Last post we tried to help companies or other organizations understand what actions they should take in adopting or developing common standards for the space industry.

Today, I would suggest that using or working on an individual standard can be like considering an individual standard as a piece of a puzzle.

Every so often you need to look at the picture on the outside of the box.

Please look forward to my next post regarding the picture on the outside of the space industry standards box.

Fred

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

A conversation with an AI

Fred Slane

5 August 2026

Following a planning meeting for a panel on open space standards development, I “Googled” a few questions. As has become common, Googling will result in an AI response. In this case the responding AI was Gemini, by Google.

Prompt: What industries use voluntary consensus standards?

Voluntary consensus standards are used across many technical sectors to guide safe product design, manufacturing, and testing. Government agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the FDA frequently adopt them instead of writing unique government rules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Major Industries Using Standards

• Medical Devices & Healthcare: Manufacturers use ISO, IEC, and AIAA AND ASTM rules to prove product safety and performance for market clearance.
• Construction & Architecture: Builders and engineers rely on codes for energy use, materials strength, and structural safety.
• Manufacturing & Consumer Goods: Factories use standards for testing product durability, toy safety, and chemical limits.
• Information Technology & Telecom: Tech firms follow joint consensus rules for data security, wireless equipment, and networking compatibility.
• Energy & Utilities: Power and oil groups use technical benchmarks for equipment testing, emissions control, and plant safety. [2, 3, 6, 7, 8]

Would you like to know about a specific standards organization (like AIAA, ASTM, ISO, or NFPA) or how a particular industry applies these rules?

[1] https://www.epa.gov

[2] https://www.greenlight.guru

[3] https://incompliancemag.com

[4] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

[5] https://www.newpig.com

[6] https://www.epa.gov

[7] https://www.youtube.com

[8] https://www.intertekinform.com

Prompt: What industries do not use voluntary consensus standards?

Virtually no industry is entirely exempt from voluntary consensus standards, but several sectors actively avoid or reject them in favor of proprietary, specialized, or strict government-mandated rules. Instead of using open, consensus-driven systems like ISO or ANSI, these fields operate differently due to extreme secrecy, hyper-niche requirements, or rapid evolution. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Sectors That Avoid Voluntary Consensus Standards

• National Defense & Classified Intelligence: Highly sensitive military programs rely on proprietary Military Standards (MIL-STD) or top-secret internal metrics rather than open, public consensus standards to maintain strategic advantages. [6]
• Cutting-Edge Artificial Intelligence & Tech R&D: Frontier tech fields (like quantum computing or generative AI models) move too quickly for traditional standard-developing organizations, choosing to rely on internal company benchmarks or de facto proprietary standards. [7]
• Art, Craft, & Artisanal Goods: Fine art, bespoke fashion, luxury goods, and hand-crafted items rely entirely on individual creativity and proprietary techniques rather than unified industry benchmarks.
• Nuclear Energy Core Operations: While standard utilities use voluntary consensus rules, core nuclear safety and weaponry rely almost exclusively on strict, top-down government mandates (like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) because the risk of failure is too high for voluntary frameworks. [2, 8]
• Early-Stage Biotech & Proprietary Therapeutics: Deep tech and gene-editing startups pioneering brand-new scientific methods bypass consensus standards simply because the technology does not exist yet to build a consensus around. [7]

Common Reasons an Industry Rejects or Bypasses Them

• Speed of Innovation: Traditional consensus standards take years to publish, while fast-moving tech industries will leave them behind in months.
• Proprietary Edge: Companies chasing market dominance prefer to lock users into their own ecosystems rather than build compatible, open-source architectures.
• Extreme Safety Risks: When the public interest is at risk, federal regulators will completely step in and mandate unique government metrics rather than waiting for private-sector agreements. [7, 9, 10, 11]

If you are evaluating a specific business model, let me know:

• What product or service are you focusing on?
• Are you trying to determine if you need to comply with a particular framework?
• Do you want to see an example of a de facto standard that replaced a consensus one?
•  

I can provide the exact regulatory context or competitive standard environment for your situation.

 [1] https://www.newpig.com

[2] https://www.iacet.org

[3] https://www.iacet.org

[4] https://www.trilinkftz.com

[5] https://drexel.edu

[6] https://eureka.patsnap.com

[7] https://www.nist.gov

[8] https://www.nationalacademies.org

[9] https://www.epa.gov

[10] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

[11] https://emergingtechpolicy.org

Prompt: The space industry is rapidly becoming more commercial, with more participants and substantial growth. How will companies benefit by developing and using voluntary consensus standards?

As the commercial space sector shifts away from legacy, government-dominated monopolies, developing and adopting voluntary consensus standards provides a powerful operational and financial edge for private space companies. Rather than relying on outdated military protocols or hyper-customized setups, companies using uniform baselines from organizations like AIAA AND ASTM International and ISO unlock several distinct business advantages. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. Drastically Lowering Supply Chain Costs

• Commercial Components: Standards allow companies to safely use commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) parts instead of sourcing slow, multi-million dollar, custom-engineered gear. [5]
• Manufacturing Scale: Standardizing physical interfaces (like satellite buses, cargo bays, and rocket fuel valves) means suppliers can mass-produce hardware, lowering costs across the board. [5]
•  

2. Streamlining Regulatory Approvals

• Fast-Track Compliance: Regulatory agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operate under modern, performance-based frameworks (such as 14 CFR Part 450) that explicitly accept established industry consensus standards as an approved means of compliance. [6, 7]
• Global Market Expansion: Aligning hardware with recognized international standards helps companies secure rapid export approvals and foreign orbital slot licensing without redesigning their tech stack for every country. [2, 5]

3. Enabling Plug-and-Play Interoperability

• In-Space Servicing Ecosystems: The growth of complex orbital logistics—such as refueling, robotic assembly, and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO)—requires cross-company docking compatibility. Organizations like CONFERS are setting consensus baselines so a satellite from Company A can smoothly interface with a service vehicle from Company B.
• Unified Data Protocols: Standardized data messaging (e.g., standard ISO orbit data messages) makes it easy for private tracking Networks, ground stations, and satellite operators to exchange data instantly. [2, 8, 9, 10, 11]

4. Maximizing Safety and Mitigating Risk

• Securing Space Sustainability: Following consensus standards for space debris mitigation (such as ISO 24113) helps space firms actively shield their hardware from catastrophic orbital collisions.
• Human Spaceflight Safety: Standardized liftoff, structural, and life-support metrics reduce the likelihood of high-profile accidents that could prompt harsh, industry-stifling political crackdowns. [8, 12, 13, 14, 15]

5. Boosting Investor and Insurer Confidence

• Predictable Risk Pricing: Space insurance underwriters penalize unproven, purely proprietary tech; adopting industry-wide standard testing protocols allows companies to negotiate significantly lower premium rates.
• Investment Readiness: Venture capital and private equity groups favor companies that rely on mature, standardized engineering principles, as it reduces overall operational risk and yields a faster, more predictable time-to-market. [2]

Are you looking at this from a strategic hardware development angle, or are you navigating a specific space regulation? Let me know:

• What specific domain are you targeting? (e.g., small satellites, heavy launch vehicles, orbital habitats, or space tourism)
• Do you want examples of current active standards committees you can join to help influence these rules? [2, 4, 14, 16, 17]

 [1] https://space.commerce.gov

[2] https://space.commerce.gov

[3] https://www.brookings.edu

[4] https://www.AIAA and ASTM.org

[5] https://www.aia-aerospace.org

[6] https://www.faa.gov

[7] https://www.faa.gov

[8] https://www.iso.org

[9] https://knowledge.bsigroup.com

[10] https://www.sciencedirect.com

[11] https://www.ronsped.it

[12] https://spacenews.com

[13] https://share.ansi.org

[14] https://aerospace.org

[15] https://spacexstock.com

[16] https://www.aia-aerospace.org

[17] https://www.faa.gov

Prompt: The space industry is rapidly becoming more commercial, with more participants and substantial growth. What are the risks to companies by developing and using voluntary consensus standards?

While voluntary consensus standards offer immense benefits, the process of developing and adopting them introduces significant strategic, financial, and legal vulnerabilities for commercial space companies. Navigating a consensus-driven environment requires balancing open collaboration with a company's unique competitive advantages.

1. Risk of IP Exposure and Technology Leakage

• Forced Disclosure: Participating in standards development organizations (SDOs) requires engineers to discuss technical requirements openly, which can inadvertently expose proprietary engineering methods to direct competitors.
• FRAND Licensing Traps: If a company’s patented technology becomes integrated into an industry standard, they are often legally forced to license that intellectual property under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, severely capping potential licensing revenue. [1]

2. Strategic Slowdowns and Bureaucracy

• The Speed Penalty: Reaching a true consensus among dozens of competing international stakeholders takes years. Fast-moving startups risk missing critical market windows if they wait for a formal standard to finalize before building their hardware.
• Design Paralysis: Committing to an evolving standard can lock a company into design iterations that become obsolete before the standard is officially published, wasting valuable engineering hours.

3. Competitor Maneuvering and Market Leveling

• Stifling Unique Advantages: Standards naturally democratize technology. By standardizing a breakthrough interface, a pioneering company effectively erases its own unique technological moat, allowing late-entering competitors to build compatible products cheaply.
• Committee Capture: Larger, legacy aerospace companies often dedicate entire departments to packing SDO committees. These giants can manipulate the standard's criteria to favor their own existing supply chains, intentionally pricing out or designing out nimbler startups.

4. Premature Technical Lock-In

• Freezing Innovation: Solidifying a standard too early in a technology's lifecycle (such as in-space manufacturing or lunar power beaming) can institutionalize subpar engineering practices, forcing the entire industry to build around an inefficient baseline.
• Compliance Over Optimization: Engineers may prioritize strictly meeting a consensus standard's checkbox requirements over pushing the envelope on system performance, payload capacity, or weight reduction.

5. Hidden Costs of Compliance and Auditing

• SDO Paywalls: Participating in committees, purchasing standard documentation, and hiring certified compliance managers represents a massive overhead cost that disproportionately strains early-stage space ventures.
• Expensive Validation: Proving compliance often requires third-party testing, qualification, and specialized cleanroom verification, adding millions of dollars to a launch vehicle or satellite development cycle.

If you are weighing whether to join a space standards committee or adopt an existing framework, let me know:

• What specific technology are you developing? (e.g., docking mechanisms, laser communications, or orbital refueling systems)
• Are you trying to protect a specific proprietary advantage from your competitors?

I can help you analyze a strategy to participate in standards development while shielding your core innovations.

 [1] https://www.youtube.com

Prompt: It appears that there is a fine balancing act a company must perform to wisely participate in voluntary standards development and standards use. How can that balancing act be described for a company's short, mid and long term development?

A commercial space company can navigate this balancing act by viewing voluntary consensus standards not as a rigid rulebook, but as a dynamic risk-management tool. The strategy must evolve across short, mid, and long-term horizons to match the company’s shifting priorities from survival to market dominance.

---

⏳ Short-Term (Years 1–3): Lean Survival & Strategic Shielding

In the early stages, a company’s primary goals are speed-to-market, capital conservation, and protecting its core intellectual property (IP).

• The Balancing Act: Consume standard components; strictly hide your core IP.
• Standards Use Strategy: Heavily adopt existing, mature standards for non-differentiating hardware (e.g., standard fasteners, power voltages, or telemetry protocols). This minimizes engineering overhead and maximizes your limited budget.
• Development Strategy: Stay away from active Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) in your core innovation areas. If your breakthrough is in active orbital refueling, do not join committees discussing it yet. Build your proprietary "secret sauce" in total isolation to maintain your technological moat.
• The Risk to Manage: Over-customization. Designing every single bolt or software protocol from scratch will drain your venture capital before you ever reach the launchpad.

---

⏳ Mid-Term (Years 3–5): Scaling, Influence, & Market Alignment

As the company achieves its first successful launches or deployments, the focus shifts to scaling production, lowering supply chain costs, and clearing regulatory hurdles.

• The Balancing Act: Influence the rules without giving away the blueprint.
• Standards Use Strategy: Use standards as a weapon to clear regulatory bottlenecks. For example, adopt established FAA or ISO baselines to fast-track your launch licenses and lower your space insurance premiums.
• Development Strategy: Selectively send senior engineers to join key SDO committees (like AIAA AND ASTM or CONFERS). Your goal here is defensive: ensure that your competitors do not write a standard that outlaws your specific architecture or favors their own supply chain.
• The Risk to Manage: Committee capture and IP leaks. Ensure your engineers are highly trained in IP protection so they only share performance requirements (e.g., "the docking ring must withstand X force") rather than implementation details (e.g., how your proprietary software calculates the alignment).

---

⏳ Long-Term (Years 5+): Market Leadership & Ecosystem Lock-In

As a mature market leader, the goal shifts to defending your market share, driving industry-wide interoperability, and shaping the future regulatory landscape.

• The Balancing Act: Turn your proprietary tech into the industry standard.
• Standards Use Strategy: Shift completely to a modular, plug-and-play architecture. Use industry standards to force your suppliers to commoditize their parts, which drives down your long-term manufacturing costs.
• Development Strategy: Aggressively lead SDO committees. Take your proven, field-tested proprietary interfaces and intentionally transition them into the official industry standard. By doing this, you force the entire industry to adapt to your technology stack, positioning your company as the central hub of the space ecosystem.
• The Risk to Manage: Technical stagnation. If you lock the industry into a standard that you wrote five years ago, you risk a nimbler, short-term startup bypassing the standard entirely with a disruptive, next-generation technology (e.g., laser comms completely displacing radio frequencies).

---

To help apply this framework directly to your business model, let me know:

• What sub-sector of the space industry are you operating in? (e.g., launch services, satellite components, or ground stations)
• What is your company's current maturity phase? (e.g., early seed-stage R&D vs. fully operational with existing contracts)

I can help map out a custom timeline of which specific standards committees to join or avoid based on your position.

Prompt: What are examples of de facto standards in the space industry?

De facto standards emerge through rapid market adoption, historical dominance, or sheer technological efficiency rather than through a formal voting process by a standards committee. In the space industry, these standard protocols dictate how companies build, launch, and operate hardware. [1, 2]

🚀 Hardware Form Factors

CubeSats (The 1U Form Factor): Originally developed by Stanford and Cal Poly as an educational framework, the standard 10x10x10 cm cube format is the absolute de facto structural baseline for the entire small satellite market. Satellite deployers, launchers, and components are universally manufactured to match these "U" measurements. [3]

PC104 Boards: For satellite internal computers and electronics architecture, the PC104 form factor (inherited from rugged terrestrial industrial computing) became a de facto standard for stacking boards cleanly inside small spacecraft before newer standards caught up.

🛰️ Commercial Launch Configurations

ESPA Rings: Developed initially for military payloads by Moog, the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) became the de facto industry adapter ring for rideshare missions. If a company manufactures a small satellite, they almost always ensure its separation mechanism mounts cleanly onto a standard ESPA port.

SpaceX Transporter Port Specs: Because SpaceX dominates the commercial rideshare market, their internal launch vehicle manifests, environmental testing criteria, and deployment mechanical interfaces have become de facto rules that small-sat startups must build toward if they want access to affordable orbits. [4]

💾 Data & Software Ecosystems

Linux in Flight Software: While legacy aerospace relied exclusively on proprietary, hyper-specialized real-time operating systems (like VxWorks), Linux has become a de facto operating system choice for private constellation operators and commercial rocket flight computers due to its vast developer pool and open flexibility.

TLEs (Two-Line Element Sets): Originally created by NORAD decades ago, this data format is the global de facto format used to track and communicate the orbital elements of objects in Earth's orbit. Despite its limitations compared to modern vector formats, almost all tracking software and tracking entities still ingest TLE data. [5, 6]

📡 Ground Stations & Frequency Allocation

SpaceX Starlink / User Terminals: In the consumer and commercial satellite internet market, the mass production and design of Starlink's phased array user terminals have created a de facto ecosystem standard for satellite-to-ground consumer connectivity.

The S-Band / X-Band Paradigms: While the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) controls formal spectrum allocations, the commercial space supply chain has forced de facto consensus on hardware pricing—meaning most small satellites use identical, off-the-shelf S-band radios for telemetry and X-band radios for high-speed data downlinks simply because those components are cheapest and easiest to source. [7]

Are you looking to design a subsystem that needs to fit into one of these established ecosystems, or are you trying to determine if your proprietary technology can overthrow a current de facto baseline? Let me know:

What specific aspect of space tech are you building? (e.g., satellite hardware, communication tech, or launch adapters)

Do you want to know how to ensure backward compatibility with these legacy de facto systems?

[1] https://aerospace.org

[2] https://www.linkedin.com

[3] https://www.spacesymposium.org

[4] https://spacenews.com

[5] https://dgi.wbresearch.com

[6] https://spacenexus.us

[7] https://orbitalradar.com

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation. (c) Copyright Space Infrastructure Foundation 2026. Unlimited distribution with citation.

The 2022 Global Satellite Servicing Forum is fast approaching! Register to hear CONFERS members share lessons learned from launching their own on-orbit servicing missions and find out what’s in store for #satelliteservicing now and in the future. You don’t need to be a member to attend; reserve your seat now. https://www.satelliteconfers.org/gssf/ #inspacesatelliteservicing #GSSF22

There are a couple of options in consideration for close proximity spacecraft-spacecraft communications. WiFi or 5g.

Here's a demo of the WiFi capability

https://www.space.com/china-tianwen-1-mars-orbiter-amazing-selfies-photos

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

At the Global Satellite Servicing Forum (GSSF) 2021 meeting this morning there was a question to panelists for SpaceLogistics, Astroscale, Starfish and Gitai on the role of debris removal, servicing and assembly companies in ISS life extension or removal. In the Q&A someone from Goddard posted this link

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/20/nasa-evaluating-private-space-station-proposals-for-iss-replacement.html

In the discussion it became clear that industry's expectation is this transition will be completed before the decade is out. Our space infrastructure on-orbit will transition from servicing of legacy systems to servicing of cooperative client spacecraft.

I believe this is the first time anyone has put a calendar on this formative transition.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Food for thought:

The path ahead for on-orbit data processing is going to be interesting.  AI and cloud are coming. So is more processing capability. The delay tolerant question is starting to look to have more impact on near real time demands, coupled with bandwidth access.

Exo-Space Prepares For High Demand For On-Orbit Data Processing

Space News (9/22, Subscription Publication) reports that Exo-Space “has pivoted in response to growing demand for on-orbit data processing.” Exo-Space’s FeatherEdge image-analysis device for satellites and balloon payloads, “will rely on machine vision algorithms to detect objects within its field of view.” Exo-Space is offering monitoring of a specific area of interest for “a monthly subscription fee,” providing frequent updates to customers.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Does Defense or Industry lead the Military Industrial Complex?

For many years there has been a question as to whether corruption is due to poverty, or is poverty due to corruption? The ballot came in several years ago establishing that corruption causes poverty.

A similar question might be posed today regarding industry and defense. Perhaps the most contested microcosm of general industry is that of space. Historically my experience is that Defense has lead the Space Military Industrial Complex. Today, in a conversation regarding the need for MBA programs in space, the challenge was made to justify that the old mantra is passed, and that the future will have Industry lead?

This is not a trivial question.

To elaborate a little bit, one might suggest that an MBA where Defense, not Industry, leads, the need for an MBA is formulaic. Where Industry leads, innovation is essential

The answer will determine the future of humanity in space.

There was a time in my life where to write the letters "NRO" in my OPR would have resulted in someone going to jail. Pseudonyms were used. Later in my career, out from under the umbrella, charged with developing new technology for the Space Defense Industrial Complex, efforts were inexplicably stymied; I could not see why.  As a student of physics and engineering I could see textbook answers which appeared obvious, but defense funded research seemed blind to. Still later, I had the opportunity to work with "Colonel Bob" on a cross-agency initiative (There were a couple on interoperability or cost and schedule savings; I cannot remember which one). I mentioned my earlier frustration, and "Colonel Bob" responded, "Isn't it great?!"

My intent on posing this question is not to challenge the need for the Defense component of the Space Military Industrial Complex. The question is, "Who is to lead?" Or to relate to the conversation of earlier today, do individuals looking for future education opportunities need to consider Business or an MBA?

Fortunately we have reached the stage where markets, not the Military Industrial Complex, will answer the question.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Is Space a Zero Sum Game?

{This note was prompted by a discussion on how the space Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) can and should work together. A position from one or more SDOs is reported to be there is opposition to cooperation due to concerns about competition in standards development and loss of potential revenue/market share.}

In a zero sum game for each transaction,  each party either gains or loses, with the net value of transactions equaling zero. This implies the market value is fixed. Commonly this kind of transaction is called a “win-lose”.

In a non-zero sum game the market value is not fixed. It is possible for the net value of transactions to be greater in value than the simple summation of transactions. Commonly this kind of transaction is called a “win-win”.

Is Space a zero sum game? No.

While funding may have been fixed in the past, relying primarily on government budgets, today and in the foreseeable future, Space will be a growing market.

What does this mean for Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)?

The expansion of the space marketplace is based on growth in small satellite markets, growth in space tourism, growth in all possible permutations and variations of space access, space capabilities, space command and control and space product delivery. The US Department of Commerce has estimated growth from about $300B/yr to $1T/yr in the next ten years.

SDOs serve markets, so as the market grows the need for standards will increase.  For the space industry, the lack of a large industry wide standards library means there will be a need to fill the vacuum and expand to meet future needs. There is a lot of work to do.

What is the impact if the US treats space standards development as a zero sum game? As the standards market expands in the global space market, non-US SDOs will provide the new international library. US companies, striving to succeed in the in the global market, will use any applicable standards that help them compete and grow. Therefore, if US SDOs follow a zero sum philosophy, only US SDOs will lose market share. That is not quite true: if one follows W. Edwards Deming’s teaching that “he who owns the standard owns the industry”, then the US will lose its leadership position in the global space market.

There is no mystery here. US space standards development, where there are multiple SDOs, must be done cooperatively. This can be at the national level, the international level, or both. Who leads is almost immaterial, as long as the leadership is done well.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

On a Space "Code of Conduct"

There has been a good bit of discussion in the past few weeks about a "Code of Conduct" for space. Leonard David's article in Space News (www.space.com/news/defining-misconduct-in-space-110106.html) spoke to the need for such a code and what it might entail.  My feeling is we are already working on this.  The bits and pieces that might make up a future code are included in the technical standards we have been working on for the past several decades.  A specific example of current activity is the publication of new standards on orbital debris mitigation.  ISO 24113: Space Debris Mitigation Requirements is the top level document of this set. In the standards community, misconduct for space can be, and is, considered as non-compliance with the current, published, open requirements that make up standards.
David includes an interview with Laura Grego, a scientist for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Mass and she suggests a Code of Conduct compliant "space actor should

•Give notice of an impending launch
•Construct the satellite to encompass relevant safety and reliability standards
•Coordinate the satellite's orbit and communications frequencies with other users to prevent physical and electromagnetic interference
•Be as clear as possible about what the satellite’s purpose is intended to accomplish
•Make sure that close approaches and collisions are avoided"


almost all of which is accomplished by complying with rules, regulations and standards that exist today.

We can and should do a better job, and it is simply too easy today to find examples of misconduct in space.  We do need to do a better job.  We do not need another body of rule makers, but a little help on making the bodies that exist today more effective would be a welcome step.
Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Turmoil - More of the Same

I've been watching the US domestic space budget turmoil for the past several months, as have many of you.  My feeling is that we are not really seeing much in the way of change on how funding actually percolates down to programs.  For years, if not decades, the life of a space program in NASA or DoD has been extremely unstable.  What we are seeing now is the bubbling up of this funding inconsistency (and it is not the only inconsistency) as external pressure continues to grow.  This is not new, and it was very predictable.

The questions for the US domestic space complex are not about whether we should continue to have an astronaut corps, or national science and defense space efforts.  Of course we should! Every able nation is reaching for the capability space brings to terrestrial needs. No, the real question is one every organization faces in our transitional world: How can US domestic space organizations bring value to the American people?

Some maintain that value comes in the form of jobs created and sustained.  Some maintain that value comes in keeping the nation strong.  There are many more positions of what the value is to a nation (our nation).  And they are ALL right.  The only wrong answer, in my view, is to deny the value others hold.  Dr Don Warrick taught a class I took on Organizational Change.  He made a statement in class one day that is a fundamental truth, "Often the problem of selecting one solution or another doesn't give us the correct answer. In many cases it is not a question of 'this' or 'that'.  The answer is 'this' and 'that'." While it may not be possible to actually fund everything we all want from space projects, there is a way to allow all viable solutions to grow.  This is the fundamental problem with the US domestic space industry - it has become a control freak over space abilities.  Just say the word, "space" and someone claims to be the controller of your activity.  Today, control has passed, or is passing, to others.

There is a problem with the US domestic space effort.  It was predictable. The solutions to our problems, while politically entabgled, are understandable.  Part of the solution is the creation of open solutions to our space needs, and that is what the Space Infrastructure Foundation is all about.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Ramblings

Six months without a post: well. there was a reason.  Five surgeries on the left foot and left arm.  An active lifestyle can really take it's toll.  Is it worth it?
Yesterday I attended a presentation to the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) Alumni by Donald Klingner, a professor at the School of Public Affairs.  I'm on the Alumni Board and this is one of the opportunites you get with such a position.  Anyway, while Dr Klingner's presentation spoke to "Civil Engagement and Public Service: The Vital Role of Colorado's Public Universities" it also spoke to me about what SIF is trying to do. Too often I find myself trying to explain the complexities of moving from today's limited use of space capabilities to tomorrow's enrichment of human life (actually, all life) by moving infrastructure from a terrestrial base to a space base. What SIF is trying to do is build to technical standards base that brings that future to us more quickly.  Dr Klingner spoke of several things, and one point I found very interesting is the idea of building governance in a community.  As he was quick to point out, this is not "government" but "governance."
One of the truths of voluntary compliance standards is that they do not hold the power of law.  Rather, standards form a common basis for a (technical) community in executing their work.  This is self-governance.  I know that is obvious, but it needs to be repeated and emphasized for the global space community.  We are not likely to see rules of law, beyond existing UN treaty statements, for a long time.  There are too many other arenas, other policy domains, of higher visibility where policy makers use loosely related space issueas pawns. No, real progress, if it can be made, needs to happen within the space industry - and that needs global dialog to get real solutions.
I'll ask Dr Klingner if I can post his presentation on this site - while the target audience yesterday was UCCS alumni, the messge is true for many other audiences.  If you're reading, you're part of a listening global space audience.

A side note: all the surgeries were related to a ruptured achilled tendon (me and Beckam playing soccer, same week, oceans apart).  Unfortunately, mine had complications (infection).  Thanks to great doctors (Haggerty, Kobayashi and Kam) at the Air Force Academy I am on the course to 100% recovery. I did spend about two weeks in the hospital, a month in a wheel chair, and four months on crutches.  Today I am walking and cycling.  Running will come.

Best regard to our readers.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Segue to (Mission) Success

I closed the last BLOG with the statement, "The impact on standards development is a growth in demand for open, commercially based standards. Time to get to work."  Perhaps I should have added a sentence, "Open, commercially based standards will be another enabler for those broad, global space ventures."

Done properly, the net effect of open standards in other markets is to make big, complex ventures successful. Standards are not the only reason for success, but they are essential. In this context (space) what is "success"? Mission Success is one form, and that is the next SIF-BLOG.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

What the budget shift and cancellation of Constellation mean to space infrastructure

After a reasonably careful dissection of the new 2011 Obama Administration budget for NASA it looks like the overall impact is potentially beneficial. There will be jobs lost and jobs gained, so there is no question that a many people will experience transition anxiety. Recognizing that fact, here are some opportunities the budget move creates:

Critical Technology Demonstrations will fund several mid-size and small size efforts to get exploration technologies off the ground (literally) while leveraging international, commercial and other government efforts. Heavy Lift/Propulsion R&D will speed up solutions for the heavy lift capability needed for extended exploration. Robotic Precursor Missions will scout for human spaceflight targets to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points and nearby asteroids. 21st Century Launch Complex funding will upgrade Kennedy Space Center to increase efficiency (always needed, for competitive organizations) and reduce launch costs (a must for anything but token exploration efforts). Increased utility of the ISS is also included.

So if the budget actually grows (and it does) what is the actual change here? First, the commitment of “the Moon, then to Mars” is gone. It is replaced with simpler scouting efforts to the low Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points and nearby asteroids. Coupled with a larger lift capability the opportunity for more people to do more things in space opens up. Also, decreasing complexity and cost for launch services at the primary US launch complex will increase the opportunity for more people to do more things in space. If NASA truly does manage to leverage international, commercial and other government efforts, each NASA Center promises to become a much more viable, energetic collecting point than we can even imagine today.

The inclusion of a US government commitment to using commercial capability for manned spaceflight creates a very different environment for space infrastructure development than exists today. Together, these two changes can create more activity, meaning more and different jobs in the space sector. The ability to support commercial interests more directly will mean greater opportunity for varied infrastructure support on a global basis. Commercial contracts will also require less monitoring than government contracts. This is a very real cost reduction. The down side of all of this is that we lose a program that is over budget, over schedule and, even if successful, would have hindered all the points earlier in this paragraph.

The impact on standards development is a growth in demand for open, commercially based standards. Time to get to work.


Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Going to the Moon

What a week! First, the Obama Administration says US transportation of personnel to the International Space Station will be done by commercial providers.  Then, today, the Constellation  program is cancelled. Is the Adminstration anti-space?  What in the world is going on?

There is an old Chinese saying, "A time of tragedy is a time of great opportunity." That is true in this case.

The old science fiction writers from the 1950s and 1960s wrote stories about travelers to Mars, the Moon or orbiting spacestations.  Almost invariably transportation was provided by commercial means. It is interesting to note that predictions by science fiction writers often fall short of actual events.  Writers base their stories on life as they see it occuring around them.  Finding the government to be the party of innovation and daring is not something you find in real life. From this observation, what do you find more strange: the idea that commercial providers will take some risks to do something innovative, or the idea that government in any form will create unbridled expansion by taking great risks?

The question we should really be asking is this, "If commercial manned spaceflight is to be our chariot from and beyond Earth's gravity well, how can success be promoted?"  Efficiency, not just general capability, is needed.  Efficiency in this case can be defined as maximization of capability over time at minimum cost.  Yep, it's the old value equation.

Don't get me wrong.  The value statement recognizes societal costs and benfits on par with commercial requirements to make a buck. Value to all stakeholders, not exclusively shareholders, is exactly the same challenge today being thrown at business across the planet.  It happens to be true for space ventures as well. And in the same way global markets have created best practices to enable efficiency in trade, best practices will allow commercial manned spaceflight to become safer, in time, than NASA ever imagined.

NASA has criticized commercial manned spaceflight efforts for failures to comply with benchmarks for safety.  "Can't be done," summarizes the NASA position.  A review of the published NASA requirements for manned spaceflight certification gives the reader an understanding of how this statement can truthfully be made.  Technical requirements are only one part of the certification process. A substantial part of the existing process requires compliance with organizational process, reviews and process certification.

Somehow, NASA expects the likes of Musk, Bigelow or Branson to give very senior NASA officials, attending government structured design and flight reviews, veto power for each tail number that will fly manned. The purpose, per current process, will not necessarily be to assess technical compliance.

Either within NASA or within commercial manned spaceflight enterprises, it is time to move toward transparent, measureable consensus standards for manned spaceflight. It is an opportunity we should not waste.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

KISS and Standards

Several years ago (about 2002?) I was given the assignment of writing a systems engineering document related to spacecraft initilaization for a NASA project. The contract required that we write the document "to a level four specification."  I spent more time than I should have trying to find: a definition of level four (or any level); a level three document to base the new work on, or; anyone who knew what the customer wanted. No luck.

That program still has not flown, but since that time I've done enough research to learn that there is no such definition.  So in 2006, so as to avoid this problem in the future, I initiated a standard development effort on spacecraft initialization and commissioning.  Last week our standards project team in ISO, Technical Committee 20, Subcommittee 14, Working Group two, submitted resolution to ISO (Geneva) on comments to the final Committee Draft.  We should see a new standard (actually three documents) on Spacecraft Initialization and Commissioning published within six to nine months.

This is an example of part of the reason we need a good standards base for the space industry.  Too many engineers, scientists and managers need to get work done for their projects to move along, but they do not have sufficient experience to clearly state what needs to be done.  They are not delegating technical tasks effectively. And no wonder, if it takes over a decade to fly a single space project.

If you are working on a project and you find yourself stymied by the task definition you are assigned, do you look at which standards may exist to help you? Working from a standard basis is the surest way to deliver a credible product.  If there are no standards, does it make sense that writing down the basics of what you did may save you, or a co-worker, some time in the future? And that you can save your customer time and money on future projects!

When (not "if") you find yourself in need on standards development for space systems or services, contact us at the Space Infrastructure Foundation.  You can get me at freds@spacestandards.org.

____________________________________
Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Architecture - A definition you can get your hands around?

Architecture seems to be used all over the place, and unless you are building a house, the word seems to differ with each use.  I've struggled with the less well defined terms and concepts in Enterprise Architecture such as: architecture, viewpoint and view.  Sometimes everything makes sense.  Other times, not so much.  Here are some thoughts that might make it all easier to grasp.

For large enterprises, architecture has evolved to describe the enterprise and the logical decomposition of its elements. The purpose in the evolution of architecture is to enable visibility of appropriate levels of detail from relevant perspectives.

For those who are mathematically inclined, I introduce the following description:

First, think of an enterprise information set which includes all the data and the information of that enterprise and capture all that information in a multidimensional matrix we will call E.

Second, define a multidimensional matrix, IX, which is has dimensions less than E, and the subscript X can have values X=O, Sys, Ser, T or other. IO will correspond to the identity matrix for an Operational viewpoint; ISys will correspond to the identity matrix for a Systems viewpoint; ISer will correspond to the identity matrix for a Services viewpoint; IT will correspond to the identity matrix for a Technical Standards viewpoint; and, Iother matrices will correspond to the identity matrix for any other viewpoints.

Taking the product of the matrix E and the matrix IX is defined as EX. EX is the view based on the X viewpoint. In equation form

E * IX = EX

There is no definition of these matrices beyond this conceptual level.

In words, if I look at the enterprise from a particular viewpoint such as systems, then what I see is the systems view of the enterprise. In Enterprise Architecture common viewpoints are systems (also known as products), services, functional and operational. Other, less common, viewpoints are financial and communications. Any perspective however, can generate a view of the enterprise. A perspective has value when it provides insight into the enterprise for decision makers.

If we want to define the architecture for the global (actually, transnational) space enterprise, we must include the common views at a minimum.

The New Year 2010

Looking forward on a transnational space industry, signs are encouraging.  Commercial space activity is on a growth path and government constraints to market forces are under review.
The space standards community is struggling with the effects of commercialization, but at least the community knows the future will be more commercial than the past.
New activity this year will see manned spaceflight as an emerging area for international standards development.  Regional and national level standards are also growing, but there is awareness that the market is transnational. New strategies will include some aspect of technical architecture.  In parallel, technical architecture is being defined in a more stable fashion.
In 2010, expect the barriers to trade to continue to fall. Expect the realization of opportunities for space infrastructure development to continue to mature, driving the need for better architecture and well defined standards.