Wednesday, February 28, 2018

"Big Winners" in Tuesday's Federal Budget

         By Henry Stewart

The big winners of Tuesday's Federal budget, at least as far as the space industry is concerned, might just be the firms planning to develop constellations of low Earth orbiting (LEO) satellites intended to bring internet services to rural parts of the country.

As outlined in the February 28th, 2018 Space News post, "Canada budgets a boost for LEO broadband constellations," Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the $100Mln Cdn initiative in the 2018 Federal government budget released Feb. 27th, 2018.

The Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to extend internet service to rural areas in the country and believes that constellations of low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites providing low latency access to internet services could prove to be the solution.

As outlined in the post, the Finance Minister "didn’t get into specific details on how the funds would be dispersed or whether the Canadian Space Agency would be behind those decisions."

According to the February 28th, 2018 Los Angeles Times post, "SpaceX's Elon Musk dares to go where others failed with space-based web," there are a number of corporations which could benefit from the Canadian funding, including Hawthorne, CA based SpaceX, UK based OneWeb and Ottawa, ON based Telesat Canada.

SpaceX has it's own rocket fleet, which will cut costs associated with launching it's approximately 4,000U+ satellites into orbit, but OneWeb, last profiled in the May 3rd, 2016 post, "OneWeb Goes to Gatineau" went so far as to outline it's plans to Canadian officials during the April 25th, 2016 public meeting at Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) headquarters in Gatineau, PQ.

That meeting included OneWeb founder Greg Wyler and policy director Marc Dupuis, plus then Richmond, BC based MacDonald Dettwiler (MDA) Information System Goup CEO Don Osborne and director of government and public affairs Leslie Swartman.

But MDA is now a part of  San Francisco, CA based Maxar Technologies and Telesat, as one of the only real Canadian options in the current market, might have the inside track at accessing the new Federal funds plus some made in the US advantages as well.

As first reported in the September 11th, 2017 post, "New FCC Rules a Defeat for SpaceX, But May Signal Opportunity for OneWeb & Telesat," a series of proposed (and now implemented) Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations may have given a competitive advantage to smaller satellite constellation proposals from firms such as Telesat and others as they attempt to compete with SpaceX and its proposed 4000 plus army of super-fast internet satellites.

As outlined in the February 28, 2018 Telesat press release, "Telesat Applauds Government’s Support in Budget 2018 of LEO Satellite Constellations to Deliver Advanced Rural Broadband Services" the company "welcomes the Government of Canada’s commitment in Budget 2018 to support investment in new Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations for rural broadband communications."

Other, smaller Canadian providers may also receive some of the Federal funds.

For example, Woodstock, NB based Xplornet Communications has also been focused on improving rural broadband services by subcontracting bandwidth from the EchoStar 19 (launched in December 2016) and the ViaSat-2 satellite (launched in June 2017).

Henry Stewart is the pseudonym of a Toronto based aerospace writer

Monday, February 26, 2018

Science & the CSA Don't Need More Money to Keep Things the Same; They Need New Procurement Methodologies

         By Chuck Black

Last fall, as part of the October 26th, 2017 post, "A Quick Overview of the Next Few Expected Federal Announcements Concerning the Canadian Space Industry," this blog suggested that the most likely scenario for budget day 2018 would be for the Federal government to allocate a few tens of millions of dollars in additional funding to the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) in order to move forward with preliminary work on possible contributions to the US led "Deep Space Gateway," and maybe also fund a few other interesting projects.

The new funding would counteract the growing domestic perception that Canada is falling behind other nations and missing out on a host of potential telecom, Earth imaging and other innovations derived from space focused technology.

And while the new funding wouldn't be nearly as as substantial as the $120Mln CDN provided by the Stephen Harper conservatives for rovers and "next generation Canadarm" research under the 2009 Economic Action Plan or replace the slowly winding down RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) funding, it would be enough to keep space focused academics and industry subcontractors from bolting the Liberal party before the next Federal election.

But that's not really what we need.

Now that the 2018 budget is only a day away, it's worth noting that the current American renaissance in space focused technology and rocketry had almost nothing to do with additional US government funding for NASA and almost everything to do with the implementation of procurement methodologies such as NASA's contracts under its various space act agreements, including its commercial orbital transportation services (COTS) program, which was the key to moving forward with projects developed through Hawthorne, CA based SpaceX and its series of Falcon rockets.

For example, it's noteworthy that NASA is simply unable to compete, or even understand SpaceX development costs for the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets.

As outlined in the August 2011 NASA Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy paper under the title, "Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle NAFCOM Cost Estimates," NASA was essentially unable to explain, when using the standard “NASA‐Air Force Cost Modeling” methodology, why Falcon 1 Launch vehicle development costs were actually approximately $300Mln US ($380Mln CDN), when the Air force model indicated that development costs would be between $1.7Bln and $4Bln USD ($2.16Bln and $5.07Bln CDN).

Not that there was anything wrong with that. According to the article “NASA has verified these costs” as provided by SpaceX, which suggests that the NASA cost modeling has substantial gaps and errors.

In essence, the NASA model is totally clueless, much like the current Canadian procurement model.

Until we revise it, our space program will be unable to move forward, no matter how much money we might want to throw at it.
Chuck Black.

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

The Jockeying Begins for ITAR Access to the US Space Market

          By Brian Orlotti

Robert Bigelow, founder of Las Vegas, NV based Bigelow Aerospace, has announced the formation of Bigelow Space Operations (BSO), a new company that will oversee the marketing of Earth-orbiting space stations to both US and international clients. With the recent success of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, other US space firms are also now courting foreign customers.

A significant hurdle for US space firms accessing international markets remains however, in the form of domestic compliance with US arms-control regulations under US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

As outlined in the February 23rd, 2018 Popular Mechanics post, "America's Starmen Are Selling Space, But Who’s Buying?," US based commercial space companies have long expressed a desire to sell their wares to countries around the world, helping non-spacefaring nations to establish their own space programs.

Hawthorne, CA based SpaceX already launches payloads for many international clients aboard its Falcon rockets, and is willing to send customers anywhere they wish to go in the solar system. Bigelow Aerospace has long marketed its inflatable space stations for research, industrial and tourist activity in Earth orbit.

Even "oldspace" firms have stepped up, with  Chicago, Illinois based Boeing, the makers of the Starliner crewed space capsule, making mention of their intention to sell spaceflight services to foreign customers as outlined in the January 14th, 2018 Fortune post, "SpaceX and Boeing Slated for Crewed Space Missions By Year's End."

With economical heavy-lift launch capability now achieved, BSO (and doubtless other firms as well) are now conducting market studies to seek out potential customers.

ITAR is a US regulatory framework designed to restrict the export of military-related technologies (such as space rockets) to foreign nations. ITAR severely restricts the flow of space technology and expertise even to longtime US allies such as Canada and the EU. Such restrictions may hamper US space firms’ efforts to do business abroad as well as foreign space firms’ ability to setup shop in the US.

Recent signs from the US government, however, indicate a willingness to ease these restrictions.

At a meeting of the newly-reformed US National Space Council last week, it was announced that US export controls will be reviewed with the stated goal of reducing barriers to commercial space activity. The review is scheduled to be complete by Jan 1st, 2019.

Perhaps by no coincidence, this will be at the same time that SpaceX and Boeing spacecraft are due to begin launching human crews to the International Space Station (ISS).

The first obvious market for commercial space transport will be delivering astronauts and cargo (from both the US and ISS partner nations), to the ISS. Beyond that, potential customers include Middle Eastern nations such as the UAE, which has already stated its intent to build a space program with the aid of Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, or perhaps African nations.

Looking further ahead, Bigelow Aerospace’s projected earth-orbit space stations could provide destinations for crewed commercial spacecraft. SpaceX’s and Kent, WA based Blue Origin’s planned moon bases as well as SpaceX’s Mars settlement could provide other future markets.     

US space firms will hardly have the field to themselves. China has announced that its modular space station set to launch in 2019 will be open to other nations, in contrast to the US’ exclusion of China from the ISS.

As the space frontier finally opens, the jockeying for position has already begun.
Brian Orlotti.

Brian Orlotti is a regular contributor to the Commercial Space blog.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Coverage From the 2018 CSCA Small-Sat Conference

         By Henry Stewart

It's worth noting that, while journalists from the Commercial Space blog were banned from the recently concluded 2018 Canadian Space Commerce Association (CSCA) Canadian SmallSat Symposium, mostly for reasons outlined in the November 9th, 2017 post, "Commercial Space and Rocket Port Shenanigans," there has been much useful coverage on the event.

And most of the best of that coverage has originated from Alexandria, VA based Space News senior staff writer Jeff Foust.

Space News Senior correspondent Jeff Foust, during one of his three recent appearances on C-Span. According to his Wikipedia page, Foust is also publisher of the Space Review (an online publication covering space activities) and the Space Politics blog (which he shut down in 2014 to take his present position at Space News). He has also written for or Astronomy Now and The New Atlantis. Photo c/o C-Span.

His coverage from the event includes:
  • The February 15th, 2018 Space News post, "Canadian Space Agency president not surprised by NASA ISS transition plans," an interview with Canadian Space Agency (CSA) president Sylvain Laporte, who suggested that Canada's decision to follow the Americans down the path of developing "commercial low Earth orbit capabilities, including those that might be able to take over some part of the ISS when NASA funding ends," wasn't a new path or set in stone with a funding commitment. Until funding was forthcoming, Canada would take a "wait and see" approach instead of committing to the US plans.
  • The February 18th, 2018 Space News post, "Telesat to announce manufacturing plans for LEO constellation in coming months," which quoted Telesat VP of low Earth orbit (LEO) Erwin Hudson as stating that "the company was currently reviewing proposals for the 117-satellite constellation submitted by a number of major satellite manufacturers" and plans to settle on a contractor "in the next couple of months."

Competitor coverage, such as the event approved items provided by Kitchener/Waterloo ON based SpaceQ tended to be much slower, focused less on developing an overall sense of what was going on and wrapped around re-purposed talking points cribbed from attendee presentations.

For example, the SpaceQ story on the Planet ground station licence, the February 22nd, 2018 SpaceQ post, "Planet and KSAT Threaten to Pull Ground Station Assets out of Canada (Updated)," came out much later than the Space News post, required updating almost as soon as it was published, and seemed to include far fewer quotes from those involved.

Which is kinda odd, since SpaceQ said they had a team covering the conference. Space News parachuted Foust into the event as a solo act.

Overall, while its a bad idea to restrict the ability of journalists to cover a story, coverage of the space industry is building out to a point where no single source of information is able to cut off all contrary viewpoints.

This is a good thing. It might also be a leading indicator of the future of journalism.

Henry Stewart is the pseudonym of a Toronto based aerospace writer

Supercluster Funding Won't Work, According to CD Howe Based Academic

         By Chuck Black

According to Alex Usher, the president of the Toronto, ON based Higher Education Strategy Associates and a fellow-in-residence at the CD Howe Institute, "Government funding for clusters is highly unlikely to be able to deliver the enticing possibility of “Made-in-Canada Silicon Valleys.”

Innovation Minister Bains checking out the superclusters and their stars. As outlined in the February 16th, 2018 post, "Ottawa Announces Winners of $950Mln 'Supercluster' Competition," the announcement "closed out a nine-month contest central to the Liberals' so-called innovation agenda. The project was designed to encourage academia and businesses to work together on strategies to boost fast-growing sectors." Less noticeably perhaps, the announcement also reflects a policy change away from funding innovation through educational grants mostly administered through Federal departments like the National Research Council (NRC) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), in favor of more direct grants to industry led associations and consortium's similar to those competing for the supercluster funding. Photo c/o CP/Graham Hughes.

Usher made those comments in a nationally distributed editorial, just days after Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains announced the five Canadian, industry-led consortia who will each receive a piece of the $950Mln Federal government “superclusters” funding.

As outlined in the February 22nd, 2018 Macleans post, "The Liberals’ supercluster plan is an economic fantasy," Usher believes the problem with the concept of "superclusters" is that:
...there are almost no good examples anywhere of clusters being purposefully built through government programs.  
To the extent that anyone can work out what makes a successful cluster, it’s the presence of one or two industry-leading companies plus one heck of a lot of spin-offs related by disgruntled former employees who want to do their own thing. 
Unfortunately, data from the OECD (the Paris, France based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental economic organisation with 35 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade) suggests that new firm formation is an area in which Canadian clusters perform quite badly relative to others internationally. 
And while public policy can play a role in this, it’s mostly through law and regulation limiting or abolishing non-compete agreements rather than by signing big cheques.

Usher also has problems with the mostly undefined criteria used to select the five winners:
By some extraordinary coincidence, this rigorous, merit-based process yielded one winner in each of the country’s five regions, each of which now stands to receive between $150 and $250Mln CDN in funding over the next five years. 
The Atlantic and the Prairies each got cluster funding based on a traditional natural resource (oceans, food), while Ontario and Quebec each won in the two industries with whose companies’ CEOs the Minister most enjoys having his picture taken (advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence) and B.C. landed funding for “digital technology” which somehow straddles computing, telecoms, natural resources and healthcare. 
In essence, Usher finds it difficult to believe the Fed's claim that "the direct economic impact of the five consortia will be $53.5Bln over the next ten years, and that they will create 50,500 jobs over the same period."

According to Usher:
If you’re doing the math here, this implies that the government can create permanent full-time jobs in high-tech industries with an investment equal to a mere $1,800 per year, and that every dollar invested will be repaid 56-fold. This is of course utter fantasy
Another of Ushers concerns. The February 22nd, 2018 Higher Education Strategy Associates post, "Code Red on the Naylor Report," has reported substantial academic concern over the 2017 Canada's Fundamental Science Review, also known as the Naylor Report, and how (or even if) the Trudeau government intends to respond to the recommendations contained within the report on February 27th, when the 2018 Federal budget is announced. According to the post, "The Liberals are deliberately choosing not to leak anything that suggests they’re about to implement Naylor," although some new investments in science are anticipated. Graphic c/o HESA.

Of course, this latest editorial most likely reflects the growing awareness that the Justin Trudeau Liberal government, elected to so much public adoration with the help of the "Sunny Ways" philosophies cribbed from an earlier Liberal leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, isn't really all that different from the Stephen Harper government it replaced.

As noted in the February 21st, 2018 Globe and Mail post, "Survey reveals federal departments still blocking access to scientists," even one of the early successes of the Liberal government, the right of Federal scientists to freely share and discuss their scientific findings, hasn't worked out quite as well as was initially planned.

A lot of Liberal support is riding on the next Liberal budget, currently scheduled to come down on Tuesday, February 27, 2018.

Good luck with that, Mr. Prime Minister.
Chuck Black.

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Fascinating Graphic on "Punks: from Different Decades"

Graphic c/o QAOSbringer.
         By Chuck Black

It's well known that some of today's most famous scientists, engineers and space focused entrepreneurs honed their imaginations with a steady childhood diet of science fiction and fantasy.

Even Elon Musk has named SpaceX drone ships after vessels in the Iain Banks' Culture series of science fiction novels.

It's less well known how those stories and images are broadly divided up into different genre's and era's depending on the topics covered and the style of writing used.

One of the more interesting categorizations of those various styles is the January 16th, 2018 post, "Punk Types of Different Decades," on the Imgur website.

This blog has also reposted this graphic on the new Commercial Space Blog Pinterest site, along with over 100 other images of spacecraft schematics, astronomy infographics and other useful charts.

It's just one of the items we'll be upgrading over the next little while in an effort to bolster our social media presence and improve our coverage of the Canadian and international space industry.


Chuck Black.

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Silicon Valley's Singularity University is Having a Bad Year

          By Brian Orlotti

Singularity University (SU), the Sillicon Valley-based think tank/startup incubator focused on fields like space travel and renewable energy, is now at the centre of multiple scandals, which has caused Mountain View, CA based Google, one of the founding partners, to withdraw funding.

SU’s troubles show that even institutions catering to the techno-elite aren’t immune to temptation and corruption.

Located in the historic "Hangar One" building of NASA’s Ames Research Center in California, SU was created in 2009 based on futurist Ray Kurzweil's interpretation of the "technological singularity." Essentially, Kurzweil believes that coming advances in nano and biotechnology will massively increase human intelligence over the next twenty years, fundamentally reshaping the world’s economy and society.

Drawing faculty from NASA and the tech industry, SU was marketed as an alternative to accredited graduate schools. SU initially offered an annual 10-week summer program and has since added conferences, classroom-based executive training courses, at $14,500 USD tuition ($18,250 CDN) for a week-long program plus a startup incubator. In 2013, SU reincorporated as the for-profit ‘Singularity Education Group" and retained the name "Singularity University" as a brand name.

This change allowed SU to engage in both non and for-profit activities.

As outlined in the February 15th, 2018 Bloomberg post, "Silicon Valley’s Singularity University Has Some Serious Reality Problems," SU’s shining facade belies a sordid underbelly, with examples including:
  • An SU instructor (former NASA astronaut Daniel T. Barry), who allegedly sexually assaulted a former student, Yasemin Baydaroglu, from France.
  • Shady financial dealings by various executives. SU’s financial controller, Alicia Issac, who used its credit cards to make $13,500 in personal purchases and kept the cash from a $2,000 check to SU. As well, an early SU architect, Bruce Klein, was convicted in 2012 of running a credit fraud operation in Alabama. SU Board member Naveen Jain was also convicted of insider trading in 2003 before moving on to co-found Moon Express.
  • Allegations of discrimination from SU’s former chief strategy officer Gabriel Baldinucci, who is being sued by a former staffer for alleged discrimination due to gender and disability and claims Baldinucci paid her less than men in the same position and retaliated against her for complaining.
SU partner Google withdrew $1.5Mln USD ($1.9Mln CDN) in funding as well as its representative on SU’s advisory board last year. SU has since terminated 14 of about 170 staff.

Of course, SU still has many advocates and potential sources of funding it can call on.

As outlined in the February, 15th, 2018 Geekwire post, "Boeing helps lead new $32M investment in Singularity University, explores deeper partnership," SU has raised $32Mln USD ($40Mln CDN) in venture funding led by Chicago, IL based Boeing and Kirkland, WA based investment firm WestRiver Group.

According to the post, WestRiver’s CEO, Erik Anderson, will replace Sillicon Valley luminary Peter Diamandis as SU’s chairman.

Let's see what sort of time this latest round of funding buys the beleaguered institution.
Brian Orlotti.

Brian Orlotti is a regular contributor to the Commercial Space blog.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Ottawa Announces Winners of $950Mln 'Supercluster' Competition

         By Henry Stewart

Ottawa has announced the five "industry led" technology groups slated to get a piece of the $950Mln Federal government “superclusters” funding.

Minister Bains at the CSTM on Thursday, February 15th, 2018. The supercluster funds will be distributed over five years to the winners, which will be required to match the federal funding they receive with equivalent private sector funding. Photo c/o CBC News.

As outlined in the February 15th, 2018 Global News post, "Government reveals who is getting $950M in ‘supercluster’ funding," Federal Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains made the announcement Thursday at a press conference held in the Ottawa, ON based Canada Science and Technology Museum (CSTM).

The announcement "closed out a nine-month contest central to the Liberals' so-called innovation agenda. The project was designed to encourage academia and businesses to work together on strategies to boost fast-growing sectors" and is a central platform in the Liberal's Innovation Agenda, according to the February 15th, 2018 CBC News post, "AIs, Oceans and proteins: Ottawa announces winners of $950 million 'supercluster' competition." 

The five technology groups chosen for funding include:
  • Canada's Ocean Supercluster, based in Atlantic Canada, which will develop and utilize innovative technologies to improve competitiveness in Canada’s ocean-based industries, including fisheries, oil and gas and clean energy. Partners include PQ based ABB Canada, Ottawa ON based C-CORE and Cambridge, ON based exactEarth.
  • The Quebec based SCALE.AI Supply Chain Supercluster, which will work on building intelligent supply chains using artificial intelligence and robotics. According to its website, the consortium includes "over 80 Canadian companies, 26 business associations and 12 Canadian academic institutions." 
A proposal from the Satellite Canada Innovation Network, which was discussed in the August 3rd, 2017 post, "Satellite Canada Applies for Innovation SuperCluster Funds," didn't make the list of finalists.

As second proposal, the Prairies’ smart agri-food supercluster, profiled in the August 31st, 2017 post, "MacDonald Dettwiler is Part of an Alberta Based Agrifood ‘Supercluster’ Proposal"and listed as one of the nine finalists, also didn't make the final cut.

Last fall, the government narrowed a field of about 50 applicants to nine organizations. The money will be distributed over five years to the five winners, which will have to match the federal funding they receive, dollar for dollar.

The government expects the program to eventually create more than 50,000 jobs for Canadians.

Henry Stewart is the pseudonym of a Toronto based aerospace writer.

If CSA REALLY Under Spent its Budget by $800Mln over 17 Years, it Likely Gave the Money Back to the Treasury

         By Chuck Black

Federal budgets are sometimes complex creatures which might not be immediately understandable to rocket scientists and the writers at consumer media outlets.

But the suggestion made by Canadian based SpaceQ that the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has "under spent" its annual budget by over $800Mln CDN over the past seventeen years is simply not supported by any real evidence.

The upcoming RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) is a useful example of how it's difficult to assess funding without context. As outlined in the October 6th, 2012 post, "The Last Days of the Current CSA President," the RCM program has been kicking around CSA headquarters since 2004, although initial phase "A" funding for the project only began in 2006. By 2012, as outlined in the May 1st, 2012 post, "Media Reports: CSA "Lost in Space," RADARSAT "Over Budget" & UrtheCast "Hyped Vaporware," RCM was over budget and behind schedule.  In 2013. the Federal Conservative government under then Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to the problem, as outlined in the January 12th, 2013 post, "A $706Mln Fixed Price Contract and Hard Launch Date for RADARSAT Constellation," by negotiating an unusual hard launch date and fixed price contract with RCM prime contractor, the then Richmond BC based Macdonald Dettwiler (MDA). Of course, a fixed price contract didn't mean that there weren't extra costs, as outlined in the July 4th, 2016 post, "That 2013 "Fixed Pricing" Contract for RCM Might Not be Entirely Fixed." It's also worth noting that funding and accountability problems within the CSA were at the core of the 2012 David Emerson led Aerospace Review which, as outlined in the December 5th, 2012 post, "What the Space Volume of the Aerospace Review Actually Says" recommended removing most procurement functions from the CSA and adding new committees such as the Space Advisory Board (SAB) to oversee CSA activities. Graphic c/o CSA.

And those unspent CSA funds are not lying around in a CSA office somewhere just waiting to be reallocated. Any extra funds likely reverted to the Treasury Board of Canada, the Federal government department responsible for accountability and ethics, financial, personnel and administrative management of the Federal bureaucracy.

But it's very easy to come to the opposite conclusion after reading the February 14th, 2018 SpaceQ post, "The Canadian Space Agency has Underspent its Budget for the Last 17 Years." According to the post:
In the last 17 years the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has left $802Mln in planned spending unspent. In the last three years the CSA has under spent its budget by $201Mln.  
In 2010 the Conservative government began the process of decreasing the CSA’s base budget from $300 million to $260 million. The Liberal government has not restored the CSA’s annual base budget funding cut. Add these points together and it’s no wonder the space community is concerned. 
Those are strong claims, especially given that there is no immediate mention of the project funding normally allocated on top of the base "A" funding, which is used to cover operational expenses, salaries and other overhead.

Lowing the base A funding level is normally considered good for a government department and for taxpayers as well. It means less bureaucracy, over-site and paperwork to deal with for the same amount of project funding.

To find out what the CSA budget actually is, check out the March 9th, 2017 Federal government document, "CSA Departmental plan for 2017 - 2018," which covers the CSA mandate, its plans for the year, the estimated budgets and HR requirements, the expected results and a variety of other supplementary data. The next CSA departmental plan is expected to be released in March 2018 and should be available on the CSA "Reports to Parliament" website. Graphic c/o CSA.

Project funding is what defines the success or failure of a government department, since it's the money which goes to implement projects and programs and has the most effect on public perceptions of effectiveness. Project funding is normally a substantial portion of the overall department funding.

For example, as first outlined in the March 7th, 2010 post, "Feedback on the Throne Speech and Budget," any reasonable assessment of CSA funding in 2010 would also include the $110Mln CDN allocated by the Federal government over three years beginning in 2009 for next generation Canadarms and rovers, plus the substantial additional funding allocated that year for the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM).

These items are funded on a project by project basis and not from the base funding.

And while it's common knowledge that the CSA is only allowed to reallocate it's base budget and is restricted in what it can do with project funding for programs like Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) and other programs as listed on the "Government of Canada, disclosure of grants and contributions awards for the Canadian Space Agency," it's also generally conceded that CSA subcontractors would prefer less oversight and more project funding.

But that's not the whole story. Most Federal government procurement includes a "risk reduction" mechanism, where a government department will often hold back a proportion of the final payment to contractors until milestones have been achieved and/or the contract is complete.

Governments do this in an effort to cost costs and maintain leverage over their contractors. These "contingency fundbacks" are normally small, especially when the provider is a large, well respected company performing well understood work.

Governments and private sector organizations often maintain "contingency funds," a reserve of money set aside to cover possible unforeseen future expenses. When those unforeseen circumstances fail to materialize, the funds are rolled over into the next project. Image c/o The Canadian Encyclopedia.

But fundback requirements typically increase when the contractor is smaller, inexperienced, a start-up or if the required work contains a large research and development component.

You know. Like the innovative new projects often contemplated by the CSA.

When a project doesn't pan out, the funding normally is either rolled over into the next year to try again (something called "re-profiling") or the funding is cut off and the contractor is required to repay the portion of the work considered incomplete.

Sources have indicated that some of the Canadian government fundbacks for R&D focused work hover around 40% or more of the total contracted worth although the average is normally far less. Understanding fundback requirements and how funds are often provided in increments contingent on completing milestones would go a long way towards explaining why the CSA seemingly spends so much less than it gets.

After all, R&D projects don't always work out the way people intend. When failures happen, good government procurement people spending the taxpayers money do what they're supposed to do. They cut their losses and retrieve what funds they can.

But that ongoing pot of unused funds also makes it difficult to request additional funding for new programs from the treasury.

For example, as a side effect of the government fundback requirements, CSA contract managers have a reputation of pushing hard to get more work for less money. In most cases, they're not allowed to dig in to the fundbacks and contingency funds. The end result is that they have a pot of unused, but allocated funds available between December and March of each fiscal year which can't be spend on other items.

But while bureaucrats and project managers might insist that they need more, a cursory audit would show extra money in the bank and turn any new funding request into an uphill battle.

This is how Federal budgets work. Objecting to this, as seems to be the case with the SpaceQ post, is not the sort of argument which will reinvigorate our CSA or free up additional funds for government funded projects.

As outlined in the May 17th, 2011 BBC News post, "What is debt 'reprofiling'," the term is common enough in international financial circles and is a type of restructuring, in which known financial responsibilities are stretched out over a longer period of time, but the overall value of those responsibilities remains the same. It's considered to be a little better than simply modifying or changing financial commitments unilaterally and much better than reneging on commitments previously made (which is also known as taking a "haircut"). Screen shot c/o BBC News

As outlined in a February 16th, 2018 e-mail from Julie Simard, the strategic manager of communications for the CSA:
As you know, space projects are complex, with changing requirements, and are generally spread over a long period of time. They are in fact the epitome of innovation, in which we constantly push further scientific research, knowledge and technology. 
For this reason, and as part of sound management practices, the CSA plans some contingency funds for each project in order to help mitigate risks and ensure their successful delivery. The percentage allocated to the contingency funds varies from one project to another, but also to the project phase. 
Contingency funds are released when they are no longer needed, all along the project duration. Contingency funds are necessary and allow the CSA to remain agile, flexible and being able to react to unforeseen situations.
It's also worth noting that, as outlined in the February 15th, 2018 Space News post, "Canadian Space Agency president not surprised by NASA ISS transition plans," CSA president Sylvain Laporte is taking a "wait and see" approach to NASA’s plans to end funding of the International Space Station (ISS) in the mid-2020s, in order to help fund the proposed Deep Space Gateway, a follow-on plan which CSA hopes to build a mission around, after the ISS shuts down.

In essence, the CSA is waiting for a mission, not an audit.

Back to you, SpaceQ.
Chuck Black.

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Revisiting "A Nautilus-X for the Next 'HMCS Bonaventure'"

         By Chuck Black

It goes back to the July 4th, 2011 post "Ground Control to Marc Garneau," a critique of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and it's focus on building rovers and components to sell to other space agencies, almost to the exclusion of innovative and useful domestic space focused projects.

That story spawned more than its fair share of private and public comments, most of them focused on how much easier it is to critique a plan of action than it is to originate one.

Those comments, perfectly reasonable as they were, got addressed in the July 5th, 2011 post, "A Nautilus-X for the Next 'HMCS Bonaventure,'" which suggested that the best way to build a space program would be to pick a difficult goal which very few felt could be accomplished, then inventory the potential subcontractors to see where the existing expertise happened to be located and then assess whether or not the project could actually be made with the available resources.

We even suggested calling the end result HMCS Bonaventure, after Canada's last aircraft carrier. Which is kinda like what Hawthorne, CA based SpaceX did after its founding in 2002, except for the part where it's named after an aircraft carrier.

And look where SpaceX ended up. As outlined in the July 5th, 2011 post, Canada could certainly do the same:
...there are several obvious research areas where a bit of judiciously provided Federal government money (or private sector Canadian funding) could make the difference in guaranteeing future Canadian space competitiveness across a wide range of opportunities. 
These potential research areas and emerging technologies aren't focused on unmanned robotics or simple Mars rovers. Instead, they are directly applicable to solving propulsion, orbital construction and environmental/ habitation concerns relating to long duration, manned, interplanetary spaceflight. 
This makes them a far better way to ensure the continuation of the Canadian astronaut corps than anything wrapped around unmanned activities could ever possibly pretend to be...

That post also suggested that there were "four specific areas where Canada could contribute, right now, to the proposed Nautilus-X interplanetary spacecraft as described in the February 14th, 2011 Popular Mechanics article "New NASA Designs for a Reusable, Manned Deep Space Craft, Nautilus-X" or to any other manned spacecraft program for that matter."

Those areas included
  • Expertise developed building the Canadarm and the Canadarm II for the International Space Station (ISS)., through the then Richmond BC based MacDonald Dettwiler (MDA), now a subsidiary of San Francisco, CA based Maxar Technologies.

Keep in mind that this proposal came out long before the April 22th, 2016 post, "2009 Canadian Space Agency Report on Indigenous Canadian Launcher said "Yes!" But CSA Didn't Move Forward," which reported on how CSA subcontractors had inventoried Canadian capabilities to build orbital capable rockets in 2009, found that their construction was an achievable domestic goal, but did not move forward when the CSA decided not to release the documentation related to the project and/or actually building something.

These days we could probably recommend something far more substantial, and we could do so without the CSA's involvement.

While MDA is no longer Canadian and CanALSS seems to have fallen off the funding grid, there may be far more appropriate and capable replacements for the Canadian organizations listed in the earlier post.

Canadians certainly don't need to become part manufacturers or subcontractors for other space agencies.

We can still choose our own path.
Chuck Black.

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

Those European Bureaucrats Subtly Sneering at Elon Musk Likely Won't Get the Last Laugh

          By Brian Orlotti

European Space Agency (ESA) Director General (DG) Johann-Dietrich "Jan" Wörner has finally come clean with a public admission that the advent of reusable rockets and new manufacturing technologies from "NewSpace" firms like SpaceX, Blue Origin and Rocket Lab poses a threat to European space leadership.

ESA DG Jan Wörner's public lecture on "Driving Space 4.0 – an enabler for Entrepreneurship and Innovation" at Tallinn University of Technology during his visit to Estonia on September 15th, 2016 and John Cleese as the French taunter in the 1975 British slapstick comedy film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." When it comes to rockets,Wörner and his ESA member nations along with their space agencies (including the Canadian Space Agency, an "associate member"), simply don't believe they need anything new or reusable. "I told them we already got one," they've said up until now, much like Cleese's character. Images c/o Youtube/ Python (Monty) Pictures.

In a February 11th, 2018 post on the ESA DG's personal blog under the title, " Europe's Move," Wörner noted severe upheavals in Europe over the 2016 UK Brexit vote, plus continuing economic and social troubles.

Then, in a prime example of how the rise of NewSpace is re-energizing global space efforts, Wörner called for “disruptive innovation,” with ESA member states contributing to finance the development of a new European reusable rocket.

In one paragraph, Wörner, in a textbook case of bureaucratic butt-protection, stated that in a 2014 ESA meeting, he had put forth reusability amongst the high-level requirements for the development of a new line of Ariane and Vega rockets (Ariane 6 and Vega C). But due to “time and cost pressure,” this requirement did not make it onto the agenda.

Wörner then, in a show of icy pragmatism, admitted that the world has changed and that Europe must consider new ideas and adapt, even as it now tastes the consequences of its slackness.

Readers of Wörner’s post could also detect the smoldering jealousy at SpaceX’s success, as shown in this passage:
One particularly powerful example is in the launcher sector, where global competition has been intensifying with the advent of very cheap systems. 
In addition, breakthrough developments from new space sector players such as reusable launchers and marketing wheezes like sending a car into space are attracting attention and increasing pressure on the public sector.
Wörner closed off his post by stating that French and German leaders are now supportive of  disruptive space technology. He quoted a Sept 26 2017 speech by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Sorbonne in which he stated, “I want to see Europe take the lead in this radical innovation revolution.”

Wörner also quoted from an agreement from Germany’s coalition government, “We are committed to maintaining the European Space Agency (ESA) as an independent international organisation and intend to strengthen it further.”

What satisfaction, what fulfillment, what joy it must be to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to be damned with faint praise by the very bureaucrats who sneered at him 15 years ago. As the NewSpace industry shines in triumph, we are reminded of the wisdom of Frank Herbert’s words.

Graphic c/o AZ Quotes.

Leaders in France and Germany have expressed their backing for more disruptive actions with, for example, French President Emmanuel Macron making multiple references in his speech at the Sorbonne on September 26th, 2017 to encourage “l’innovation de rupture” or disruptive innovation, as a major strategic priority for Europe before adding:
Je souhaite que l’Europe prenne la tête de cette révolution par l’innovation radicale. (translated as "I want to see Europe take the lead in this radical innovation revolution").
Similarly, the coalition agreement between the two political parties in Germany published in recent days provides a sound foundation for such a step:
Wir setzen uns dafür ein, die Europäische Weltraumorganisation (ESA) als eigenständige internationale Organisation zu erhalten und wollen sie weiter stärken (translated as, "we are committed to maintaining the European Space Agency (ESA) as an independent international organisation and intend to strengthen it further).
But words need to be followed up by actions. As outlined in the December 14th, 2018 EuroNews post, "Race to build Ariane 6 rocket launch pad," while most believe that the current ESA Ariane 5 rocket cannot compete with current SpaceX launchers such as the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, there are still four long years before the next launcher in the Ariane rocket family, the Ariane 6, is expected to be ready for its first launch.

Will the Ariane 6 be able to compete against SpaceX? According to Wörner, without substantial changes in design to include reusability, it likely won't.

Time to watch those sneers turn to fear.
Brian Orlotti.

Brian Orlotti is a regular contributor to the Commercial Space blog.

Friday, February 09, 2018

The Battle of the Space Billionaires

         By Chuck Black

The successful launch of SpaceX's first Falcon Heavy rocket from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida earlier this week is a reminder that, where once space was a proxy battlefield between world powers for glory and scientific advancement, the modern space race is more of a business venture waged by eccentric, real life superhero stand-ins who run multi-billion dollar companies.

Has anyone else noticed the obvious similarities between this picture and the opening of the 1981 animated sci-fi movie "Heavy Metal?" According to the February 8th, 2018 CNBC post, "Elon Musk shares the epic last photo of 'Starman' in the red Tesla he shot into space," this was the last picture SpaceX was able to get of the Tesla Roadster it sent into space on Tuesday. But don't panic. There are plenty more billionaires intending to do similar things who are currently gearing up for their moment in the sun. Photo c/o SpaceX.

At least that's the context behind the February 8th, 2018 Sky News post, "Who's winning battle of space race billionaires?," which gives a quick update on those in the forefront of current space exploration.

They include SpaceX's Elon Musk, Blue Origin's Jeff Bezos and Virgin Galactic's Richard Branson.

According to the August 21th, 2017 Bloomberg Technology Post, "Billionaire Moguls Join Musk, Bezos in Race to Outer Space," sixteen of the world’s 500 richest people have an investment in a space enterprise, according to data compiled by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and consulting firm Bryce Space & Technology.

According to the post:
While technology tycoons dominate, the list also includes casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who’s backing a lunar mission, and Mexican retail and banking billionaire Ricardo Salinas, an investor in satellite network OneWeb.

Of course, billionaires are seldom the first to enter into new markets.

As outlined in the January 18th, 2018 post, "Private Investors Poured $3.9Bln into Commercial Space Companies Last Year,"  a record 120 private firms made investments in space in 2017, well over the previous peak of 89 in 2015.
Editors Note: Ex-NASA deputy administrator and current general manager of the Air Line Pilots Association (APA) Lori Garver thinks the current entrepreneurial space race will help to re-invigorate NASA as it begins to adapt many of their new tools. 
As outlined in her February 9th, 2018 The Hill editorial, "SpaceX could save NASA and the future of space exploration," the real question to be answered in Washington now is, "why would (the US) Congress continue to spend billions of taxpayer dollars a year on a government-made rocket (the Space Launch System or SLS) that is unnecessary and obsolete now that the private sector has shown they can do it for a fraction of the cost (with the Falcon Heavy)?"
Chuck Black.

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

Thursday, February 08, 2018

That CBC Story About Canada's Lack of a Rocket Program

         By Henry Stewart

Commercial Space blog editor Chuck Black was in downtown Toronto on Wednesday morning, February 8th, 2018 with several other guests on the set of CBC Radio's The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti to contribute to a discussion on our "Failure to launch: Canada's lack of a rocket program leaves us grounded, say experts."

According to The Current, "while a Canadian, Andrew Rader, was the mission manager of SpaceX's success, Canada itself does not currently have a rocket launch initiative." Screenshot c/o CBC Radio. 
As outlined in the accompanying article on the CBC Radio website, "the world could be blasting off into a new era of space exploration, but Canada's lack of a rocket launch program could leave us kicking our heels on Earth."

Black's presentation, including the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) studies cited in his interview, were referenced from his April 22nd, 2016 post, "2009 Canadian Space Agency Report on Indigenous Canadian Launcher said "Yes!" But CSA Didn't Move Forward."

The segment also included contributions from the Jason Davis, the digital editor of the Pasadena, CA based Planetary Society, retired Col. Andre Dupuis, the former director of space requirements for the Department of National Defence (DND) and Jeremy Wang, a former member of the University of Toronto Aerospace Team (UTAT).

It's compelling listening, especially when Jeremy Wang mentions that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of his colleagues from university will likely need to leave the country upon graduation in order to pursue their careers.

The full nineteen minute and twenty-one second segment is available on the CBC Radio website.

Henry Stewart is the pseudonym of a Toronto based aerospace writer.

Monday, February 05, 2018

Nextologies Provides Telemetry, Tracking and Control (TT&C) station For Kepler Satellite

          By Brian Orlotti

On January 15th, Toronto, ON based satellite-maker Kepler Communications launched its first satellite into orbit aboard a Chinese Long March 11 rocket.

It's cold in Markham in the winter. The Kepler TT&C rooftop station. Photo c/o Kepler Communications.

Now Kepler has credited the success of the mission to a partnership developed with Markham ON based Nextologies, a provider of fibre, IP and satellite transmission services which supplied the "much-needed" telemetry, tracking and control (TT&C) station, used to establish and maintain contact with the Kepler satellite.

The January 29th, 2018 Kepler Communications press release, "A Shared Victory!" goes into more detail. According to the press release:
The rooftop space, including network and power access provided by Nextologies, has proven to be key in establishing communications with KIPP; our first satellite in orbit and the first commercial Ku-band nanosatellite ever launched in low earth orbit (LEO). 
Our TT&C station can do everything from tracking to controlling spacecraft through commands that prompt specific behaviors. This is especially crucial in the early days of spacecraft on-orbit, also known as “Launch and Early Operation” for commissioning all the subsystems on-board (e.g. a stable attitude control system).
The station was critical in the first week of the satellites orbit, where downloading of logs and analysis of on-board data allowed Kepler’s staff to verify the health of all on-board systems.

The satellite being tracked, named KIPP after the robot assistant in Christopher Nolan’s 2014 film "Interstellar" is a nano-satellite built for Kepler by Scottish firms Clyde Space and Bright Ascension. The satellite is the first of a planned constellation of 140 spacecraft which will serve as a high-speed communications backbone in low-earth orbit (LEO).

KIPP is the first commercial LEO spacecraft to operate in the Ku-band; a highly sought-after frequency band for satellite communications, including other planned constellations from SpaceX and others. Kepler’s first customers for its new service are expected to come from the Canadian maritime and mining sectors.

According to its website, Nextologies provides "fibre, IP and satellite transmission services for a wide range of clientele worldwide. It is a partner of the Ethnic Channels Group Limited."

Two Canadian startups working together to build space infrastructure and stake a Canadian claim to the opening space frontier. Canadians’ pioneering spirit lives on.
Brian Orlotti.

Brian Orlotti is a regular contributor to the Commercial Space blog.

Support our Patreon Page