The Bill to Push Canada's Agenda in Space

On April 25th, as part of my post under the title Presidents Choice I suggested that there was something in the Canadian Space Agency's still unreleased long term space plan (LTSP) that the Prime Minister and our government in Ottawa disagree with.

Last week we finally found out just what that point of contention is.

According to the May 12th article "Bill to push Canada in space to top $2B: MacLean" on the Parcs3c blog, there is no point of contention in the LTSP itself.

The point of contention has to do with the cost to implement the plan. According to the article:

A Parliamentary committee meeting yesterday showcasing the science of Expedition 21/22 quickly evolved to one of Canadian Space Agency President Steve MacLean’s first pitched public battles to implement his evolving long-term space plan for the agency he helms.

This parliamentary committee is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) which met with MacLean, Canadian astronaut Robert Thirsk, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) astronaut Koichi Wakata and European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Frank De Winne on May 11th (those interested in a little more context on the committee should check out my May 2nd post Space Men Invade Parliament: Parliament Retaliates Through Committee!)

The article then goes on to quote CSA President MacLean as stating:

“You know what? If you want to do a first rate on some of the examples (of potential CSA projects) I gave you, you are looking at an additional budget of $2 billion over five years. That will put us at the table. That will drive innovation.

We now know why the government doesn't want to implement the LTSP. It's expensive, essentially doubling the existing $390 million annual CSA budget for the next five years.

So now we need to make a choice.

We are at the point where advocates of the LTSP need to start talking directly to local MP's. While the CSA can collect the information needed to make policy recommendations and certainly controls policy implementation, the policy must also be approved and funded at the federal government level before implementation can proceed.

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next and where this path will end up taking CSA President MacLean and the agency he heads.

Building Rockets for their Red Glare.

Canada is beginning to slowly lurch forward towards redeveloping the skills needed to build rockets, as demonstrated by this recent announcement between the Norwegian based Andøya Rocket Range (ARR), the National Center for Space Related Education (NAROM), the University of Oslo, the Institute for Space Science, Exploration and Technology (ISSET) at the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary and the University of Saskatchewan to form a ten year, bilateral student sounding rocket program that includes student exchange in physics, electronics and engineering.

Dubbed the Canada-Norway Student Rocket Programme (CanNoRock) the collaboration was announced at the conclusion of the recent Canadian Space Agency (CSA) workshop on suborbital platforms and nano-satellites which finished up on April 16, 2010.

Of course, this is not the first time that Canadian students have gone to Norway to launch rockets under the CanNoRock banner. According to this November 26th, 2009 article "Students launch experimental rockets in Norway" posted on the Rocketry Planet blog, Canadian students go to Norway because they "could not have launched a sounding rocket in Canada since there are no longer any rocket ranges."

But this is the first announcement of a  long term plan codifying co-operation between the Norwegian and  Canadian organizations.

According to the Rocketry Blog, post on "What is a Sounding Rocket:"

Sailors the world over used to throw a weighted line into the water off of the ship to gauge the depth of the water. This was known as “to sound” or “a sounding”. Basically it was a measurement of the current depth. That is what research rockets usually do…they take measurements. This is why they are often called Sounding Rockets.

Sounding rockets inhabit an interesting intermediary stage somewhere between the short range hobby rockets used by enthusiasts such as the Canadian Rocket Society or the Canadian Association of Rocketry (CARWeb) and launchers capable of putting payloads into orbit. Sounding rockets are normally used to carry instruments from 50 to 1,500 kilometers above the surface of the Earth.

Canada has a long history of expertise in this area with the Black Brant sounding rockets and their two stage Excalibur variants. However, Alberta-born designer Albert Fia, who developed the Black Brant rocket in the 1950's for Bristol Aerospace (and thus enabled his firm to become an industrial-scale rocket manufacturer) died in 2004 and recent development in this area has languished.

The Fort Churchill rocket launch site, built in 1954 by the Canadian Army to study the effects of auroras on long distance communications was essentially shut down and abandoned in 1985, although in 1995 a private company called Akjuit Aerospace made an unsuccessful attempt to reopen the facility.

The Microsat Way in Canada

“You’re no doubt familiar with a publication called the Microsat Way in Canada?” asks Doug Sinclair, owner of Sinclair Interplanetary, and part of the team receiving this years Alouette Award, presented by the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute at its 15th annual CASI ASTRO conference, which just finished up last week in Toronto.

The Alouette Award, presented for "outstanding contribution to advancement in Canadian space technology, applications, science or engineering" was awarded to the CanX-2 micro-satellite team, headed by the University of Toronto Institute of Aerospace Studies (UTIAS). Sinclair was part of the team which built the CanX-2 micro-satellite, but awards don't seem to interest him.

"CASI is not the normal type of conference I attend but the organizers were very proactive in encouraging me to present a paper on developing, flying and evolving a Canadian Micro-satellite reaction wheel (presented with UTIAS colleague C. Cordell Grant). The award was simply a nice surprise." he told me during a phone interview earlier this week.

But it's still my answers to his questions that seem to interest him the most right now and so he asks me a second time. “Are you familiar with The Microsat Way in Canada?"

I say no and so he tells me that the title refers to a paper written years ago by Peter Stibrany and Kieran A. Carroll back when they both worked for Dynacon (now Microsat Systems Canada). In it, the authors discussed the potential of micro-satellites to reduce entry barriers to space utilization and the way micro-satellite manufacturing methodologies will change the economics of space applications.

"The concepts discussed by Carrol and Stibrany in their paper are the keys to understanding the history of  the little wheels Sinclair Interplanetary builds and the manufacturing processes that allow cash strapped universities like UTIAS to launch small satellites and win awards like Alouette" states Sinclair, referring to the reaction wheel he initially built as his contribution to the CanX-2 and which his firm now sells to other satellite developers.

Wikipedia defines a reaction wheel as being:

"a type of flywheel used primarily by spacecraft to change their angular momentum without using fuel for rockets or other reaction devices...

They are particularly useful when the spacecraft must be rotated by very small amounts, such as keeping a telescope pointed at a star. They may also reduce the mass fraction needed for fuel."

But that's not the important part, according to Sinclair. The important part is developing an understanding of the construction techniques used to fabricate the reaction wheel and how these techniques differ from traditional satellite manufacturing techniques. He states:

"The traditional approach to satellite manufacturing is to take ten years and make sure everything is right before building any hardware. Since the due diligence requirements needed to make sure everything is right are normally quite onerous and fluid, it's very often simply too expensive, time consuming and complex to change a satellite component after fabrication unless the part obviously doesn't work. So you never learn anything using real world conditions until it's too late to change the design.

Micro-satellite manufacturers function differently because their focus is on inexpensive, quickly constructed components used frequently. This methodology quickly builds up a body of expertise since different things can be tried and small failures tolerated for the knowledge gained. As an example, the Sinclair flywheels used in CanX-2 were built out of inexpensive components and we could build new flywheels within a few weeks at a very low cost when ever they were needed.

So over a few months, we were able to build half a dozen prototypes with each one slightly better than the previous. So we had real world experience with the component which would influence future development and if we broke any single prototype or if it didn't work the way we thought it would then we didn't have to worry about breaking the program or blowing the budget.

This is how Canadian small and micro-satellite fabricators function, according to Sinclair and it's all based on the paper written by Carrol and Stibrany. It’s likely that this is a document that people like Doug Sinclair feel more of us should be reading.

ITAR, Foreign Policy and Space Focused Business

The Washington based blog National Defense is always an fascinating read for those of us obsessed with the US and it's effect on the Canadian military and space infrastructure. But the April 30th, 2010 article titled "Irrational U.S. Fear of China Undermines National Security, Says Former Pentagon Official" is especially useful for the insight it provides into late 1990's Clinton administration decisions relating to exports of technology, satellites and space-system components.

The article quotes former US deputy defense secretary John Hamre as stating "America’s paranoia about China has blinded U.S. policy makers and, as a result, has severely undermined U.S. security and economic interests." According to the article:

"The United States in the late 1990s decided to restrict exports of high-tech systems such as satellites and other key space-system components because it wanted to freeze China out of the market. The concern was that China would use that technology to enhance its ballistic-missile arsenal."

These laws were eventually codified as part of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and are still in force today but the article then goes on to state that the legislation put the United States "in a position where it is now rapidly losing clout in the space market."

The loss of international sales means the space industry is now heavily dependent on the U.S. government for its survival. About 90 to 95 percent of the industry’s sales are related to the U.S. government.

Another consequence of America’s “static” approach to industrial security is that the U.S. government and private sector have not been able to benefit from the technological advances that other countries have made."

In other words, unlike in Canada where the majority of space focused business is done between private organizations or as part of an international team sharing both scientific and technical data, the US space industry is almost entirely focused on one client; the US government as represented in either its military or civilian (NASA) guise.

I don't know about anyone else, but I like the Canadian way better.

For example, while the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) does have a role incubating new technology, Canadian firms are normally expected to develop outside sources of revenue and move into new markets as they grow. Plus, the Canadian Forces (CF), although often tasked with missions requiring a space capability, does not possess such an overwhelming budget or set of requirements so as to distort the commercial market all out of proportion (which is what seems to be happening in the US with the once canceled Constellation program).

Even the US based Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), although originally a strong supporter of ITAR, dislikes the legislation in it's current form, as can be seen from this discussion recorded at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research  October 2009 conference on Export Control Reform 2009: Enhancing National Security and Economic Competitiveness.



It's obvious by now that Canadian and foreign space focused companies have benefited from US ITAR legislation through the development of new capabilities and the growth of new (often "ITAR free") markets. Many have grown their business at double digit rates annually over the last decade and are now poised to move back into the US as part of the Obama administrations embrace of international cooperation in future space initiatives.

Of course, this promised US cooperation cannot occur without ITAR reform so the Obama administration has put forward a plan to reform export controls. The US Congress is expected to debate the issue later this year.

But what about the China space program that the Clinton administration feared so much in the 1990's? According to the article:

"The world’s most reliable commercial space booster is now in China, Hamre said. “Yet we thought we were going to freeze them out and they wouldn’t move forward if we didn’t work with them. … Was that an intelligent security strategy?”

Space Men Invade Parliament: Parliament Retaliates Through Committee!

According to the April 29th, 2010 Spaceref.ca article "Parliamentary Committee to Meet Astronaut Delegation" a  delegation of astronauts led by Canadian Space Agency (CSA) President Steve MacLean is scheduled to meet with members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 from 9:00 - 11:00 am.

But the official Parliament of Canada website containing the published agenda for the meeting is sparse with only the date, location and names of the astronauts in the delegation so we're not totally sure what's expected to occur.

However, we're certainly able to make suggestions to our political representatives about topics and track their responses since INDU includes opposition members of parliament, is also normally open to the public and is usually webcast on ParlVU.

So I'm going to make a suggestion to the INDU members.

INDU should ask CSA President MacLean and the other participating Canadian astronaut (Robert Thirsk, who holds the Canadian records for the longest space flight and the most time spent in space) about our missing Canadian long term space plan (LTSP).

After all, INDU last made news in the Canadian space community back in 2008 when it held meetings on the aborted sale of portions of space contractor MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) to American-owned Alliant Techsystems (ATK). Out of these meetings developed a Canadian consensus on the need for an updated LTSP which was duly added to the original mandate of then new CSA President MacLean and is presently referenced in official CSA documents like the Reports on Plans and Priorities 2010-2011 although it remains officially unreleased.

So INDU has a history of asking these sorts of questions.

INDU is also certainly the most appropriate venue to ask about the revised Canadian LTSP and what else the Canadian government has done since 2008 to address national infrastructure and arctic sovereignty issues arising out of the aborted MDA sale.

The upcoming INDU meeting is also the best opportunity to ask these questions to CSA President MacLean, who is scheduled to be there and was the person hired in 2008 specifically to develop the appropriate answers. In fact, Jim Prentice, then Minister of Industry who made the 2008 official announcement on the appointment of the  then new CSA President and the need for a new LTSP stated unequivocally that:

I have given (CSA President) Steve (MacLean) a mandate to make sweeping changes at the CSA. As we stand at this crossroads, he will revitalize the Agency. He will restore its ability to punch above its weight in an international quest. He will develop Canada's capacity for a new era of prestige and achievement.

And to that end, as one of Steve MacLean's first acts as new President, the CSA will begin consultations with stakeholders that will lead to a new Long-Term Space Plan (LTSP). I expect this plan — the fourth in the series — to be as influential for our generation of exploration and development as any plan that Canada has produced for charting our future in space. That's a tall order. I know that Steve is capable of bringing together the stakeholders. Time is of the essence, and I look forward to the plan in the coming months.

No doubt Tony Clement, Prentice's successor as Minister of Industry feels essentially the same way because the consultations with stakeholders do seem to have occurred and a LTSP does seem to have been written, although it certainly hasn't been released and only cosmetic changes seem to have occurred so far at the CSA.

Many, many months have passed and it would be nice to finally release the document and begin all the substantive changes needed to prepare Canada for this promised new era of prestige and achievement.

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) astronaut Koichi Wakata and European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Frank De Winne are also expected to attend the meeting. Thirsk, Wakata and De Winne were all part of the Expedition 20 crew to the International Space Station.

Big Space Party at the Westin Next Week

Quite a few movers, shakers and technical experts in the Canadian space industry are in Toronto next week, starting Tuesday, May 4th for the 15th Annual Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute (CASI) Astronautics conference at the The Westin Bristol Place Toronto Airport hotel.

The 2010 conference agenda is focused on Canada's Future in Space which is something I'm personally looking forward to finding out a little more about given that it's one of my favored topics on this blog.

Confirmed speakers for the sessions include Canadian astronaut Dr. Bjarni Tryggvason (who is acting as chair for the conference); Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Director General of Space Exploration Gilles Leclerc; Department of National Defense (DND) Director General of Integrated Force Development Brigadier General Perry Matte; the Chairman of the board of Optech Inc., Dr. Allan Carswell and quite a few others in government, academia, the military and the private sector focused on space activities in support of "a safer world, a healthier planet and a stronger economy."

Some of the conference organizers are people you read about before and include Tryggvason, Ron Buckingham from the Northeast Space Company, Terry Doyle from Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA), Robert Richards from Odyssey Moon, Ali Shoamanesh from Telesat and Robert Zee from the University of Toronto Institute of Aerospace Studies (UTIAS).

CASI is a non-profit scientific and technical organization for people interested in aeronautics, space and remote sensing. It's certainly a useful gathering of talented and informative people and I hope to see you there.

Presidents Choice!

The expectation was that he'd talk about the Canadian long term space plan (LTSP), at least for those of you who read my February 16th, 2010 blog post titled Feedback on Ottawa Citizen: "Where Did That Long Term Space Plan Go?"

After all, by now everyone agrees that the LTSP exists, is referenced in recent Canadian Space Agency documents like the Reports on Plans and Priorities 2010-2011 and is about to be publicly released.

This perception is bolstered by the recent article by Elizabeth Howell titled "Canada’s focus in next two years: the North" on the PArs3c blog and ongoing coverage by Marc Boucher on the Spaceref.ca website.

But the LTSP hasn't been approved yet by the ruling Conservative government and so Canadian Space Agency (CSA) President Steve MacLean only went publicly on record as stating that "Space and space assets should be an essential element of government infrastructure" according to the April 22nd, 2010 article "Does Canada Have a Future in Space?" written by Mitchell Zimmer and published on Western News, the daily news site for the University of Western Ontario.

The comments came as part of the 2010 Nerenberg lecture series where MacLean was speaking on the topic "It is Rocket Science!" The article was also reprinted in a slightly different format on the Western Faculty of Science web page under the title "Astronaut says Space Research is Essential during Nerenberg Lecture,"

It's odd that MacLean wasn't more definitive about the LTSP and what the government should be doing. Perhaps there is something in the present LTSP that his political masters disprove of and wish to change before releasing  the document.

His comments also seem indicative of larger patterns emerging in the Canadian aerospace community relating to a perceived  lack of government willingness to approve or release a LTSP. This started with the March 4th, 2010 Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC) press release titled "The Canadian Aerospace Industry Reacts to the 2010 Federal Budget" which stated:

"Although the budget makes no mention of the long awaited Long-Term Space Plan, the  additional funding provided to the Canadian Space Agency to complete the Radarsat Constellation Mission is good news for the Space industry. “This measure will stimulate the Space sector and keep value-added jobs in Canada while serving government priorities,” said Claude Lajeunesse, President and CEO of the AIAC."

The comments were carried over by Canadian Space Society (CSS) President Kevin Shortt in the April 15th, 2010 Canadian Press article by Lee Ann Goodman titled "Canada likely left out in cold in U.S. plans for Mars exploration, expert says" where he is quoted as saying:

"We have no long-term space plan. We have no vision. It's partly the fault of the Canadian Space Agency, but there's been little movement from the government on what our role should be. There's no government policy at all in terms of what we should be aiming for in space."

So what we have here is three presidents, each involved with space focused activities and each mentioning that the present Canadian government really should focus a little more on our space infrastructure. One (Kevin Shortt) doesn't believe that the LTSP even exists while the other two are more cagey and publicly admit only that there should be one.

It seems that our Presidents have made their choice. But it also seems that there is something in the LTSP that the Prime Minister and our government in Ottawa disagree with. Otherwise, they'd have released it by now.

It will be interesting to find out just what specifically that is.

It's a Small World After All!

Whether you call them micro-satellites, nano-satellites, miniaturized satellites, small-sats or something else entirely, these useful tools of unusually low weights and small sizes are big news for Canadian space focused businesses.

This is partially the result of the recently concluded Workshop on Suborbital Platforms and Nanosatellites, organized by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and held at the John H. Chapman Space Centre in Longueuil, Quebec on April 14th - 16th.

But the workshop is really only acting in a supporting role to the recent announcement that COM DEV International has purchased Routes AstroEngineering (Routes), a privately owned Ottawa-based company specializing in the design and manufacture of advanced instruments mostly for micro-satellites.

According to the article COM DEV Completes Asset Purchase to Add Space Instrument and Microsatellite Capabilities, posted April 16th, 2010 on the Exchange Magazine website:

“In absorbing the assets of a key subcontractor, we are mitigating risk by securing the completion of deliverables on a couple of our existing government programs, while at the same time adding new capabilities and complementary technology,” said John Keating, CEO of COM DEV. “This purchase is very well aligned with our strategic thrust on instruments and microsatellites. We have worked with the Routes team on a number of programs, and I expect their highly talented and experienced staff to strengthen our COM DEV Canada division.”

Routes has been a significant player in the Canadian space industry for 22 years with contributions including the OSIRIS ozone monitoring instrument for the Swedish Odin Astronomical/Aeronomical Satellite; a power subsystem for the Canadian SCISAT 1; an electronic subsystems readout for the Ultra-Violet Imaging Telescope component of the Indian ASTROSAT space telescope; solar panels for various satellites including the University of Toronto Institute of Aerospace Studies CanX4 and CANX5; and a data storage unit for the CAScade, Smallsat and IOnospheric Polar Explorer (CASSIOPE) satellite.

This purchase bolsters COM DEV's ability to inaugurate its own line of small satellites as discussed in my November 9th, 2009 post Canadian Component Builders "Moving Up the Food Chain" to Build Complete Satellites.

The Canadian federal government has also moved to support these activities with substantial seed financing according to the November 30th, 2009 press release Harper Government Invests In Micro-Satellite Technology on the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) website, which states:

COM DEV International Ltd. will benefit from an investment of $5.2 million to create world-class micro-satellite system technology, products and services. The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, made the announcement at the company’s headquarters in Cambridge today. “Our government is committed to providing greater economic opportunities for the people, businesses and communities of southern Ontario,” said Minister Goodyear. “This investment will create jobs and help reinforce COM DEV International’s micro-satellite technology, which will strengthen Ontario’s position as a world leader in this growing market.”

This partnership is funded under the Southern Ontario Development Program (SODP), which will allow COM DEV to launch the first generation of its micro-satellites and establish Ontario as a world leader in this emerging industry.

It's good that the CSA is providing a forum of support for activities that the federal government is funding and private businesses like COM DEV are actively  pursuing but one wonders if this supporting role was an intentional choice.

Hot Times for Cryogenic Launchers

With all the fuss and bother around the Obama administration and the recent changes being made (or at least attempted) in the American space program, it's interesting to note that some of the most important changes are new capabilities being developed outside the US in countries with ongoing and strong Canadian connections.



For example, according to the NDTV news website article "GSLV failure: Work on cryogenic engine to continue," the Indian government will continue work on what they call the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) using an Indian developed cryogenic rocket engine which is generally considered as one of the keys to developing a heavy lift launch vehicle. According to the article:

"India has no choice but to master this technology in the long run as it is technology that has been denied to the country, the sources said.

It took the country more than 15 years to develop the cryogenic engine as technology for this was denied when, in the 1990s, America put pressure on Russia and forced the cancellation of an Indo-Russian technology transfer deal. The argument given was that India would use these engines to make missiles.

Of course, the Indian government ended up making missiles anyway and now has a comprehensive inventory developed through their Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP). It looks like they'll shortly master the core cryogenic technology as well.

Their goal is the large and lucrative global satellite market which has always been dependent on heavy lift launch vehicles using cryogenic rockets and is currently controlled by the United States, Russia, China, Ukraine and the European Space Agency.

Even the Voice of America, traditionally tied to the United States government (and certainly no friend of missile proliferation), is willing to accept that the present Indian activities are essentially commercial, at least according to their article "India's Efforts to Master Cryogenic Engine Tech Setback Commercial Space Program" which states:

India's dependence on Russian built cryogenic engines to launch heavy satellites has hampered growth, and prompted Indian scientists to develop the technology.

Indian space scientists hope to offer satellite launch services at much cheaper rates compared to Western countries, and expand the business to about $120 million a year.

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and other organizations which already use facilities operated through the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) cannot help but benefit from the lower launch costs promised by this Indian initiative.

The Coming Robot Wars!!!

Beginning in September, the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (also known as DEXTRE), that remarkable Canadian built appendage to the International Space Station (ISS) will face stiff competition in the form of a robot designed by General Motors and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Named Robonaut 2 and bearing more than a passing resemblance to The Stig, secretive race car driver in the BBC television program Top Gear, the new mechanism is rocketing into orbit this fall aboard the space shuttle Discovery, at least according to the recent press release "NASA to Launch Human-Like Robot to Join Space Station Crew" which also states:

Robonaut 2, or R2, was developed jointly by NASA and General Motors under a cooperative agreement to develop a robotic assistant that can work alongside humans, whether they are astronauts in space or workers at GM manufacturing plants on Earth.

The intent of this collaboration is obvious. NASA is keen on providing a potentially profitable and possibly job creating earthbound application of space technologies to placate angry congressmen and surly senators while GM is keen to inform people that it can do more than simply go bankrupt by building bad cars.

The effect this will have on Canadian contributions to future NASA initiatives is less clear since robotics has always been considered an acknowledged area of Canadian expertise. The development of a second area of space based robotic expertise tied to GM and funded by NASA could reasonably be considered direct competition to Canadian robotics projects like DEXTRE and the CanadArm.

The press release even goes so far as to state that NASA has dubbed R2 as the "next generation dexterous robot" which is probably not an intentional slight against our still functioning first generation dexterous robot and may even be a backhanded compliment on good old Canadian ingenuity.

Of course, NASA also seems to think that Robonaut 2 is more "human" looking than other dexterous robots and perhaps that's part of the point:

"The dexterous robot not only looks like a human but also is designed to work like one. With human-like hands and arms, R2 is able to use the same tools station crew members use. In the future, the greatest benefits of humanoid robots in space may be as assistants or stand-in for astronauts during spacewalks or for tasks too difficult or dangerous for humans. For now, R2 is still a prototype and does not have adequate protection needed to exist outside the space station in the extreme temperatures of space."

But for at least for the next little while our Canadian DEXTRE, which might be ugly but does at least have adequate protection to function in space as a stand in for astronauts, will continue to do so while Robonaut 2 remains within the safer and more comfortable interior accommodations of the ISS Destiny laboratory.

So what does the Canadian dexterous robot look like? Take a look for yourself.

Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

If you want to get a sense of where the largest Canadian space focused businesses are going you might want to take a look at the article "MDA Says New NASA Direction Plays to Company’s Strengths" published April 9th, 2010 on the Space News website.

The article, quoting extensively from a March 18th conference call between Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) executives and investors, states unequivocally that the company "which is facing a revenue loss of $20 million a year with the retirement of the U.S. space shuttle, nonetheless views NASA’s proposed new direction as “a dream made in heaven” and is urging the Canadian government to take advantage of it before other nations do."

But if you want to get a sense of where the smaller newspace focused companies are, you need to read "The Future of Venture Capital in Canada" a series published on the new media website The Mark, which bills  itself as as "Canada's daily online forum for news, commentary, and debate."

That's because smaller space focused Canadian companies generally don't have existing investors who get together with the management team for quarterly conference calls to discuss new opportunities. Most want too, but the investors with the capital to take advantage of new opportunities are very, very hard to come across.

Some of the comments in the Mark series of articles are fascinating. For example:

• In the article, "Low Times for VC" author Mark Skapinker, the co-founder of Brightspark Capital says "the Canadian VC industry has always lived in the shadow of the country’s natural resource industry. As the natural resource marketplace has continued its massive growth, technology has become an afterthought."
• In "Creating a Venture Culture" author, creative technologist and technical marketer David Crow thinks Canadians "need to stop relying on SR&ED, IRAP, and other tax credits that support an ecosystem of zombie startups."
• On the other hand, Start-up CFO author Mark MacLeod, in his article "Sustaining the Startup" reminds us that "a large portion of Canada's risk capital comes from government sources. Without this public support, we would have no industry at all."
• And "Startup Nation" author Mike Lee, the VP of New Ventures for Rogers Communications reminds us that "great individuals and great teams are the force behind successful entrepreneurial stories." However, "when you compare Canada to the rest of the world, we are underdeveloped with respect to experienced startup talent. The raw talent is here, but the conditions to help that talent gain invaluable experience managing and operating in startups are sorely lacking."  

The jury is still out on whether the new opportunities available for space focused businesses are going to lead to a Canadian space and technological renaissance or just benefit a few of the few largest and best positioned firms.

I personally believe that MDA Chief Executive Daniel E. Friedmann would rather appreciate having a couple of solid Canadian subcontractors to help him build those telecommunications satellite for the National Space Agency of Ukraine.

Canadian Long-Term Space Plan Pops Up and Looks Around.

Portions of the Canadian Long-Term Space Plan (LTSP) have finally surfaced, according to my colleague and sometime editor Marc Boucher over on SpaceRef.ca, as part of the recently released Canadian Space Agency (CSA) document titled 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities which is available for download from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website.

Under the title, Canadian Space Agency Reorganization Underway, Boucher states that, along with a series of government mandated policy changes (defined as part of the TBS Management Accountability Framework), the CSA is also:

".... undergoing organizational structure changes to reflect the new Long Term Space Plan. The most notable changes are in the categorization of the four Directors Generals.

According to the article, the Director General offices of the CSA, which report directly to CSA President Steve MacLean and were classified under the titles space utilization, space exploration, space science and technology/ corporate services have been reclassified under the new titles of space science, space technologies, space programs, and operations, effective as of April 1st, 2010.

Left unclear is how these reorganizations specifically reflect the LTSP, which still has not been publicly released.

For example, Section 1.1 of the 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities states explicitly that the LTSP hasn't been implemented at all, but the CSA is instead governed by:

The Canadian Space Strategy (CSS) approved by the Government of Canada in February 2005 (which) guides the Canadian Space Agency in the management of its programs. The Strategy is instrumental in focusing decision-making at the CSA and aligning all space related program activities through its strategic outcome and long-term priorities.

Section 1.1 is, of course, referring to "The Canadian Space Strategy: Serving and Inspiring the Nation," a document much referenced on this blog and elsewhere only because it was quickly overwhelmed by the aborted sale of portions of space contractor MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) to American-owned Alliant Techsystems (ATK) in April 2008 which highlighted national security issues and economic infrastructure components required for a comprehensive national space policy but lacking in the 2005 report.

These missing issues were supposed to be addressed by the upcoming LTSP, which was to supersede the earlier Canadian Space Strategy. Of course, Section 1.4 does mention the LTSP when it states:

In 2008-2009, the CSA undertook a Strategic Review to evaluate its programs and ensure that they continue to meet the needs and priorities of Canadians, are aligned with the Government's Science and Technology Strategy, and are effective and efficient. The evaluation revealed a number of areas where the CSA could make some adjustments...

...At the same time, the CSA carried out a series of consultations with its stakeholders and partners in order to move forward with renewed impetus to sustain and enhance Canada's space advantage, and contribute to a strong Science and Technology culture.

As a result, a Long Term Space Plan (LTSP) that charts a course for the next ten years has been drafted for presentation to Government for consideration. The Plan highlights the fact that responsibility for the use of space-based assets is diffused in Canada.

None of this seems to relate to economic infrastructure and national security or anything new since it's all about "adjustments" and "consultations" but at least now we know that the LTSP has been "drafted" for "presentation to government for consideration."

Which means, of course, that the LTSP hasn't been approved. I wonder what the government doesn't like about it? This is something the CSA has been attempting to do since February 2009 and you'd think they're have gotten it right by now.

It is also interesting to note that the document explicitly states that:

The overall coordination must rest with the Canadian Space Agency which under the Canadian Space Act has the mandate to assist the Minister of Industry in the coordination of space policies and programs of the Government of Canada.

I believe this means the CSA's future role in the coordination of space policies might be in doubt. This is what I mentioned could happen February 15th in my post Ottawa Citizen: "Where did that Long Term Space Plan Go?":

Essentially, if Canada does not define a long term space plan, private business and academia will soon go about creating their own... Mr. MacLean might need to respond to these rising calls for a long term space plan soon, or else risk becoming irrelevant to the debate.

Evidently, the future is arriving faster than expected.

Rumor and Innuendo Barreling Widely Out of Control



There are certainly enough silly news stories circulating in the world (and the recent BBC comedy skit presented above is a pretty good example of what to look for) but the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) doesn't often end up as a part of one. So thank goodness for RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency and it's amusing, but evidently clueless coverage of what began as a perfectly sensible Canadian space focused story.

It started with an original March 28th, 2010 Canadian Press (CP) story titled "Space Agency eyes Cape Breton and Fort Churchill for rocket launches," written by author Peter Rakobowchuk, who stated that:

"The Canadian Space Agency is looking at the Nova Scotia island as one of two possible sites to blast small satellites into orbit using an indigenous rocket launch system.

The other possible micro-satellite launch site is Fort Churchill in Manitoba, near Hudson Bay, where hundreds of small research rockets have been launched in the past."

According to Rakobowchuck, the article was based on a series of CSA requests for proposals (RFP's) which were issued beginning in 2008 and included assessments of both potential launch sites and possible Canadian built launchers.

But the simple "potential for" or "possibility of" didn't seem to be quite good enough for RIA Novosti which, while listing the Rakabowchuk piece as the primary source material for their March 30th, 2010 article titled "Canada to build bases for space tourism rocket launches," also seems to have added quite a bit of information not found in the original.

For example, according to the revised article, the CSA had moved away from a simple assessment of the possibilities and was now:

"planning to build two bases for launching rockets carrying space tourists, the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos said citing the information agency Canadian Press."

The article also indicated that British billionaire Sir Richard Branson was actively backing the CSA project.

In fact, the only constant between the versions seemed  to be comments from a Manitoba government official who indicated being either "open to discussing the possibility," or else "keen on the idea" or perhaps even "welcoming the idea with enthusiasm."

By March 31st the well respected and American based Space Fellowship blog (which started out as the official forum for the Ansari X-prize) had jumped on the bandwagon by reprinting the original article, with minor corrections on their site under the same title.

These revisions are unfortunately not true, but this isn't the first time that Canada has seemed about to build new space facilities or even the first time that Cape Breton has been mentioned on the short list of potential Canadian sites. For example, here's the August 17th, 2006 post by David Shiga, in the New Scientist titled "Canada set to build its first spaceport" which states:

"The province of Nova Scotia has signed an agreement setting aside 300 acres of government-owned land for US-Canadian private space firm PlanetSpace to construct a rocket launching facility.

PlanetSpace hopes to develop a space tourism business, ferrying customers into space in suborbital and eventually orbital flights. It intends to start construction within a year to have the spaceport ready for its first suborbital launch by late 2008 or early 2009."

The stated dates have come and gone but as of today, PlanetSpace (which started out as the Canadian Arrow entry in the Ansari-X-Prize competition) has not begun construction on the facility and is unlikely to do so any time soon.

Of course, the CSA could publicly release the information collected through it's RFP's in order to clear up this seeming confusion between those who think the questions relating to Canadian launch sites and vehicles have only been asked or assessed and those who believe the questions have been decisively answered.

Then we'd  know a little bit more about what's really going on.

Space Swashbucklers on the High Accountant "Sea"!

Manned space flight has always been considered high risk and while insurance is traditionally considered boring, it's also a necessary component of high risk activities, at least according to the article "Viability of Commercial Crew Plan May Hinge on Risk-sharing Scheme" written by Brian Berger and published April 2nd, 2010 on the Space News website.

But how does this US focused article relate to Canadian space activities?

That's an easy question to answer. Although we have astronauts just as brave as the Americans and all those other nations with astronauts, we also have a history of hitching rides into space on other, mostly American, launch vehicles. In order to continue doing this, we need to know what our best and most consistent ride into space is planning to do and what other options are available just in case something high risk happens.

Some of the Americans are also concerned about risk, at least according to the article, which states:

"As NASA devises its strategy for fostering development of a commercial successor to the space shuttle, the nation’s primary rocket builder is cautioning the agency not to count on industry for a substantial upfront investment in an endeavor rife with uncertainty."

The article focuses on an interview with Andrew Aldrin, director of business development for Denver-based United Launch Alliance (ULA) who seems to have a strong preference for the sort of insurance provided only by a contract that "appropriately distributes risk between industry and government."

This is a shame, because the US government is not the only organization capable of providing insurance for space focused activities. There are quite a few others, most of them private and they even get together every two years at the biannual International Space Insurance Conference to talk about the financial, legal, scientific and risk management questions associated with these activities. At the last conference in Venice in 2009, keynote speaker Benito Pagnanelli, the President of Pagnanelli Risk Solutions went so far as to say that the global credit crisis was "hardly touching the space sector" and there was plenty of money available for further expansion. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was even listed as a sponsor of the 2009 event.

But if Mr. Aldrin is indeed asking specifically for government assistance, it's quite likely that he was not really looking for an insurance policy in the traditional sense, but was instead politely advocating for something called a cost plus, or cost reimbursement contract which Wikipedia defines as a contract where a contractor "is paid for all of its allowed expenses to a set limit plus additional payment to allow for a profit."

In essence, a cost plus contract provides a guaranteed profit on top of all the other expenses and this must makes quite a bit of sense for Mr. Aldrin when you consider that his very big employer is used to this sort of deal. ULA is a Boeing-Lockheed joint venture which today depends on hundreds of millions of dollars in US Air Force "sustainment" funding on top of it's regular fees in order to keep its doors open.

Of course, this likely doesn't make ULA a good business bet for the long-term, but the company does provide the only proven US launchers presently capable of delivering manned space capsules to orbit with their Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets. So if Mr. Aldrin is indeed in the midst of attempting to position itself as a major supplier for the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) emerging human spaceflight program, he needs to be taken seriously, at least for awhile.

But quite soon, ULA will face stiff competition from the Russians (with their existing Proton family of heavy launchers plus the coming Angara series), the French (with their Ariane 5) and from smaller, more nimble US based firms like Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (Space-X, with their Falcon rocket family) who are advocating fixed pricing contracts where the amount of payment does not depend on the amount of resources or time expended, but only on the service provided.

Mr. Aldrin needs to be asking himself just what type of "assurance" his very big American corporation needs in order to compete effectively with this inevitable multitude of growing American and foreign competitors slowly popping up along the horizon?



As for Canada, we might want to start comparing our space faring options. Our hitchhiking days could be ending.

Canadian Student Accepted at the NASA Academy

Canada doesn't have very many space focused contests, scholarships or prizes and the only obvious exception to this is the University of Toronto space design contest, focused on educational programming in science, engineering, and space exploration for secondary students. The "website of record" for this sort of activity is called Space Prizes and it contains absolutely no listing of Canadian based prizes so it seems reasonable to conclude that our exceptional individuals have to generally travel outside Canada in order to continue learning and being recognized as exceptional.

That's why it's so inspiring to hear about people like Laura Drudi, a McGill University student in the Faculty of Medicine, who has just received word of acceptance at the prestigious NASA Academy at the Ames Research Center.

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Academy website:

"The NASA Academy represents an immersive and integrated multidisciplinary exposure and training, for students with various backgrounds and career aspirations of critical importance to the National aerospace program.

The academic curriculum balances opportunities for direct contact with advanced science and engineering R&D and an awareness of the complex managerial, political, financial, social, and human issues faced by the current and future aerospace program.

Co-sponsorship of the Academy assures recruitment of meritorious students from previously under-represented areas of the country, into leadership positions for the aerospace programs of the future.

The Academy is cost effective, providing a richer program at a cost comparable to other, narrow-focus scholarships, internships, and fellowships."

But according to Drudi, the NASA Academy is the opportunity of a lifetime. 

"This is the third time I've applied and Canada wasn't sponsoring anyone last year" she said during a phone interview from her home in Montreal. "You can't give up on something like this or you'll never get it. I've never given up and I just wanted to tell everyone else never to give up on their dreams."

She credits her success to strong mentoring from professors and supervisors including Dr. Joan Saary at the University of Toronto (who is her supervisor on the Space Medicine Directory, a cross-referenced listing of space medicine and space life sciences training opportunities) and Dr. Marlene Grenon, at the University of California San Francisco Department of Vascular Surgery (who supervised her during a literature review on the effects of altered endothelial cell function, mechanisms and interactions at the cellular level).

Drudi is a member not only of the Canadian Medical Association, but also of the Aerospace Medical Association and the Aerospace Medical Student and Resident Organization. She hopes to one day bring health care to astronauts high above the sky.

"Canadian astronaut Robert Thirsk dealt with lots of major physical changes during his stay on the International Space Station including bone demineralization, cardiovascular changes and quite a few other things" states Drudi, who felt that the only real prevention was lots of exercise, including lengthy sessions on the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, or COLBERT, named after comedian Stephen Colbert.

"I'm drawn to this whole new extreme environment where you need to apply all that you know in new and innovative ways" states Drudi. "Nothing is really out of bounds and everything is useful. It's an exciting challenge."

Last October, Drudi attended the 60th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Daejon, Korea where she participated (along with Canadian Space Society President Kevin Shortt) in a session titled "Entering the Workforce and Strengthening the Global Community" which talked about how young professionals in space-related fields contribute to the global space community.



According to the IAC website, "It is widely accepted that attracting young people into the aerospace workforce is vital to the industrial base of nations involved in space-related endeavors."

This message seems widely accepted outside Canada so it will be interesting to see if it ever becomes the general consensus within.

The Report From "Our Growing Canadian Commercial Space Sector"

Ask Arny Sokoloff, the President of the Canadian Space Commerce Association (CSCA) and he'll likely tell you in no uncertain terms that the CSCA is well positioned "at the intersection of space and business" with resources focused on legal, regulatory, financial and entrepreneurial issues of special concern to Canadian space focused firms.

This expertise was on display at the MaRS Development District in Toronto, Ontario at the 2010 CSCA conference and annual general meeting which wrapped up Tuesday, March 16th with presentations on a variety of topics including the need to embrace fixed pricing when bidding for Canadian, American or international contracts, making use of terrestrial markets as engines for ongoing growth, the uses and restrictions of intellectual property (IP) legislation when protecting stakeholders in space focused development projects and an overview of both the Canadian industrial and regional benefit (IRB) policy and scientific research experimental development (SH&ED) tax credits.

There was even some interesting back and forth discussion on how Canadian companies can benefit if the US fails to revoke the Strom Thurmond Defense Act. Suggestions were also made about creating a government-sponsored engineering firm with a mission to train young engineers and undertake public works projects.

Attendees and speakers included representatives from large firms like MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA), BMO Nesbitt Burns, law firm Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP, smaller space focused companies such as Continuum Aerospace and Engineering Services Inc. (ESI), firms moving into space focused activities from other areas like Javelin Technologies and firms providing support services like SH&ED focused law firm StoneCracker Scientific and IRB experts WāVv Business Development.

Traditional media interest was also noted and I was interviewed on the conference for the final segment of the March 16th edition of the CBC Toronto radio program Here and Now.

As well, author David Pugliese in his March 22nd Ottawa Citizen article "$27M space program light on domestic benefits: critics" focused on inconsistencies in the application of the IRB credits in the Canadian Forces (CF) administered Joint Space Support Project.

The project, focused on developing remote sensing and space focused situational awareness capabilities for the CF, "seems designed to favour foreign companies over Canadian ones" according to Canadian Space Society (CSA) President Kevin Shortt who is quoted extensively for the article. Shortt (who also spoke on developing our future aerospace workforce at the March 16th CSCA conference) stated:

...one of the problems with government programs like IRB is that federal politicians and government bureaucrats have little knowledge of the actual capabilities of the country's space industry.

CSCA President Sokoloff thinks that this type of advocacy is one of the areas where the CSCA can benefit members most. "We're certainly not the advocate for large, established branch plant companies in aerospace; especially not the “aero” segment of the aerospace market” states Sokoloff. “We focus on Canadian space companies, entrepreneurs and start-ups looking for the expertise needed to survive and grow in our present business environment”

Suggestions were also made to arrange for future presentations by experts on Industry Canada (IC), the Strategic Aerospace & Defence Initiative (SADI), the National Research Council (NRC) Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) plus the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Space Technology Development Program (STDP) and Earth Observation Applications Development Program (EOADP).

For those interested in learning more about the presentations, the next CSCA meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 13th at 7:00 pm.

Telesat Hunting for Deals: Report on Business

According to the article, "Freed by the feds, Telesat begins the hunt for deals" written by Report on Business author Ian Marlow and published on March 14th:

"Canada's largest satellite company is mulling global acquisitions after the federal government said it would loosen foreign ownership restrictions in the telecom sector."

The article goes on to state that the federal government has indicated that this is being done as a preliminary to doing the same for the broader telecommunications industry.

Canada's largest satellite company is, of course, Telesat which originated as a Canadian Crown corporation mandated to develop communications services in the far north, according to the document "The Creation of Telesat: Canadian Communications Policy, Bell Canada and the Creation of Myth" by Howard Fremeth.

With headquarters in Ottawa, the firm still maintains deep Canadian cultural, commercial and technical roots, although the cultural component might not be immediately apparent from a casual perusal of the Telesat corporate history page, which indicates that "Telesat is a newly formed company, but our industry leadership actually spans more than 40 years through the commercial and technical achievements of Loral Skynet and Telesat Canada."

But the cultural component is still there, at least according to activist and author Fred Wilson in his article "The fight is on for Canadian communications and culture:"

"Telesat was the single greatest Canadian telecom accomplishment since Alexander Graham Bell. When Anik I went up in 1972 we were the first country in the world to use satellites for domestic communications. Its first customer was the CBC, which used the satellite to broadcast to Canada's north."

While Telesat publicly promotes the possibility of new acquisitions to grow the company, Wilson quite reasonably points out that the proposed rule changes also make it easier for other companies to buy Telesat. He states that, while the majority of Telesat shares are still owned by the Public Pension Investment Board of Canada, "this is something that Telesat executives hope to change real soon."

A close look at issues surrounding a potential Telesat sale will likely turn up quite a bit of overlap with an actual failed 2008 bit for Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) from US based ATK so it will be interesting to see how things play out should a buyer for Telesat ever come forward.