Abstract
For every issue of New Space, I have the task and privilege of writing an editorial. Sometimes the topic suggests itself: a change of administration or a new emerging technology such as the space elevator or an entrepreneurial achievement such as reuse of a launch vehicle. Occasionally though, the topic is more elusive. Such was the case for this issue until my colleagues, Ken Davidian and Karen Cloud-Hansen, and I reviewed the amazing array of papers being published. From innovative material processing to several legal and economic analyses to a business case for Mars settlement, this issue is rich in diverse New Space topics.
The review of this issue, especially when compared to our first issue almost 5 years ago, also highlights one of the encouraging features of the entrepreneurial space business enterprise. The vector of worthy peer-reviewed publications in our journal is not only positive but also trending toward greater quality. This issue in particular is comprised solely of original articles—those that demonstrate solid scholarship, depth of research, along with the ability to respond to and pass peer review.
As my associate editor, Ken Davidian commented that this collection of papers shows that the innovators are using a variety disciplines and pushing toward novel space business cases, rather than those external disciplines having to “pull” space into them. When we began New Space, the goal was to create a peer-reviewed home for the best ideas. That goal appears to be coming a reality and, to me, seems a welcome companion to the welter of press releases and claims in the popular press.
Looking at some specific papers in this issue, I am reminded of a “bumper sticker” thought by one of the visionaries of the early space entrepreneurial enterprise, Jim Benson. Jim founded SpaceDev, now part of Sierra Nevada Corporation, with the idea that “to pay for space, space must pay.” I think that Jim's notion was that a purely government-funded space enterprise was unsustainable and that there had to be a “killer app,” a space service or product that would be uniquely tied to a presence in space.
Thus far, communications, exploration, and transportation are the leading commercial enterprises. Communication satellites of course dominate the worldwide space business and have for many years. Of the $300b+ space enterprise, fully 75% of the revenue comes from the Comsat business and associated distribution networks. However, with the advent of NASA's Commercial Cargo and Crew Programs, space transportation companies have adapted or been created to supply NASA's exploration goals. Those programs are worth billions to the companies and represent a substantial new space type of economic development. The long-term future of those businesses depends on utilization of the International Space Station, even after NASA steps away. If countries or individuals find utility in low Earth orbit research, then support for the space station or perhaps Bigelow's BEAM habitat will continue to require space transportation such as Commercial Cargo and Crew.
However, the idea that a product manufactured in space would have unique properties is one that has been around since the days of Skylab. In this issue of New Space, I point to the Cozmuta and Rasky paper as perhaps an indication of where such a space product might appear. I would not expect there to be an instantaneous transition to large-scale space manufacturing, but if there are very special optical fibers and glasses made in space that have properties unavailable anywhere else, I can foresee this seed growing into a much more substantial plant (pun intended).
My final comment concerns the papers that deal with the legal and regulatory frameworks for space entrepreneurship. Unlike some, I do not subscribe to the idea that the world community needs to reopen the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967. According to space law experts, that Treaty was put into place primarily to exclude nuclear weapons from space. In the current world environment, who knows what would happen if the treaty were renegotiated? The risk is simply too great in order to achieve some hoped for improvement in the commercial space aspects of the OST.
I do believe that U.S. law and regulation can be revised and improved to assist the growth of the commercial space industry. One area that can clearly be addressed is the so-called regulatory gap that exists where no agency has the charter to “authorize and supervise” commercial space activities beyond launch and re-entry. My personal choice is to ask the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation to shoulder this duty (with augmented resources if needed.) In any event, I see a growth in the need for space lawyers—a terrifying thought to some, I'm sure.
To our readers: keep sending in those papers. Issue 5.4 promises to be just as rich as this one.