
1. A
satellite for television broadcast (e.g. Direct TV) is close to pure
commercial: private-sector capital,
private-sector operating company and private-sector customers. However, it is likely to be launched by a
rocket that benefitted by a large government investment (Atlas V, Ariane V or
Falcon 9, for example). And much of the
R&D into the satellite itself is spun-off from government programs.
2. Commercial
remote sensing is a hybrid. While the
satellites are operated by commercial companies (e.g. DigitalGlobe), much of
the investment has been from the government and most of the customers are
government agencies. New companies like
Planet might be moving the needle closer to pure commercial. We’ll see how it turns out.
3. NASA’s
much ballyhooed COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program that
rolled into the CRS (Commercial Resupply Services) program was an innovative
government acquisition approach but not very commercial. Much (if not most) of the investment came
directly from the government and to date, the government has been the sole
customer. The commercial moniker comes
from the fact that commercial companies are performing the activities and commercial-like
contracts are employed. Though the CRS contracts
are still governed by the FAR.
4. NASA’s
SLS (Space Launch System) program is about as far to the other end of the
spectrum as it gets. All the investment
is public. NASA is the managing agency
and thousands of NASA employees are engaged. NASA is utilizing private-sector companies to
perform much of the work, notably Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Orbital ATK,
but none of those contracts were competitively awarded and NASA has full design
authority and close oversight of all work performed. By the way, I have heard some NASA folks
claim that SLS is commercial because commercial companies are involved.
On this spectrum, what I
mean by commercial space is pure commercial space, or at least as close to the
top of the list as possible. The reasons
are economic. If space continues to be
(mostly) the purview of governments, it is constrained by government budgets,
subject to political winds, subject to hijacking by special interests both
inside and outside government and subject to the gross inefficiencies and lack
of accountability of any government enterprise.
On the other hand, a pure
commercial enterprise is subject to the tyranny of consumers who will vote with
their feet if the product or service does not meet their needs in both price
and performance. It is subject to
competition not just from other space companies, but any other idea that meets
the same consumer demand. For example,
satellite communication services compete with terrestrial communication services.
Furthermore, it is accountable to investors who expect a return on their
investment. All these pressures drive
innovation and efficiency resulting in a continual reduction in cost and
increase in performance.
To make a profit and thus
survive, a commercial space business must provide value to its customers more
than the value of the materials and labor it took to generate the product or
service. Profit is a direct measure of
the value added by the business and, by the way, the wealth added to society. [Political aside: I am astounded by people who decry profits as
being somehow evil. To the contrary, everyone
in the chain comes out ahead. The
consumer is better off for having the product or service—otherwise they wouldn’t
have bought it. The wealth created (i.e.
profits) will either be spent for other goods and services or invested in the
means to create even more wealth. It’s
called capitalism and is the greatest system for producing wealth and
eliminating poverty ever devised by humankind.
Wealth creation works far-far better than wealth redistribution.]
In summary, the growth
and sustainability of the space enterprise requires a strong and robust pure commercial
sector. However, so far, only telecommunications
has provided a semblance of a nearly pure commercial market. It turns out to be very difficult to make a
profit in space other than by selling stuff to the government. In part II, I will review the history of
commercial space activities, the few successes and many failures, and try to
extract some lessons learned. With the
lessons from history, part III will look to the future. New technologies, new discoveries and new
players all afford great hope that we can overcome the failures of the past and
usher in a new age of commercial space.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat start, Dr. Sowers!!!
ReplyDeleteI confess to surprise that you're libertarian. Not exactly what I would have expected from a long time ULA employee but sometimes the most radical change comes from those working within.
PS - there is a thread on NSF http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43123 to discuss this. I'm sure that will bring some other commenters (for good or ill)
I also mentioned it on FB in the SpaceX group.
Thanks George, as. SpaceX supporter I look forward to reading Parts 2 and 3 of your series to get your perspective on Elon's goals.
ReplyDeleteCan you (Dr. Sowers) please opine on this cost study ?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/fully-reusable-spacex-rockets-would-be-lower-cost-than-skylon-spaceplanes.html#solidopinion