Tampilkan postingan dengan label Altius Space Machines. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Altius Space Machines. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 23 Agustus 2011

The Outside Insider

ASM "D2S" reaching out from ISS
In my last post, I talked about the business lessons applied in developing the Altius Space Machines Business Plan.
 
Jon Goff, Altius’s CEO, thanked quite a few people in his post here.  On the business side, recommendations and advice came from a host of valuable people including:

  • Friends and Internal reviewers of drafts 
  • Online Resources like Venture Hacks
  • Business Plan Judges (post-pitch feedback)
  • Company Advisors and Investors

One person that fills the dual-role of Advisor and Investor for ASM is Richard David of NewSpace Global. Richard David has been a great asset to Altius providing that critical opinion,

“How does this look from the eyes of an investor?”

If you don’t have such a person for your venture – get one! You need an Outside Insideron your team. Someone that believes in you/your Company and understands your business plan/market/technology but still can bring fresh eyes to how you explain these themes to the uninitiated.

Richard is also bullish on the new space industry and will be rolling out New Space Global in the coming weeks at which time I will post a more formal interview with Richard and let him explain his new venture first hand.

But for now, let me thank all of those people that contributed business ideas and recommendations that got swirled together into the Altius Space Machines business plan win.

THANKS!

Selasa, 16 Agustus 2011

Does your Mom Understand your Business Plan?


Several months ago Jonathan Goff, CEO at Altius Space Machines, called me.  ASM was preparing for a business plan “sprint” to compete in the 2011 Heinlein Business Plan competition in Silicon Valley (hosted by the Space Frontier Foundation).  Could I help with the business stuff?

Jon had been pitching his new technology – “Sticky Boom” which is a really long tube with glue pads on the end of it.  Only the tube can be rolled in or out and the glue can be turned on or off via an electric current.  Altius knew Sticky Boom had space rendezvous and docking applications (think servicing satellite, grabbing lost wrenches during EVAs, etc.), but could we wrap a business around this cool technology?

Assisting on the Altius Business plan has been a big part of my life over the last few months which is my excuse for light blogging.  

I am pleased with the result (yes, we won the $25K grand prize).  Here is Jon Goff, Altius's CEO, pitching the plan (worth watching to get a better feel for what ASM is really trying to do as a company - about 6 minutes long).

Here are a few highlights the team at Altius and I kept discussing while developing this plan:
  • Is there a problem people will pay you to solve?  If not, you do not have a market.

  •  An attractive Market is even more valuable than an attractive technology.  New space technology is cool to us space nerds, but markets determine how valuable company technology really is.

  • Your customer is the organization that pays you – not necessarily the group that uses your product.

  • Once you have found a market, be cautious before competing head to head with incumbents (those competitors already selling to your market) – how do you take market share away at the edges without drawing an incumbent response – a disruptive strategy .

  • Management team – do you have the right team?  This is so important.  If you get the market and management right (and maybe a little traction), investors know that even if the product or technology changes over time, the company will have a good chance at success.  There is no substitute for the right market and the right team.

  • Money: how much do you need and how are you going to get it?  Banks probably won’t lend to you (at least not at first).  Investor money is an obvious choice but have you thought about govt contracting or strategic partnerships?

  • Few investors understand NewSpace (if you find one that does, keep him/her happy!).  The industry is small and in its infancy.  It is not right to expect Tech and Biotech investors to immediately understand: ISS regulations, LEO vs GEO, terminator tethers, plane changes, lagrange points, etc.  The question becomes how to present your idea in terms/images VC’s will understand while still being concise?  I recommend pitching your deck to your spouse or your mom.  If your Mom doesn’t understand your plan, VC’s won’t take the time to understand it either.  Simplify.  Simplify.  Simplify.

  • The “prize” in most public competitions is the publicity and connections made as a result of winning, not in a the few dollars at stake.  This is what the Google X-Prize teams are fighting over – the media rights!  To highlight the value of publicity, here are a few of the Altius Space Machines articles that have been written since winning the prize.  Ask yourself how long it would have taken to generate this media attention without the win?

List of articles:

  1. Aviation Week

  2. CNBC

  3. The Space Review

  4. Business News Daily

  5. Plus the sites that published the press release or the many posts by NewSpace blogs (thanks guys).

Business plans are like going to College – professors push you to do what you probably could not discipline yourself to do on your own.  This is why we have all-nighters finishing 20-page papers and cramming for tests.  On your own, you would just go to bed.

Business plans are great forcing functions and entrepreneurs learn a lot through the process.  I am glad I got to be apart this journey.

Here was some great advise we tried to follow when preparing the slide deck for the competition:

Selasa, 17 Mei 2011

Altius Space Machines: Sticky Boom Markets

Jon, Mike, and Forrest of Altius Space Machines stopped by my house after their successful Zero-G flight.  I only got a few hours with them, but I did get to see (and touch) their current "Sticky Boom" prototype.  Below is my pencast (from LiveScribe) based on conversations with Altius founder, Jon Goff. 

In addition to a summary of the technology, the pencast discusses three potential Sticky Boom markets:
  1. Cleaning up space debris
  2. Enhancing science missions
  3. Enabling micro-cargo delivery to space stations





And for those that missed it, here is ASM's highlights from Saturday's Zero-G flight.

Senin, 18 April 2011

Planned Daily Updates from Altius Space Machines

Remember the days of reading the Armadillo updates every Monday?!  I miss that level open communication by a New Space company.  I know some of Armadillo's customer's prevent them from sharing everything, but I enjoyed feeling a part of Armadillo's efforts each week.

That is why I am excited that Altius Space Machines just announced an intense effort to mature their "Sticky Boom" docking tool.  And through that "sprint" as they call it, Altius intends to blog daily on their progress - good or bad - words or pics or video.  Their website makes it sound like a pretty aggressive development schedule to develop their "Sticky Boom".

The Altius website described Sticky Boom as a long boom with a sticky pad on the end that can:
get meaningful adhesion to almost any material imaginable. Plastic, metal, rock, ceramic, MLI or MMOD blankets. Flat surfaces, curved surfaces, multi-faceted surfaces, completely random surfaces like NEOs. Even dust or regolith for that matter. You get all of the “contact at a distance” benefits that Kirk and Joseph Bonometti talked about, while also enabling secure connection with “non-cooperative” objects like uncontrolled satellites, Mars Sample Return sample canisters, space junk, and even asteroids or comets.
Altius says they have one month to get a Sticky Boom prototype ready for a ZeroG micro-gravity flight in May 2011.   This "sprint" should be fun to watch.   Good luck Altius Space Machines - we are cheering for you.  Follow Altius's Sprint here.

Rabu, 15 Desember 2010

Servicing Iridium's Satellite Constellation: Business Case (Part 1)

1970's Marshall Space Tug Concept
I have been working with Jon Goff over at Selenian Boondocks on this analysis for about a year.  A couple months ago he started getting real busy.

I wanted to get our ideas posted while the effort was still fairly fresh in my head.  Thanks Jon!  Maybe when you are not so busy we could work on this some more.


Would Iridium pay for an orbital tug to service its current LEO constellation? But why would Iridium even want servicing when they are launching a new constellation?

Why would Iridium Pay?
Iridium provides satellite communication through a network of sixty-six active LEO satellites (with a few spares). Iridium’s satellites are based on a common bus design, the LM-700. Their fleet is spread across six orbital planes.

For you non-engineers like me, think of orbital planes as the paths these sixty-six satellites take around the earth. These six paths are spread out enough to cover the majority of the earth’s surface with several satellites in each plane. This allows Iridium phone calls to be “handed off” from one satellite to another as the satellites revolve around the earth. Here are Iridium’s financial and customer stats for 2009:

  • 370K customers
  • $320M in Revenues
  • $135M in profits (EBITDA)
Iridium has secured funding to launch a new satellite constellation, Iridium NEXT. They intend to begin launching these satellites on SpaceX launch vehicles starting in 2015. Total cost: $2.9B.

Iridium’s current fleet had a designed operating life of 5-8 years. I will use a seven-year design life for my calculations. With initial launches in 1997, Iridium’s current fleet is aprox. 13 years old; by 2015 their fleet will be 18 years old, 2.5 times their designed life.

Iridium’s replacement constellation, Iridium NEXT, is not scheduled to start launching until 2015, however choosing a contractor to build this constellation was delayed from Spring 2009 to Summer 2010. Although Iridium has not formally announced a launch date slip, I believe such a delay is likely. Such a delay would push the start of constellation replacement from 2015 to 2016 or perhaps even 2017/2018. If NEXT were delayed to 2018, Iridium’s current fleet would be 21 years old (3x design life) at the time of replacement.

Iridium's current fleet is getting old! The two most likely systems to fail on the current constellation will probably be hydrazine for station keeping and/or batteries. Hydrazine is the fuel in many attitude control thrusters keeping the satellite pointed in the right direction and incidentally, this is also the fuel used to avoid space debris. Batteries supplement the solar panels.

And what happens to Iridium’s service if satellites do fail? Since Iridium still has a few reserve satellites already in orbit, Iridium would move these reserve satellites to take the place of the failing ones. Users may experience temporary service disruption during the maneuvers. If more satellites fail than Iridium has in reserves, users would experience more spotty coverage, more dropped calls, etc. due to the more permanent gaps.

At least half of Iridium’s revenue stream comes from commercial calling cards purchased and used by the minute. Unlike most terrestrial cellular phone providers, Iridium does not charge commercial customers a monthly rate for pre-defined number of minutes. This means if Iridium starts have satellites fail from lack of hydrazine, they will begin to have gaps in their coverage area. Such gaps will have an immediate impact on Iridium’s revenue.

Without coverage, customers can’t use minutes on their calling cards. If they can’t use up current minutes, they don’t need purchase new calling cards. All this means lost revenue and reputation for Iridium.

Jon and I disagree on whether battery life extension is possible for the LM-700.

But could a tug service be offered to provide a few kilograms of additional hydrazine to each of Iridium’s current fleet? Could a tug service provide deorbiting services for malfunctioning satellites? Could a tug service provide prox-ops inspection services? For the rest of this post, I will refer to such offerings as “servicing”.

Benefits of Servicing:
  • Avoid revenue loss due to loss of service
  • Avoid reputation loss due to loss of service
  • Preserve customer base so $2.9B invested in Iridium NEXT is not sunk cost
  • Provide new life for a fleet of satellites that may be able to continue to serve alongside NEXT (for this to be true, a market must be identified for this added capacity)
  • Create a sellable product – the current fleet could be sold to a third party once NEXT is in operation
  • Avoid damage to operational satellites in either fleet (current/NEXT) by deorbiting malfunctioning satellites
  • Once NEXT is in orbit, actuaries within Iridium may advise the company to deorbit the current fleet (3x design life, remember) before they run out of hydrazine and make a mess of LEO, because servicing can deorbit a satellite for Iridium, servicing allows the current fleet to stay aloft longer – increasing revenue (and keeping actuaries happy)!
Risk of Servicing:
  • Act of servicing may cause damage to current fleet reducing revenue, reputation, and putting NEXT at risk
  • Cost of servicing may exceed benefits when risk is considered
  • Reputation damage from trying servicing and having it be ineffective in some way (even with no damage to current fleet) – space is so visible in the media. Any perceived "failure" by the media could play poorly on Wall Street. Iridium is publicly traded (IRDM).
  • Small window of opportunity. If NEXT launches on time (beginning in 2015), servicing may need be performed prior to that (service window grows if NEXT is delayed to 2018).
  • Risk of the unknown/unproven: Service would be new. It is hard being the commercial guinea pigs for something – just ask all of you who were forced to use Windows VISTA.
To service such a market commercially, you would need to prove your technical solution could:
  • Rendezvous and Dock with the LM-700 satellite bus
  • Refill hydrazine tanks that were never meant to be refilled in orbit (bring your scissors)
  • Develop a method to deliver 5-20kg of hydrazine to each of sixty-six Iridium satellites. That is 330-1320kg of hydrazine!
  • Service sixty-six satellites over 6 planes (remember delta-V to change planes quickly is expensive)
  • And many other complexities
Why would Iridium be a great first customer?
  • Iridium is desperate (or I forecast will become desperate very soon as satellites start breaking). Would they invest $100M to preserve a $2.9B investment in Iridium NEXT.
  • Iridium has money ($135M in profits in 2009)
  • Iridium is in LEO (making the tug servicing technical solution less complex – reduced latencies, etc.)
  • Iridium has felt the pain of debris impacts
  • Iridium has a ground tracking station a tug service could piggy-back off of
Sounds fun! When do we get started?

[UPDATE: Jon just posted Part 2 up on his blog.]

Senin, 13 Desember 2010

25 SBIR Winners to Watch

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program was created by Congress in 1985 as a tool to promote small business, commercialization, innovation and US competitiveness.

NASA’s version of an SBIR (similar to programs run by other agencies) awards a series of contract “Phases” to small business helping them demonstrate their technologies.  Upon completion of these phases, small businesses would be empowered to independently pursue commercialization of their technologies.

Good for the company: marketable product.
Good for NASA: access to technologies at commercial-off-the-shelf prices

Phase I contracts: $100K (or less) over 6mo.
Phase II contracts: $600K over 24mo.

The SBIR program continues to show great potential, but sadly produces far fewer commercializations then anyone would like. The low commercialization success is driven by several factors (I am sure there are more than these):
  • NASA chooses SBIR technologies that they want commercialized , not necessarily ones that have been analyzed to thrive in the marketplace (SBIRs are more tech development than business development). Check out #24 on my list below for a firm attempting to change this for NASA's biomedical SBIRs.
  • The SBIR program has some companies that win and execute an SBIR through all of its phases, but never commercialize anything preferring the low-risk approach of perpetually submitting new SBIRs without taking the high risk/high reward attempt at commercialization. Have you heard of the term, “SBIR Shop”?
  • Aerospace components don't sell nearly as well as integrated products.  Since SBIRs focus on components (usually), it may take the integration of several SBIR contracts to gain enough components to turn into an integrated product slowing the path to commercialization.

But let’s talk about the good news. Wow, there are a lot of cool ideas in this batch of NASA SBIR Phase I winners. Below is my summary of 25 SBIR Ideas to watch.  To make my list, the SBIR idea had to meet these loose standards:
  • Have a market (I could easily think of) beyond NASA
  • Be hypothetically commercialized by a small firm
  • Demonstrate a space focus (sorry to all of the air-traffic control and UAV SBIR winners, you did not make the list)
Forgive me if I missed the market opportunity from your firm’s SBIR submittal (there were many more winners than the twenty-five I chose):
  1. Advanced Scientific Concepts, Inc. 3D Flash LIDAR real time embedded processing  
  2. Altius Space Machines, Inc. Attractive docking technology
  3. Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Ablative Flexible Aerogel TPS Materials for Mars Aerocapture and Entry
  4. Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation Rendezvous and Docking Technologies for Orbiting Sample Capture
  5. Composite Technology Development, Inc. De-orbit Devices/Technologies for Small Spacecraft
  6. EM Photonics Compressed Sensing for Space-Based High-Definition Video Technologies
  7. Firestar Engineering, LLC Low Cost Carbon-Carbon Rocket Nozzle Development
  8. Gloyer-Taylor Laboratories LLC Reliable, Reusable Cryotank
  9. HKM Enterprises Inc. Interface for grouping multiple secondary payloads into a primary mission
  10. Honeybee Robotics Ltd. Magnetic Bearings for Small Satellite CMG’s & Other Miniature Spacecraft Mechanisms
  11. Hyper-Therm High-Temperature Composites Novel Fabrication Approach for SiC/SiC Thermal Protection System Elements
  12. Innoflight, Inc. CubeSat Power Management Controller and Solar Array Articulation System
  13. Materials Technologies Corporation Durable and Conductive IR witness coatings for High Accuracy IR Thermography
  14. Pacific Design Technologies, Inc. High Performance Space Pump (mentions re-fueling hydrazine on orbit)
  15. Picometrix, LLC Miniaturized Non Destructive Evaluation for In-Orbit Inspection.
  16. Pioneer Astronautics Nitrous Oxide Micro Engines
  17. Powdermet, Inc. Aerogel Modified Structural Thermal Protection System
  18. Rocketstar Robotics Inc Modular Actuators for Space Applications
  19. Sierra Lobo, Inc. A CubeSat-Scale Testbed for Cryogenic Fluid Management Technologies
  20. Technology Applications, Inc. Lightweight Inflatable Cryogenic Tank
  21. Techshot, Inc. Life Science Research Sample Transfer Technology for On Orbit Analysis.
  22. Tethers Unlimited PowerCube: Integrated Power, Propulsion, and Pointing for CubeSats
  23. Tethers Unlimited High Thrust Efficiency MPD Thruster
  24. Virtual Incubation Company, LLC A venture capitalist market assessment of NASA’s Human Research Program Technologies
  25. XCOR Aerospace Cryogenic Composite Tank Fabrication for Reusable Launch Vehicles
Promising Innovations...yes.  But it's long road to commercialization.  Good luck to all of these companies in implementing both their technology and business solutions.

Kamis, 09 Desember 2010

NanoSat Launch Vehicles: Vertical vs.Horizontal Integration

I have been talking a lot about NanoSat Launch Vehicles lately.

We spoke about the last mile problem: how to use an NLV to deliver “just in time” supplies to orbital stations.  We spoke of a variable pricing model that would charge NLV customers commensurate to what they could pay (and increase launch demand in the process).

In all of the excitement over SpaceX’s Tremendous achievement yesterday, it was easy to miss Altius Space Machine’s announcement about their recent contract to develop NanoSat Launch Vehicle tanks. Quoting from ASM’s announcement,

“I’ll be using this tank to validate some of the low-cost, lightweight manufacturing techniques that could be used for other low-pressure tanks, like pump-fed propellant tanks for suborbital vehicles or nanosat launchers. Once the development of this system is completed, it should provide a low-cost, highly capable propulsion system for high-end nanosats and microsats.”
SpaceX is vertically integrated and associates much their success to this approach – developing all aspects of their product in-house (or limiting external component suppliers).

As NASA’s NLV Challenge heats up, NLV Challenge teams are going to be faced with the same decision: do they develop all components of their NanoSat Launch Vehicle in-house or utilize suppliers like Altius Space Machines, Team Phoenicia, and others to create a vehicle capable of winning the prize.

Over the coming months I expect to see NLV Challenge teams fall into two groups:

  1. Vertically Integrated Teams: Some will follow the SpaceX model – building every component internally, controlling the supply chain. Advantages of this approach are ease of integration and schedule control. Disadvantages of this approach: Cost growth with low production volumes (perhaps cost savings with high volumes, but this would case specific), and the opportunity cost of developing components that could be purchased by others. Opportunity Cost is what you could have done with your time or money if you weren’t vertically integrated (and in such a competition, “first to market” may win it all).
  2. Horizontally Integrated Teams: Others will see an advantage of utilizing hardware developed by others. Since I expect the NLV Challenge winner will utilize several vehicle stages (Paul Breed is considering a three stage nanosat launcher), this group of competitors will outsource some stages (or components of stages) and build other stages in-house. With Horizontal Integration, the Advantages and Disadvantages are reversed. Advantages: Using components built by suppliers may get you to market faster/cheaper, and may help you raise angel funding if you can leverage pre-existing supplier hardware when pitching to investors.  Disadvantages: Integration and Schedule risk (which could be a HUGE risk for any NLV Challenge competitor)!
Jon Goff, founder of Altius Space Machines, will be on the Space Show on Monday, Dec 13. I will be listening for hints of what lightweight systems Altius may be considering that could help those considering the horizontal integration approach.

Disclaimer: I have become friends with Jon Goff from his blog, Selenian Boondocks. I have re-read this post and think the content is free of too much bias, but you be the judge.  Regardless, it should be a good Space Show interview.  Check out the Space Show's archives after Dec 13 if you can't listen live.

Minggu, 28 November 2010

Interview with the Founder of The NewSpace Business Group

Are you a NewSpace organization? Could you use a group of MBA’s at your disposal to complete company projects without the cost of keeping them on your payroll? Meet the NewSpace Business Group. Think of the NewSpace Business Group as a network for nearly minted passionate, space-minded MBA’s that gain valuable business experience by solving real world problems for the NewSpace industry.

So listen up Altius, Armadillo, Bigelow, Masten, XCOR, SFF, and NLV Challenge competitors. The NewSpace Business Group is available to assist with your:
  • Market Research
  • Competitive Analysis
  • Pricing Strategies
  • Business Development Strategies
  • Business Plan Development
  • Internships
  • and more.
Here is an interview with the group's founder, Jonathan Card (another interview in the series from Space Studies Institute’s Space Manufacturing Conference 14).


Q: Describe the NewSpace Business Group.

Jonathan Card: The NewSpace Business Group is a student group for business students, historically at the MBA level, interested in space businesses. We are focused on bridging the gap between the space technical community and other specialties in business that are necessary to run a successful company. One of the most destructive things that our current space policy has done is that NASA has frequently had to act as the intermediary between the space companies and the public. NASA's goal has been to foment experimentation and technical advances that were necessary in the 1960s to get humans to space.

Unfortunately, it's not enough for the technology to exist, but it has to exist in a network of social institutions that manufacture it, improve it, and operate it and there has been limited success in forming these kinds of institutions. This is very difficult for the government to do in a democracy, but NASA has recently begun to rectify this. COTS, SBIR, and, I think, Obama's recent NASA budget have started to bridge this gap.

The NewSpace Business Group is a setting for people in the space community to apply what they are learning in school to the industry that needs to learn it and so that business people that specialize in Marketing, in Finance, or in other aspects of private companies can learn from the NewSpace Business Group members on their campus that space is a viable place to do business and make a profit. It's less and less true that there's only one customer (NASA), that you need to get money (from NASA) before you can build anything, that you need to structure your company around government contracting and procedures.

Q: There are many other campus organizations. Why do you think you will be able to attract top business talent?

Jonathan Card: Because space is awesome, of course! It's space! Seriously, though, space is the New World of our time. It's a place that is unsettled and full of riches, from solutions to the energy crisis to new IP that can only be discovered in space. It is what will keep our civilization alive when an asteroid comes to finish us off like the dinosaurs before us, when nuclear weapons finally get out of hand, and when some unknowable tragedy strikes our ecosphere. In the end, money is the way for the people to show what's important to them; since space is important, there must be money to be made and the one to figure it out, gets to keep it. Fortunes were made, lost, and made over and over in the transatlantic trade and in the mines and forests of the New World. It will happen again in space.

Q: How do you see the NewSpace Business Group benefiting the NewSpace industry?

Jonathan Card: I would like to see NewSpace alumni forming the next cadre of managers and entrepreneurs of space-oriented companies. There are a lot of exciting companies coming of age right now and there are still holes to be filled in. Companies are just learning to talk to each other, how to do business with each other, and what institutions other industries created for themselves that space companies don't have because the unrelenting NASA-focus of the past has prevented a mature industry from emerging organically.

There are opportunities here that we haven't yet dreamt, and they are problems that MBAs and other business school students study full-time. We are the leaders that will make this industry make money and will make money elsewhere and bring it to NewSpace and so into the future.

Q: What you like the NewSpace Business Group to grow into over the next few years?

Jonathan Card: I'd like to make it into a national campus organization whose members know each other, work together, and can learn to rely on each other. I'd also like to make it into a group whose name becomes a credential; that, with the NewSpace Business Group on their resume, business school students can be assured of at least an interview with investors, companies, and other firms in the space industry.

Q: How can the New Space Industry benefit from your group’s efforts today? Internships? Projects? Other?

Jonathan Card: We have done projects for NewSpace groups already; we helped organize some of the events at the NewSpace 2009 conference (it was this experience that led to me becoming Treasurer of the Foundation) and we did an industry analysis of the future of the CubeSat industry for a Google Lunar X Prize competitor applying modern industry theories of innovation to see if we can establish some insight into the future growth of that technology. Portions of that paper are being prepared for public distribution; stay tuned to http://www.newspacebusiness.org/ or our LinkedIn group for more information on that, probably in December. We are always looking for projects and internships for our participants. The benefits are subtle and more widespread than you may think.

Last spring, we arranged a campus talk by Dannie Stamp, the former COO of Iridium (you can watch this on our YouTube channel); bringing such a luminary to campus was important to the school and it was my understanding at the end of the year that the school was interested in building stronger ties with him. This kind of relationship can be an important way for NewSpace to be highlighted in publications and to be used as examples in classrooms. That kind of publicity, in the context of other topics, is an important way to mainstream what we're doing.

Q: How can the New Space Industry help you become successful? Where do you need help to take the New Space Business Group to the next level?

Jonathan Card: I don't really want to focus on "how can the NewSpace industry help me". It's important to me that this remains a group that comes together to help the industry. Even when we are looking for projects, it's important that those projects are not just make-work for the sake of a good idea. If we can't help NewSpace, there's no point is being a group. If NewSpace can't help humanity, there's no point in it existing. I firmly believe that for-profit businesses, and those of us that believe in the power of the private sector, exist solely to serve others and be others-centered; usually our customers. I guess the most the NewSpace industry can do for us is to remember that we are there for them, and our members are a group of people that will know something about their industry, and if they need something done or they need good people, we are here to help.

Q: If anyone reading this wants to get involved how can they get a hold of you?


Jonathan Card: jcard@email.arizona.edu will still reach me, even though I've graduated, as will any message through the LinkedIn group. This has been dormant for the last few months, but we're revisiting it and will be re-opening it for new members soon. We welcome industry members, students, prospective students, or anyone else that wants to keep up on our activities.

Q: What should I have asked that I didn’t?

Jonathan Card: What are you doing now?

The NewSpace Business Group has alumni at Sargent Controls, which manufactures parts for military and civil space and airplane parts, and we have several members that have started their own businesses after business school.

I'm working at a cloud software company, B50 Data, making software for tracking maintenance for commercial shipping fleets. We're finishing our first round of sales calls without any venture or angel capital, and we're very optimistic. In addition to polishing the paper on CubeSats for publication, I'm finishing a paper overviewing international property law and various means of resolving complex IP legal situations, like those in cloud computing, other than expanding the power of the UN.

I've also started inquiring about re-establishing the Serviceable Spacecraft Committee on Standards at the AIAA so that we can start work on docking, berthing, and refueling standards that we need in order to have things like orbital fuel depots. I've heard so many people talk about how NASA needs to start establishing industry standards, but that's not NASA's job. It's our job, and it's time we did something about it. I've gotten some interest in it from some good people, but it's still an infant idea. I'm also heading up several committees for the Space Frontier Foundation, and I'm investigating some interesting possibilities that may lead to a NewSpace company. Nothing definite yet, but I'll keep you informed.

Sabtu, 11 September 2010

Altius Space Machines

I see today, Jonathan Goff announced the creation of the latest new space company, Altius Space Machines. Jon was one of the founding members of Masten Space Systems, winner of NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge and Masten’s lead propulsion engineer. Now Mr. Goff is leaving Masten to start his own aerospace company.  Masten’s blog highlights their new talent they hired both to replace recent departures and arm the company with the talent to climb to 100KM and beyond.


After reading of these developments, here are a few thoughts:

  1. I can’t wait to read more details of what Jon Goff has planned for Altius Space Machines. Jon’s blog, Selenian Boondocks, has long been a source for innovative space commercialization ideas. I look forward to Jon implementing many of his innovative ideas at his new company.
  2. I mentioned in a past post how much the new space industry, as a whole, gains by having an increase in the total number of firms. I have described how an increase in the number of new space firms should increase liquidity opportunities for new space investors. In Jon Goff and Altius Space Machines we see a second industry advantage for an increased number of firms – experience in the employee base for the industry. Those employees that were on Masten’s winning team – some are still with Masten (inspiring the next generation of engineers), some are now with Armadillo, and some are starting new firms - all have leveraged their LLC experience for the future benefit of the industry. I love it.
Good Luck Masten.  Good Luck ASM.