Adamantine Space: Oversimplifying Space Industry Challenges
Space is hard. Here’s one example of space being hard:
Here’s another:
For journalism majors who must use those equations, both demonstrate that space can be very, very hard.
Overused Cliché Clouds Complexity
Every now and then, that “space is hard” sentiment pops up describing some sort of space activity.
Arguments against the sentiment’s use were raised in an article on “The Verge” eight years ago. Some people have lately used it to justify Starship’s interesting launch trajectory.
The phrase is in constant circulation in social media posts, news stories, and comments, defending the activity or noting how tiring it is to see it used to excuse a space industry failure. When space industry folks, such as those in NASA, the U.S. Space Force, or a space-focused startup highlight that space is hard, their use of the cliché encourages another level of handwringing from all sides.
However, a cliché can also be true.
In this case, there are many reasons supporting the observation that space is hard. But those reasons demonstrate that just stating “space is hard” doesn’t come close to describing the problem sets and challenges in the sector. They range from conducting collision avoidance calculations to the unknowns stemming from microgravity’s impact on human biology and beyond.
This article does a decent job of listing some of the challenges of conducting activities in space.
The article’s list is a good start in showing the problems with the cliché: space is a broad topic containing different meanings in different expertise areas. It encompasses astronomy, radiofrequency science, launch activities, satellite operations, space transportation, space investment, space spinoffs, biology, in-situ resource utilization, probes, robotics, Mars exploration, lunar exploration, alternative power sources, space debris, the space environment, and so much more.
Not only is space hard, then, but it’s also complex (which is prone to error).
There’s also the fact that an extremely small set of people have been in space. The space environment is not a part of most of humanity’s daily experience. It’s not accessible to over 99% of Earth’s population, resulting in little practical space knowledge in nearly all its aspects.
When people talk simplistically about living in space or on other worlds, it’s akin to non-swimmers talking about dogpaddling as the best way to swim because they observed someone doing that—on T.V. Theory and ideas are interesting, but experience certainly impacts both.
People noting that launching rockets, deploying satellites, transporting people through space, and many other space activities are simply achieved by using an “X” factor (i.e., airplanes just don’t fail(?), attention to detail, limited budget, etc.) are selling something.
Like many things in life, space isn’t simple. Downplaying what it takes to launch a rocket and keep humans alive in space makes light of the experience, knowledge, effort, and technologies necessary to accomplish those activities. Space holds many unknowns which include dangers and failures, but hopefully those diminish over time.
However, the difficulties in space don’t mean humans shouldn’t try and put their best feet forward.
High Demands, High Expectations
Is anyone really surprised that anything associated with space is hard? For example, people see what it takes to launch a rocket.
They see images of a satellite payload, ready to be enclosed in a fairing. They see people checking and double-checking everything about the launch vehicle. Even the activities they don’t see happening are daunting, such as ensuring the launch vehicle math is correct or that the satellite will be deployed at the correct altitude.
There are also other things, such as the space environment, which must be considered.
Will the satellites be deployed at an altitude where atmospheric drag comes into play? Is there a period of increased solar activity which expands the Earth’s atmosphere that decreases a satellite’s operational life? How would one calculate when a rocket body reenters the Earth’s atmosphere and ensure it won’t impact an inhabited area? What will a micrometeoroid impact do to a 3U cubesat’s solar panel?
Addressing those challenges isn’t impossible, but they represent a few of the many space industry challenges. The public already knows that people working in the space industry understand that space is hard. Overcoming challenges (or at least diminishing them) is a reasonable expectation levied on a group of people who decided to work in the space sector.
Many manage to do just that, which is heartening and admirable. The public expects these space professionals to make their accomplishments look easy and routine, which some do. Some manage to repeat their successes, passing on what it takes to move the space needle forward. That’s what makes them professionals.
Which is why, when certain “professionals” mention the fact that space is hard, their use of the cliché tends to make them look a little less competent.
After all, no one (aside from some entrepreneurs) thought working in the space industry would be easy. Hearing someone in their area of expertise lament about the difficulties of space might point to that person being ill-suited to working in space. Why bring up this cliché unless it’s meant to excuse something?
That seeming excuse-making prompts social media grumbles about being tired of hearing the cliché again. That grumbling should be expected.
But what should be questioned are the comments that include claims that space isn’t hard if only people did “X” or adopted “Y” technology. Their claims are extremely simplistic, usually pointing to a small facet of a complex challenge. They also (possibly inadvertently) point to something harder than space: the business of space.
Running a Business is Hard!
Startups, at least in the United States, have a hard road to navigate. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data collection of new U.S. business establishments and their survival rates over the years show fairly consistently that ~20-21% of them will fold in the first year. Five years after their establishment and less than half are still in business. Ten years later, ~36% have survived.
Put another way, if three businesses started ten years ago, then based on BLS trend data, only one of those businesses would still be around.
Reemphasizing the odds, 21% of businesses established in March 2021 didn’t survive past March 2022. That indicates a good likelihood of their survival path staying close to five- and ten-year percentages. BLS data covers 3 decades of startup activities and points to the nature of starting a business and then surviving—it’s hard!
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Space startup survival rates are likely to follow the overall business survival averages. However, that’s conjecture as, while there are plenty of reports touting the annual constant growing additions of space startups and investments, few of the often-referenced reports, nor the organizations that publish them, appear interested in documenting the failures. Survival rates for 2022 might actually be worse based on the decreases in venture capital investment in space startups.
The decrease may play into some observations from market intelligence companies about why startups fail. For example, CB Insights listed some of the most common reasons for startup failures.
At the top of the list is running out of cash or failing to raise new capital (which is the case for Virgin Orbit). Following running out of cash is that there was no market need (again, VO); the company got outcompeted (Global Eagle); the company had a flawed business model (asteroid mining, cislunar economy); or the company faced regulatory or legal challenges (Ligado).
There are more reasons on that list worth scoping out, for those intensely interested in this subject.
Making the Business Harder: Management, Monkeys, and Culture
However, those are simple and logical reasons for the space business being hard. There’s general agreement that the toughest aspect of running any business is that group of cantankerous, unpredictable, distracted, zany, messy, and hairless monkeys (humans). The conundrum is that those humans also tend to be creative, productive, interesting, and fun (at least, in healthy businesses).
Consultant Christopher Duncan described companies quite accurately and honestly in his introduction of “Unite the Tribes”:
“A company is nothing more than a collection of people with a fancy logo.”
That describes every company and organization in the world from the NASA meatball to Google. Businesses require people to become successful and thrive.
However, and distressingly to many of those businesses, people don’t need businesses to do the same. Space businesses—any business—are just conduits for people to trade their time and effort for resources that help them, and their families, thrive in society.
That’s where culture comes in. Some readers might be wondering how this relates to “space is hard.”
Here’s the answer: when someone mentions, for example, attention to detail as an answer to space is hard, that’s not a space problem, that’s a people and business culture problem. Inculcating a space business culture into focusing on the details is not simple. It requires leadership, training, reinforcement, training, knowledge, etc. It can’t be left on automatic, and it can’t be faked.
But a company’s management should never make the space business harder for the company or the team. Making space harder than necessary can be due to company culture, such as tolerating toxic behaviors in the workplace. Or not heeding common engineering practices used in building a launch pad to survive a rocket’s launch.
Space is already hard, after all. Why make a business involved in space difficult, too?
The Cliché Has No Power Over You
The good news out of all of this for those new to the industry and seeking ways into it: there’s opportunity in the space business precisely because it’s hard. A business doesn’t need to be excellent in everything it does from the start. It just needs to be better at doing one task than its competitors.
There are plenty of companies in the space industry that could use that competition. From establishing a healthy company culture to using engineers for more than generating PowerPoint slides, there are ways to minimize or avoid the reasons for failure.
The CB Insights list is a useful guide for making the space business less hard. The most common reasons identified in the list could guide those willing to learn about what NOT to do.
For example, an entrepreneur or company might determine if there is a market need for a promising technology or service. At the very least, startups should identify all competitors (space and terrestrial) and conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis. Then examine the assumptions in a business model (make it a team effort).
Those activities would be a refreshing change from how some startups operate, such as assuming everybody wants the latest space technology or service a company offers. For many potential customers, it may make more sense for them to go with a terrestrial alternative.
Space is the other area full of opportunity. That list of challenges highlighted earlier is also a list of opportunities. There are more than can be listed. There’s so much work to go around to make the space industry better, bigger, and more lucrative, that it can’t afford to push people away. It needs them, their various perspectives, talents, dedication, and stubbornness—all of it.
Of course, hairless monkeys are a creative lot. Our superpower is our ability to generate many other reasons for making business and space harder than it needs to be, especially when good intentions are involved.
Failure is always an option for us, especially in an industry in which business and space are hard already. Each challenge—space and running a business—is hard. They work together to ensure there are no guarantees in the space industry (other than it being tough).
Running a business, any business, is hard. That constant refrain of “space is hard” might cause an unintended and unnoticed casualty: the person wanting to be a part of the industry but scared off by it.
The industry needs all sorts of people willing to give the space industry a shot. For anyone getting involved, business and space are challenging, but successfully navigating each is rewarding. A one in three chance is still a chance, and significantly better than lottery odds. It’s a chance to succeed in an industry that sees its future among the stars.
John Holst is the Editor/Analyst of Ill-Defined Space, dedicated to analysis of activities, policies, and businesses in the space sector.
Contact Astralytical for your space industry analysis and insight needs, including identifying space industry opportunities.