The 118th Carnival of Space
Blog carnivals are composed of communities of like minded bloggers who contribute their best posts to topic specific community listings, or "carnivals" which are then organized and distributed to other bloggers to provide context and some idea of the top stories of the blogosphere at any given moment.
It's sort of like the internets replacement for the traditional newspaper front page.
Check it out. Once in awhile, you might even find some stuff originating from here and re-posted on the Carnival.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
NASA as the Next General Motors and What That Means for Canada
British born Canadian journalist Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, defines tipping points as "the levels at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable."
That's where we are today with space exploration, research and the development of commercial space activities. We're at their tipping point.
As an example, here are a couple of indications that NASA no longer has the right stuff and has instead become a lot like bankrupt automobile manufacturer General Motors.
The Augustine Panel re-examining NASA's human spaceflight plans "has concluded that the agency's current Constellation Program to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 will not fit into the current presidential budget" according to this August 12th article in the Orlando Sentinel.
Arguments for providing NASA with new funds to maintain existing commitments also tend to focus on maintaining existing jobs. For example, here's a recent report from the Aerospace Career Development Counsel titled "Federal Space Policy Agenda" which focuses on Brevard County, Florida where NASA and NASA subcontractors are major employers according to this article in Florida Today. Unfortunately, with the space shuttle set for retirement in 2010 and the International Space Station nearing both completion and retirement (mostly because of a lack of funding), it seems a little unclear how anyone could reasonably expect to maintain existing jobs tied to projects that are winding down without serious restructuring and retraining (which also requires appropriate and ongoing funding).
And finally, any effort to maintain existing NASA jobs ignores the fact that the workforce is aging so quickly that NASA has recently taken action to "rebalance" the age ratio by adapting a policy "that 50% of all new civil servant hires will be fresh-out (of university)" according to the article "RebalancingNASA's Workforce" on the Open NASA website. NASA workforce demographics are discussed in more detail in the article "Shaping the NASA Workforce for 2020" on the same site but it seems unlikely the "fresh-out" hires will be able to perform the same role as their experienced, but soon to be retired mentors (although NASA could pay the new hires a lower wage).
So we're got an organization teetering on insolvency, with no money for new products and with an aging workforce. This could certainly describe both General Motors in 2007 and NASA today.
Of course, we all know what happened to General Motors.
But even if what happened to General Motors does not or cannot happen in the same way at NASA (if only because it's not a private corporation), the knowledge of the challenges facing the agency and the looming possibility of a similar type of catastrophe cannot help but hinder efforts to cooperate with the agency.
At the very least, it suggests yet another good reason why there will be no formal updated Canadian space policy document from CSA President Steve Maclean anytime soon. He knows the way the wind is blowing and is likely looking for a sense of what US space focused activities will move forward before deciding if Canada can continue along for the ride.
I bet he's also planning on maintaining the outsourcing of Canadian launches to non-US suppliers (a continuation of a pattern discussed in my June 19th post on "A Listing of Canadian Satellite Launches") plus planning for greater cooperation with other space organizations such as the ESA, the Russian Federal Space Agency and various private organizations presently developing launch capabilities. It's likely he's also expanding existing partnerships with these organizations in other areas as well.
So what else is on the other side of this tipping point?
Perhaps it's a movement towards smaller, more focused and less expensive missions using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies wrapped around aggressive, early prototyping and multiple testing opportunities to create ongoing, incremental improvements similar to those described by Grant Bonin (an employee at the UTIAS Space Flight Laboratory) in his article "Microspace and Human Spaceflight."
The article describes methodologies advocated by many others, including Dr. John McGowan who describes it on a recent episode of The Space Show a simple, old fashioned trial and error testing.
This is essentially what the Wright brothers did in order to build up to their first, historic controlled flight in 1903 and it's interesting to contrast it with the methodologies of their competitors, especially Samuel Langley who was funded by the US government.
What will happen to NASA?
That's easy to predict. NASA employees and their subcontractors will either develop new skills, associations and capabilities to survive or the organization will become irrelevant and either slowly die or be changed into something else useful but in a different (perhaps less inspiring) way.
As far back as the 1980's, the Toronto based SCTV comedy group was offering suggestions as to how existing NASA skills could be adapted for new activities as shown in the video below.
Let's hope they're wrong.
By the way, I'm still officially on vacation. I'll be back in September.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Commercial Space Author "Going to the Beach."
I'll be taking a month off from the Commercial Space blog this August in order to go to the beach, recharge my batteries and do a little work for a new marketing blog I'm starting for a company called ITerro, which focuses on marketing automation.
Marketing automation is only one of multiple techniques used in advertising that aerospace and newspace focused organizations should be aware of in order to track clients and personalize targeted marketing messages so this is a definite opportunity to learn from experts including company owner Alek Mircovich and quite a few others knowledgable in this area.
I'm personally interested in learning a little bit about something called FundingMatch, a Canadian web portal that matches business plans to angel investors and funding mechanisms (it's structured in a very similar matter to the US based Space Angels website which focuses specifically on aerospace).
With a little luck, we'll get some good information on FundingMatch plus other useful case studies to pass along when I begin posting again in the fall.
Until then, anyone looking for ideas for fun things to do at the beach or interested in some of our natural wonders might want to check out the video below.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Telesat HQ Likely to Remain In Ottawa Just Down the Street from Golf Course
The scientists and executives at global satellite services provider Telesat must like golfing because they certainly don't seem to appreciate recent Canadian satellite and business regulatory initiatives.
According to this July 23rd report on the website Tech Media Reports (a subscription news service focused on the Canadian communications industry), Telesat President and CEO Daniel Goldberg has indicated that the firm has no intention of pulling its Ottawa headquarters and research division out of Canada if the government introduces auctions for satellite orbital slots.
The report comes only one month month after this June 24th report from the same service which stated:
Telesat Canada warns it may leave Canada for countries with more hospitable regulations if Industry Canadamoves forward with a proposal to use auctions to assign future satellite orbital slots and spectrum.
The 40-year-old Ottawa company complains it already pays 10 times the amount for satellite spectrum licences than do its US counterparts.
These press releases seem to be essentially political posturing over Industry Canada's Gazette Notice DGRB-001-09 under the Department of Industry Radio Communication Act, published in April 2009, which seeks feedback on the possibility of using auctions to award licenses to operate Canadian satellite services.
The formal Telesat response, dated July 15th and signed by Mr. Goldberg, provides a more measured reply to the Gazette notice but also indicates that:
Telesat notes the unanimous opposition to satellite spectrum auctions from those representing the satellite industry. In addition to Telesat and the CSSIF (whose comments were endorsed by Telesat), the S1A and Ciel also expressed strong opposition to satellite spectrum auctions.
All commenting parties involved in the satellite industry cited the following reasons why auctions of satellite spectrum would be inappropriate:
Auctions are inconsistent with the international nature of satellite communications and international practice
Auctioning of satellite spectrum by Industry Canada could disadvantage Canadian operators and have a deleterious impact on the Canadian economy
Auctioning of satellite spectrum would not promote spectrum efficiency
Ciel has also pointed out that auctioning of satellite spectrum would be inconsistent with the Department's own Framework for Spectrum Auctions and that the paucity of potential bidders and the amount of satellite spectrum available are inconsistent with the economic arguments normally advanced to support spectrum auctions.
Both SLA and Ciel noted that diverting resources to auction fees would reduce those available for capital investment in the satellite networks themselves, ultimately reducing the benefits of satellite connectivity to the population as a whole.
Why is this debate even going on? That's simple: we're running out of orbits to launch satellites into.
With satellite operators around the world looking to gain an edge in terms of offering new services, access to real estate is vital. However, with most of the so-called hot orbital slots taken, what opportunities remain for satellite operators to develop new positions or make better use of the existing slots?
Industry Canada, fully aware of the problem has simply opened the debate as to the appropriate method to allocate the existing Canadian orbital slots, which are provided through the International Telecommunications Union (which officially allocates orbital slots to nations only and not directly to satellite operators or other private corporations).
Telesat, although unhappy with the idea of auctioning off Canadian orbital slots is aware that this is only an initial move in a long process and has decided that it's not yet prepared to move corporate headquarters somewhere else, at least until the final offer is tabled.
The PCW project is designed to facilitate Canadian operations in the north and support Canadian sovereignty by providing reliable and continuous space-based communications services and timely meteorological information.
As presently structured, the mission would consist of two satellites in Molniya-type orbits, supported by one northern ground station and connected to communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit with other connections to various portions of the telecommunications infrastructure in order to assist with tracking, identification and analysis.
The specific contract announced on Thursday is to develop the preliminary knowledge necessary to proceed towards the next phase.
Friday, July 24, 2009
OK, So Maybe the CSA Does Provide Some Support for Small Aerospace Firms...
Here is one comment from a person who states quite unequivocally that:
Although, in a literal sense, it may be true that there are no dedicated programs, it is effectively quite an inaccurate comment. The CSA supports many small companies through a series of procurement opportunities.
In fact, it is interesting that one of the first highlighted examples of technology in the Near Earth report is the Neptec Space Vision System that is used in the Shuttle program and which was funded by the CSA. Although the big CSA funding goes to the major companies like MDA, the majority of the contracts are awarded to small and medium sized companies. Hopefully, someone at the CSA will offer a rebuttal to the Near Earth report.
The commentator goes on to list a number of CSA programs that “allow small companies to obtain funding, along with the bigger companies.” They include:
The Satellite Communications Program, which supports the development of advanced satellite communications technologies and international services.
The Partnerships Support Program, which is directed to universities, but does include the funded participation of industrial partners.
The various Canada - ESA Programs, which allows Canadian companies to participate in ESA led initiatives offset with CSA funding.
I understand where the reader is coming from when he states that “typically, although the major procurement contracts may be awarded to a large company to manage and lead, they most often include a number of subcontracts to smaller companies” and these subcontracts help to sustain and grow small business every bit as much as the more formal programs administered through NASA and the ESA.
But I also can’t help but note that he categorizes the comment from the report about CSA providing no dedicated programs for small aerospace firms as being true in “a literal sense.”
So how do real small business space subcontractors feel about this state of affairs? Does CSA do enough to nurture and grow small aerospace businesses through the existing process?
The floor is open for questions, queries, statements of concern or support and general comments.
It's been forty years since Apollo 11 landed on the Sea of Tranquility and it looks like we all sometimes get it wrong when it comes to predicting the future.
For example, here's Tom Lehrer, best known for the pithy, politically tinged and humorous songs he recorded in the 1950s and 60s, as he sings about one of the icons of our first great space age.
In only two and a half minutes, he manages to make fun of the space program and its military connections, nuclear Armageddon, America's sense of self-superiority, heroes in general, the Nazi's in particular and even bureaucrats. It's interesting to note how almost everything in the song is still relevant (and some of us rocket focused people might still want to consider learning "Chinese").
It is also a good reminder that those who led mankind to the Moon forty years ago were stubborn individualists and opportunists who embraced risk, endured setbacks, knew failure and were not universally loved or even terribly well respected in life but who continued forward anyway to accomplish unique and amazing things.
Here's a second example from the Atomic Rockets website (under the section devoted to space stations) to remind us that even the architects of our greatest accomplishments were not always totally correct about how things were going to turn out:
In six issues of Collier's magazine he laid out a plan to send men to Luna and Mars. First you build a space ferry as a surface to orbit cargo transport (which was the great-grandfather of the Space Shuttle). Then you use it to make a space station.
And it was going to be a beauty of a space station, too. Three decks, 250 feet in diameter, and a crew of fifty. Makes the ISS look like a tin can. This outpost in space was where the Lunar expedition fleet would be constructed.
It would pay for itself as well. Meteorologists could plot the path of storms and predict the weather with unprecedented accuracy. Radio and TV signals could be transmitted all over the globe. Not to mention observing the military activities of hostile nations.
Why was this marvel never constructed? Because some clown invented the printed circuit.
Freed from the tyranny of fragile and short-lived vacuum tubes, technologists could make unmanned satellites for meteorologists, radio and TV signals, and watching hostile militaries. Such satellites could be assembled and launched at a fraction the cost of a manned station. They also did not require constant resupply missions to keep the crew alive.
We're at the beginning of our second great space age and many are wondering what it will turn out to be like, who will end up as our next generation of heroes and what they'll be remembered for.
The panel, moderated by Virendra Jha (then VP Science, Technology and Programs for the Canadian Space Agency) also included Mag Iskander (then Executive VP and General Manager Space Missions for Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates) and quite a few other major figures in aerospace so it's amusing to note how the participants each act amazed at the things that have happened over the last twenty years, then marvel at how most of it was unexpected but then state unequivocally that the market has likely stabilized and will now remain essentially the same (with one or two predictable exceptions which are logical progressions of existing trends).
Of course, they haven't been entirely correct.
The Augustine Committee, the British Space Innovation Growth Team and the MacLean team building our Canadian long term space plan might want to take note of this and then reflect on the earlier experiences of Werner von Braun.
It's interesting that there seems to have been no comments relating to the publication by investment bank Near Earth LLC of its recent white paper on Small Aerospace Companies: Space Activities in North America and Europe, which categorizes small aerospace firms as "vibrant and important sources of industry innovation and value creation."
Small aerospace focused firms are also defined as being "recession resistant" with "high credit quality customers" plus "committed management and employees."
ESASmall and Medium Enterprises (SME) Initiative, the LET-SME program and various technology research awards (TRP) for small and medium businesses.
Other European agencies (such as the French CNES, the German DLR and the Italian ASI) also provide programs for small aerospace businesses such as the NAVOBS PLUS program, various RTD programs for space service infrastructure and the SME Working Group and Commissioner (through the DLR only).
But taken together, this listing of space activities and small business programs (available on page ten of the report) provides a useful list of avenues of improvement for the CSA to explore as it moves forward with its (evidently ongoing) update of Canadian Space Policy.
To its credit, the CSA is sited for its microsatellite missions (such as NEOSAT) and "opportunities for small science platforms" which can be contracted to small aerospace businesses to provide a revenue source.
The report makes it clear that small aerospace companies cannot be ignored and states that, "although the aerospace industry is dominated by a small group of large companies, there is a sizeable and diverse universe of small aerospace companies engaged in space activities. These smaller aerospace companies are engaged in all elements of the value chain and provide critical and innovative components, subsystems and mission services to large prime contractors as well as to end user operators."
Someone in the CSA should either respond to this report or use it as a template for improvements.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
A Two Stage Boost for Odyssey Moon
Google Lunar X-Prize contender Odyssey Moon, a newspace company with a strong Canadian connection, seems poised to benefit from two important announcements today.
The first boost is the announcement by Odyssey Moon Founder and CEO Dr. Robert Richards and Chairman Dr. RaminKhadem that several well respected international firms have joined the Odyssey Moon "corporate team" to assist with the firms quest to "become the first private company to provide payload and delivery services to the Moon" according to this press release posted on the NASA Commercial Space Watch website.
The new partners are as follows:
Near Earth LLC, an investment bank specializing in satellite, media and telecom properties.
Ad agency The Brand Union, a member of the WPP group of companies, one of the six largest marketing and communication companies in the world.
These new business relationships join existing partnerships with NASA (to develop a robotic lunar lander), MANSAT, the Paragon Space Development Corporation, independent merchant bank Quayle Munro plus Canadian based companies Optech and prime contractor MDA as part of the Odyssey Moon team.
The press release also announced the addition of veteran investment banker Carol Goldstein to the Odyssey Moon executive. With 25 years experience on Wall Street financing commercial satellite and telecommunication projects, Ms. Goldstein will focus on fundraising activities.
These items cannot help but be perceived as beneficial to Odyssey Moon and a solid base for consolidation of the business structure preliminary to moving forward with the actual hardware development.
And this is only their first boost of the day.
The second boost is another press release, also available on the NASA Commercial Space Watch website from the X-Prize Foundation. It promotes a recent study by the Futron Corporation, a well respected aerospace consultancy which predicts that companies such as those competing for the Google Lunar X-Prize "will be able to address a market in excess of $1 billion over the course of the next decade."
According to the press release, the study:
"...involved a detailed examination of the 19 teams already registered in the competition, as well as a robust analysis of potential lines of business, identified six key market areas: hardware sales to the worldwide government sector, services provided to the government sector, products provided to the commercial sector, entertainment, sponsorship, and technology sales and licensing. Taken together, the study projects the value of these markets to be between $1 - $1.56 billion within the next decade. Additionally, some Google Lunar X PRIZE competitors have set their sights on additional market sectors that fell outside of the scope of the Futron report, which could result in an even higher total market size."
Futron has also written well recieved white papers and reports on space tourism, and the satellite industry in the past so this second boost of the day should go a long way to simplifying Ms. Goldsteins new job at Odyssey Moon, which is to raise money for their Google Lunar X-Prize attempt.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Building a Competitive Business Environment Calls for More than Just Tax Credits
It's interesting to note that several of the more famous newspace focused companies such as Odyssey Moon (founded by Canadian Bob Richards who also works for Canadian based, space focused company Optech) and PlanetSpace Corporation (which started out as the Canadian Arrow team competing for the Ansarii X-Prize) possess strong Canadian connections but are not officially Canadian based.
Odyssey Moon lists it's official HQ as being in both the US and the Isle of Man (with a Canadian subsidiary) while the PlanetSpace HQ is presently in Chicago.
Why is this so?
According to Michael E. Porter, author of the book "Competitive Advantage of Nations" like minded individuals and businesses focused in similar areas tend to "cluster" into groups of interconnected firms, suppliers, related industries, and institutions that arise in specific geographic locations because of a common need for talent, technology and similar infrastructure
Since both companies sited as examples have incorporated within the US, the logical assumption is that relocating into the US "cluster" has allowed both these firms to more effectively compete with Canadian and other non-US focused businesses.
But this initial conclusion might not be entirely fair given that Odyssey Moon also lists incorporation in the second jurisdiction on it's website at www.odysseymoon.com. In fact, it seems quite common for newspace focused firms to have multiple incorporations across national jurisdictions with the intent to qualify for as many regional tax credits as possible.
But building a tax structure allowing multiple incorporations under different jurisdictions simply won't create "clusters" of excellence by itself because building competitive advantage takes more than simply having suitable tax structures which anyone, even an offshore entrepreneur, can take advantage of.
In essence, there can be no cluster without a physical presence and the ability to interact with other local players.
Porter agrees and states "increasingly, competitiveness is no longer a government driven process. It's a process where government and business and universities and other institutions work together to raise the bar in terms of productivity and all of them are contributing. All of them have to be players."
So we need to do more than fiddle with the tax system in order to build an national industry. We also need to take steps to encourage people to physically locate their businesses in Canada to help build "clusters" or physical repositories of talent, knowledge and useful skills.
For a second example where tax credits and government activities could not be taken in isolation, you might want to take a look at the government document titled “Institutional Aspects of R&D Tax Incentives: The SR&ED Tax Credit” available from the Micro-Economic Policy Analysis Branch of Industry Canada.
This document provides a fascinating history of the SR&ED tax credit form program implementation in 1986 (when it replaced the earlier Scientific Research Tax Credit) to 1995 along with a useful outline of what actually happens when tax change is contemplated and an inventory of who really does need to be consulted for the process to be successful (it also contains a bit on why the earlier policy was changed).
One other thing to note is that “true believers” in the commercial potential for space like Richard Branson, and Bob Richards don’t need government incentives to invest their time, effort and money in space focused companies although they may utilize business strategies allowing for the maximization of tax credits across national borders as part of standard due-diligence.
As for the rest of us, no one yet knows how large the tax credits need to be in order to attract the interest of more conventional investors to the newspace arena.
This annual event is dedicated to developing a wider understanding of the diverse space exploration and development projects undertaken by Canadians and helps foster collaborative connections between the government agencies, businesses, organizations and space advocates involved.
The focus this year is on the concept of "dual use" technology which has traditionally referred to technology used for both military and civilian aims but also describes the multiplicity of terrestrial problems, research applications and collaboration opportunities that space focused solutions can assist with.
Preliminary topics expected to be covered are as follows:
Low Earth Orbit: including on-orbit servicing, debris removal/mitigation, space surveillance, micro-satellite constellations, nano-satellites and Arctic sovereignty.
Astronomy: including metrology and precision space telescope structures, space telescope detector and receiver technologies (X-ray, UV, THz), attitude control and pointing technologies, space telescope optics technologies and space astronomy science instrument concepts.
Planetary Exploration: including robotic exploration on Earth and solar system, technology transfer, planetary and Earth observation, planetary science instruments and discussions of terrestrial benefits.
Life Sciences: including medicine, tele-medicine and healthcare, personal and public safety, physiological & behavioral research, cellular mechanisms, tissue engineering and pharmaceutical research
Law and Policy: including space traffic management, potential legal regimes for space debris removal, international space surveillance/situational awareness, verification regimes for space arms control, applying the laws of armed conflict in space and space assets vs. space weapons
Space Commercialization: including regulatory and financial issues surrounding the "dual use” theme, such as utilization of industrial and regional benefits (IRB) to drive ongoing, and multiple use sales, "dual use" of military space focused technologies, and export controls for “dual use” products.
Education and Training: including elementary, secondary and post-secondary programs, student participation in space missions, the role of government and industry, new roles for educational institutions, and communication of space activities to the public.
On top of hosting the Space Summit and other events, members of the Canadian Space Society often provide commentary for news outlets on space related events as witnessed by this recent CBC Newsworld interview with society member Talmon Firestone.
For more information, to register, and to submit a title and abstract for a presentation, please visit www.css.ca.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Historical Accounts and Comparisons of Our Present Space Age with Other Era's
Ever since, the phrase has been endlessly misquoted (mostly by people who don’t remember George Santayana) or paraphrased (Clarence Darrow once said “History repeats itself. That’s one of the things wrong with history”).
Our present space age (measuring from Sputnik) is scarcely sixty years old and some argue that not enough time has elapsed to draw any conclusions or provide appropriate comparisons between our present and previous ages.
Fortunately for those of us who remember Santayana, here are two authors focused on our present space age but still well aware of relevant history.
Our first author, Eva-Jane Lark is Vice-President and Investment Advisor with BMO Nesbitt Burns, one of Canada’s largest full-service investment firms and this makes her a rarity for a Canadian space advocate because of her ability to assess the business case for space entrepreneurship (important since most space focused entrepreneurs seem to be engineers or scientists).
It’s hard not to read this book without becoming immediately aware of parallels between the periods profiled and our present day, with its lack of NASA direction and on-going commissions in Canada, the US and England focused on developing space policy (as per my June 26th, 2010 post "UK Joins Canada and US in "Not Knowing Quite What To Do" With Their Space Program").
And finally, for those of us who wish to learn more about history but don’t like to read, here’s a promotional video on the Canadian Air and Space Museum, a repository of Canadian aerospace history and where the Canadian Space Society normally meets.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thirty Meter Telescope Awaits Construction Funding
Here's some interesting background on what is expected to be the largest and most far seeing telescope in the world. It's called the “Thirty Meter Telescope” (mostly because it's thirty meters wide) and the facilities are ground based and not space based.
So why are we talking about it in a blog devoted to commercial space activities?
We're talking about it because the funding mechanisms used for this project can be used for any university focused activity designed to build facilities for research and this even includes research covering "'rocket science" or "newspace focused science."
These mechanisms also benefit entrepreneurs who should know about and be able to take advantage of them.
As befitting our case study, the Thirty Meter Telescope is expensive, at almost a billion dollars to complete although the cost certainly on par with projects in other areas (such as particle physics).
It's gestation and design has a strong Canadian component.
Ray Carlberg, a professor of Astronomy at the University of Toronto serves as the primary point of contact for people looking to learn more about the project and explains “Canada doesn’t really have a formal process for funding large science projects."
So what did they do?
"In our case, the initial meetings occurred seven years ago through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation which contributed 10 million to match funds from Ontario, BC and the National Research Council. Then the National Sciences and Engineering Research Counsel (NSERC) contributed a further 6.5 million, which included contributions from the Universities of BC, Toronto and Victoria and the project moved forward from there” states Carlberg.
"The US has pledged 300 million and we’d like the Canadian government to pledge 300 million as well to move forward with final construction,” states Carlberg, who feels the proposal is still at an early stage with the Minister of Industry but is moving forward well.
So have any Canadian businesses taken advantage of this potential commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars to basic research?
BC based company Empire Dynamic Structures has. The firm is acting as prime contractor for the external structure supporting the telescope and expects to develop major follow-on sales as a result of this project.
It seems that the instruments used to measure the locations of each one of the 492 segments of the Thirty Meter Telescope and the actuators used to control their shape and position are also quite useful for tracking and moving people about safely as part of the billion dollar a year amusement park ride industry, a field which the firm has had great success.
Empire Dynamic Structures credits it ongoing success directly to the skill-set developed two decades ago while building the external structure for the Canada France Telescope Enclosure and perceives the Thirty Meter Telescope as a logical follow-on project to maintain the skills required for continued success in this type of work.
Other Canadian organizations benefiting from the design and construction work required for the Thirty Meter Telescope include the Herzberg Institute for Astrophysics (designer of the adaptive optics system) and Lyrtech (which manufacturers specialized computers to control the various mechanisms the telescope needs to remain pointed in the right direction) with a number of other companies likely to be involved as the project moves forward.
So what you've got here is universities developing platforms for basic research using their own funding mechanisms, but asking for government funding to roll out the final facility and providing strong benefits to businesses who receive the final contracts.
This is one of a number of models that space focused entrepreneurs should use and build on.
The people in these groups are quite knowledgeable, skilled and generally go out of their way to keep me well informed (and reasonably humble).
One of the best sources of information from these groups is Dr. Kieran Carroll, who once acted as project manager at Dynacon back when the company worked on the MOST Telescope and now divides his time between being Chief Technology Officer at Gedex Inc., and his role as VP Technology for Space Canada.
I wanted to find out how universities fund their research because of how it relates as one of the four pillars of the Canadian space industry (The first pillar is universities, where most of the initial R&D is done but they work alongside the second pillar, government which provides guidance and funding and the third pillar, private business which also provides funding, fabrication facilities and commercialization capabilities. And of course, there is also the military component, the fourth pillar, which is often overlooked because of it's security and secrecy requirements).
So I asked him about money and how professors acquire enough to perform basic research. This is what he told me.
That’s a good question. I don't know of any place where you can look this up;
Generally speaking, you learn this from being inside the system starting as a grad student (in most cases having an initially limited view as to how the money side of things works), to becoming a post-doctoral fellow (at which point you're generally assisting your professor/ employer in many things, one of which includes a "marketing" aspect), to becoming a junior professor (at which point the older profs in your department will hopefully show you the “funding” ropes).
For myself, I've been a grad student, but didn't go further along the post-doc/professor route. However, in my capacity as R&D manager at several companies, I've worked closely with several university researchers and learned some things about the "system."
Below is a synopsis, for your amusement and edification :-)
For engineering professors in Canada, the primary source of research funding is from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Pretty much every professor applies for a basic research grant, and most of them are granted something (I’ve heard that the average is about $20K-30K per year). This funding can go towards any valid research expense which could include such items as stipends for grad students, purchasing equipment or software, attending conferences, and paying page fees for published journal articles.
Via NSERC, funding is also available for taking on post-doctoral fellows. This funding is attached to the fellow, not the professor, but pays most or all of the fellow's (meager) salary for 2 years in order to relieve the professor of the burden of providing that funding (I believe the funding level is around $30-40K/year).
NSERC also has programs that dispense larger amounts of funding to researchers in special cases. One program that existed in the past was the "Strategic Grant", which (in the early 1990s, which was when I ran across one of these) would provide up to about $500K for a particular research project. The proposal for this sort of project was rather more involved than the usual basic research grant proposal, of course, having to specify what the project was all about, and why it was important, presumably measuring these against some sort of NSERC-specified criteria.
I believe that there are also Equipment Grants of sizes up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with similar proposal requirements, which can only be spent on equipment.
My understanding is that both the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the research & development wing of the Department of National Defense (Defense R&D Canada) also have special programs in conjunction with NSERC where the agencies match NSERC funding for proposed projects approved both by NSERC and the other agency.
There may also be some ability at NSERC to fund non-university researchers (although I haven't actually run across such a case, and I suspect it's rather rare). For a non-professor researcher, I believe it helps some with your NSERC applications if a university has granted you Adjunct Professor Status.
In Ontario, another source of (university-only) research funding is the Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE), which dispenses some tens of millions of dollars of Ontario research spending every year to professors whose schools have joined OCE (which is likely every university in the province at this point).
These funds are passed out to professors for projects which generally must have an industry collaborator, who is normally required to pony up a significant fraction of the funds. These funds are targeted to specific areas that are selected by the four departments in OCE (there used to be a space department, but it got merged/acquired into other departments, and only a pale shadow of it remains).
In years past, the Canadian Space Agency rarely dispensed research funding directly to universities, limiting itself to their CSA/NSERC funding mechanism (which was terribly under-subscribed), and to supporting universities which acted as subcontractors to industrial contractors (e.g., on MOST, at Dynacon we hired UTIAS as a subcontractor, and UBC as another one).
This now seems to be changing, with CSA contracting out directly to some universities. I believe that CSA's new "grants and contributions" program (which is presently in the works) plans to carry that even further.
University researchers also normally seek research contracts with industrial partners/customers. There's no general rule about how these proceed; it depends on the company in question but OCE has positioned itself to act as an enabler/promoter, trying to encourage companies that mightn't otherwise think of hiring Ontario university researchers to do so.
Another encouragement is R&D tax credits; I believe that Ontario provides a direct tax credit to Ontario companies that hire Ontario universities to carry out research for them.
And finally, there's the case where a university researcher has invented something that someone might want to make use of. In this case the university might have a commercialization or intellectual property department, which might pay for patenting the invention, and then helping the inventor seek out customers/partners for exploiting it.
Money can then flow back to the university and the researcher via licensing fees; if the professor is feeling entrepreneurial he/she might choose to invest his/her portion of that back into further research and development, say via a professor-owned consulting company.
There are probably some other programs and sources of funds that I haven't thought of, but the above covers most of what professors are ever likely to avail themselves (at least in Ontario).
- Kieran
Friday, June 26, 2009
UK joins Canada and the US in "Not Knowing Quite What To Do" with their Space Program
According to this article just posted on the BBC News website, "an expert panel has been asked to lay out the challenges and opportunities facing the British space industry."
The new group (called the Space Innovation Growth Team) has been commissioned to deliver its assessment of the situation within six months and make recommendations on how government can help maintain the sector's competitiveness. The UK space industry turns over £6bn annually and supports some 70,000 jobs.
Andy Green, CEO of Logica
The new panel will be chaired by Andy Green, the chief executive officer of Logica, a British based firm which provides IT support to other space focused organizations.
The panel mandate from the British government is to outline a 20-year strategy by "identifying the key industry trends and then listing the actions industry and government need to take if they want to fully exploit the coming changes" according to the article.
The UK thus joins Canada (with a much delayed update to our Canadian space policy commissioned originally when Steve MacLean became head of the CSA in September 2008 but so far not released) and the United States (with the Augustine Committee presently meeting in Washington) as essentially not knowing what to do with their space program.
Why am I so cynical about these commissions? That's easy.
I essentially don't believe that an institutional response to a problem (which is what I perceive of these commissions as being) is suitable in a situation where collaboration, innovation and action is required.
Let's be blunt about this; politicians and government institutions form commissions when they don't know what to do or don't really want to do anything but need to create a perception of activity.
They might even hope that someone in the newly formed commission will be bright enough to eventually write a proper report including at least one good idea which the public will either support or reject.
But if the report is never finished, then no harm is done because the government has at least done something by commissioning the original report.
If the report is ever completed, then the government gets to perform a second decisive action by either partially (or totally) accepting (or rejecting) the findings, an activity which can itself be stretched out into quite a large number of perceived and distinct decisions (which is really helpful for governments when they have trouble deciding things but need to convince the public otherwise).
By focusing on a specific report or commission, we loose sight of the fact that there are actual things that need to be done and lots of us with some idea of what those things are and how to go about doing them who are likely to continue doing these things, even without formal encouragement.
You know the type. They're the people who don't especially need to wait for a commission to "wrap up it's findings."
But for the rest of us (those who really, really want to help develop "policy") there are also current tools which give each of us the capability to be heard and immediately influence ongoing debate at the highest levels (and that's what the discussion of space policy should above all be encouraging).
So even if we'd prefer to have a committee to develop policy, there is no need to wait passively anymore for the final result. We can nudge them in the right direction and tell our governments what a space program should be doing whether it's exploration, education, R&D or industrial infrastructure development.
Governments might even eventually grow to appreciate our viewpoints, comments and self evident (or self absorbed) answers.
Clay Shirky, a writer on the social and economic effects of the internet offers below a couple of suggestions for moving forward and into a world where we can talk back to authority and not simply wait passively for commissions or governments to solve our problems.
ike the internets replacement for the traditional newspaper front page.
