Astronauts' Watch of Choice

Due to the high frequency at which recent news reported successes of NASA's Orion and SpaceX's ventures, I have been writing about these topics rather than others. Now, I will deviate a bit from space exploration and write about an unusual and exceptional timepiece - the OMEGA Speedmaster Skywalker.

OMEGA's Speedmaster Skywalker X-33
Credit: OMEGA

Since the early Sixties, the OMEGA's Speedmaster has been purchased by NASA for its astronauts to serve on manned space missions, including Apollo 11 - making it the first watch to be worn by an astronaut walking on the moon.

The Speedmaster Skywalker X-33, OMEGA's most recent watch, is a watch that was initially developed to function in the extremes of space - for astronauts, essentially. The watch passed five extensive testing sessions that tested the Skywalker for space radiation, depressurization and repressurization, intense vibrations (as conditions at launch of space vessels), and exposure to high centrifugal forces. It was tested by European Space Agency's astronaut, Jean-François Clervoy. Instead of a stylish metal wristband, however, the astronaut's watch differentiates itself by its Velcro strap. Other features include alarm, chronograph (greatly accurate time), date, perpetual calender, timer, MET (Mission Elapsed Time), and PET (Phase Elapsed Time). It is a beautiful, highly functional timepiece, as commonly expected from OMEGA. 

OMEGA's Speedmaster Skywalker X-33
Credit: OMEGA

Some above mentioned space-specific functionalities seem useless on the surface of the earth, where the common person (who in this case is not really "common" - buyers are  dedicated collectors that are affluent enough to put down $5,000 (and above) for this marvelously engineered and designed timepiece) would wear the Skywalker. The promotional benefit of its high functionality in the extremes of space and its relationship with NASA's and ESA's space programs are important characteristics that drive the sales of this particular watch - a benefit that sets the brand apart from its competitors. This unique relationship is something that OMEGA should continue to take advantage of.

by Peter Steenhuis

Sources:
http://www.omegawatches.com/news/international-news/international-news-detail/2847
http://www.omegawatches.com/collection/speedmaster/skywalker-x-33/presentation/skywalker-x33?watchHubRef=31890457901001
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/omega.html

SpaceX's Reusable Falcon 9

SpaceX, contracted through NASA 's Commercial Resupply Services, is planned to launch its fifth cargo shipment mission to the International Space Station in early January (delayed until 6th of January from the 19th of December, on the Friday the launch was supposed to be). SpaceX, with a heavy dose of innovation, is increasingly gaining business through NASA contracts. Friday's mission will simultaneously act as a testing session for a new, unique launch rocket.  The company has been working on reusable launch vehicles - maybe not a completely new idea, but the SpaceX has actually been acting on it, with proper investment. 


Past Liftoff of Falcon 9
Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX's Falcon 9-R, which is third version of the Falcon rockets currently being developed and refined, is designed to be partially reusable. More specifically, the first-stage booster will be reusable after, for instance, cargo missions to the ISS. The Falcon 9-R, after delivery, would drop back down through the atmosphere and land aboard a landing pad on a recovery ship in the ocean - an undertaking that demands high precision. "While SpaceX has already demonstrated two successful soft water landings, executing a precision landing on an unanchored ocean platform is significantly more challenging," according to a SpaceX news release. If this important test of the reusable Falcon 9 rocket is successful (probability for success: 50%), a new standard for launch services will be set. If the recovery fails, critical data will be collected nonetheless, and the next test will potentially be more successful.



Innovative X-Wings on SpaceX's Falcon 9 - assistance to landing on platform
Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX Landing Platform
Credit: SpaceX

Reusability will offer several advantages, of which one is tremendous cost savings in the long-run. Thus, launch prices for NASA and private companies will experience declines. Parallel, demand for SpaceX's services will increase marginally with decreasing prices - Musk envisions launch price per pound to drop down to as low as $500 in the near future. Launch price for Falcon 9, with a capacity of some 13,150 kg into the Low Earth Orbit (LEO), is $61.2 million - at full capacity some $4,654 per pound.

This innovation gives SpaceX  a competitive advantage over competing private companies, such as Arianespace, a sizable European launch service provider. Besides lower prices, Elon Musk drives SpaceX to continually improve performance. According to the Motley Fool, "SpaceX's reusable rocket ship could cut the cost of satellite launches by 74% off what ULA charges the U.S. Government." ULA (United Launch Alliance), a partnership between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, could slowly lose market share if they do not start to come up with their own way to drive down prices of their launch offerings - the development of reusable launch vehicles should be a priority. Otherwise, ULA might not be able to effectively compete for much longer.

by Peter Steenhuis

Feel free to leave a comment!

Sources:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-spacex-update-launch-of-resupply-mission-to-the-space-station/#.VIycNRyomFk
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/12/14/spacex-invents-an-x-wing-sort-of-introducing-falco.aspx
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/12/16/x-marks-spot-falcon-9-attempts-ocean-platform-landing

Orion and Lockheed Martin's Space Systems

After yesterday's irritating, inconvenient winds and complications with the valves of the Delta IV Heavy rocket that had delayed the initial launch, today's launch as well as the initial test flight of NASA's Orion Spacecraft was successful and historic. The $370 million test flight collected crucial data on Orion's major systems - data necessary to reach the ultimate goal: maximize safety for humans that will soon (2021, potential first voyage) travel inside the capsule. Orion - a technological marvel - was designed and built for future human-based missions to distant destinations in our solar system, including Mars (by the mid 2030's) and a rendezvous with an asteroid (as early as 2021).

Delta IV Heavy take off - on the morning of the 5th of December

Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Orion Contract
What today is the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) and The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA), was awarded the Orion contract back in 2006 - a contract that was then valued at $8.15 billion. In 2010, after the Constellation program, of which Orion was part, was cancelled by the President due to political/budgetary issues, NASA proposed a new plan to develop a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. Lockheed Martin, who is the prime contractor/builder of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, is the leader of the Orion industry team that includes major subcontractors Aerojet Rocketdyne, United Technologies Aerospace Systems, and Honeywell as parts of an expansive nationwide supply chain network that brought the Orion program to where it is today and to places it will go in the future. Successful execution ("execution," in general) of future missions, on the other hand, depends on government's appropriation of funds. According to the Wall Street Journal, "NASA faces years of daunting technical and financial challenges. The overall systems could cost more than $20 billion through 2021."

Lockheed Martin
According to Lockheed's 2013 annual report, the company's Space Systems business segment, which not only includes Orion and earnings from ULA but also research and development, design, engineering, and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems for national security, experienced net sales of $7.96 billion in the 2013 fiscal year, which is 18% of its total consolidated net sales of $45.4 billion, and operating profit of slightly more than $1 billion, thus making the operating margin of the Space Systems segment 13.1% (overall consolidated operating margin was  slightly less than 10%). Northrop Grumman, which is one of Lockheed's main competitors, experienced sales on its Aerospace Systems (comparable to Lockheed's Space Systems) of slightly more than $10 billion and operating income of $1.2 billion. In the 2013 fiscal year, Northrop's Aerospace Systems' operating margin was 12.1% - a margin smaller than Lockheed's. 

Government contracts account for 98% of the Space Systems segment, which includes NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and several branches of the military (Navy and Air Force). In the case of Northrop, U.S. government contracts account for 86%. The Orion program, on an annual basis, is only a medium contributor to Lockheed's sales for this business segment, and even smaller for the consolidated.

Trying to figure out what the point of this blog post is going to be, I thought I could discuss the importance of the Orion program for NASA and for Lockheed Martin.

• For Lockheed in its entirety, Orion is only a fraction of its business - the company could live without the program, which, however, it would rather not do - something that I would not advise them to do. The point is, in Lockheed's operation, Orion is a great component to its programs portfolio, but not absolutely vital. Still, the Orion program sharpens the competitive edge against competitors, such as Northrop.
• Oppositely, NASA, with missions directly affecting humanity, depends on Orion as an program that explores new frontiers of science and technology. Missions, that essentially are for the greater good of the public, depend on government funding to continue the exploration of space, milestone after great milestone. Importance that is paramount.

In my opinion, the return on investment of the Orion program, regarding the gain of scientific and technological knowledge and insight as well as positive impact on the economy due to program spending (almost exclusively inside the United States) is much greater than its cost. 

by Peter Steenhuis

Sources:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/2013-Annual-Report.pdf
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/orion-eft1.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-02/nasas-orion-test-flight-gets-us-closer-to-mars?hootPostID=945e0ef1c8405c785a2dbdd3b90ca373
http://www.space.com/27924-nasa-orion-spacecraft-historic-launch.html
http://www.space.com/27909-nasa-orion-capsule-mars-exploration.html
http://www.space.com/27918-nasa-orion-spacecraft-by-the-numbers.html
http://online.wsj.com/articles/orion-spacecraft-set-for-second-launch-attempt-1417771599

Made In Space: 3D-Printing the Future

Made In Space Logo
Credit: Made in Space, Inc.

Made In Space, Inc., an independently funded private California start-up, was founded in 2010 with a paramount goal: "enabling humanity's future in space." Working in collaboration with NASA, Made In Space has developed the Zero-G Printer, a 3D-printing device that is designed to operate in conditions of zero gravity, hence, in space. Being the first of its kind, the 3D-printer, that has been delivered to the International Space Station and produced its first part on the 24th of November, will revolutionize the way engineers handle maintenance on board the ISS. According to space.com, "a recent study by the space agency (NASA) found that about 30 percent of parts aboard the orbiting lab could be manufactured with a 3D-printer," but it could also build tiny satellites, or CubeSats, directly in the space station instead of building them on earth and launching them into the outer atmosphere, which is a tremendously expensive undertaking - costs, that now can be saved. With 3D-printing abilities, costs of supplying the space station with parts will potentially experience a substantial decrease, and so will overall risk that is faced at every launch and cargo shipment.

The Zero-G Printer
Credit: Made In Space, Inc.

Long-Term Sustainability?
The device offers fantastic, revolutionary features, but is Made In Space's business model sustainable in the long-term? The device was developed with the idea that it will be used on longer-term missions, for the exploration of space, for which, of course, it would be vital. However, how would Made In Space sustain it's innovative business in the near future? It cannot depend purely on the dreams to colonize the moon and mars - ventures that are amazing and awe-inspiring, but not any less risky for the company, especially in terms of time and product demand. Time: uncertainty over when in the future the device will be needed (two, ten, or twenty years form now?). Product demand: how many of these devices will be needed? It's hard to imagine that a great number will make their way into space - probable is that only a few devices will be necessary for individual missions. In other words, its not a model of strong repeatability.

Competition
Even though the 3D-printing industry is in its early stages, the market becomes increasingly saturated with developers and manufacturers of 3D-printers. Competition is strong: a quick search on Google will reveal the great availability of 3D-printers, 3D-scanners, cartridges, and design software, from established companies, such as Makerbot Industries and 3DSystems, Inc., that are highly focused on the end-consumer. These companies have a head-start, which creates a decent competitive advantage over Made In Space. The market need for 3D-printers that function in zero gravity is tremendously small, more than niche. Having the zero gravity feature for a printing device on the International Space Station makes clear sense, but the need for Made In Space's units after that is difficult to measure. This, I can imagine, is one of the greater challenges the company faces. How would the company successfully monetize a product which priced features are superfluous on earth?

Business apart from Space

Naturally, brand equity, or image, experiences a strong boost due to NASA's utilization of Made In Space's device on the International Space Station, which might drive a business' or individual's decision to make the investment and choose to purchase a 3D-printer from Made In Space; however, the company's printer will not stay unique for long since the European Space Agency, with industrial partners, is planning to launch its own to the ISS next year, as well. So what could Made In Space do to survive in the long-term? To not fall behind, there are several ways to increase competitiveness:

Core Growth

• monetize the connection with NASA and promote the successful application in space to stir interest of potential customers and grow market share 
• have consumers, commercial and private, completely understand the abilities of the device, including materials availability and ease of use
• deliver superior customer value and first-class customer service
• make pricing competitive, so consumers, whether these are businesses or individuals, will consider the device from Made In Space over others
• perhaps, offer the device for a lower than average price, and then generate revenues from additional contractual services, such as assistance in design, customization, maintenance, and so on
• the automotive industry, especially suppliers, local parts-retailers, and collision centers, offers great opportunities worth pursuing
• standardize the device to minimize its costs, but offer possibilities to customize the abilities of the machine to match specific customer needs

New Initiatives

• continue innovation and initiate additional cutting-edge projects, as the material recycler (fantastic project) and the food printer (revolutionizing if made possible)

Made In Space, Inc. is an innovative, extraordinary, cool and young company that has a great vision for the future - a vision, however, that is quite altruistic in its nature. A little selfishness, or a focus on the company's own sustainability in the long-term, would not hurt and might make it competitive on the earthly market. Great possibilities.

by Peter Steenhuis

Sources:
http://www.madeinspace.us/
http://www.space.com/27870-3d-printer-made-in-space-op-ed.html
http://www.space.com/27860-3d-printing-space-exploration.html?adbid=10152471492361466&adbpl=fb&adbpr=17610706465&cmpid=514630_20141126_36246777

Space Tourism - Waste of Funding?

Photograph: Phillip Toledano
Credit: theguardian.com

Stéphane Israël, CEO and Chairman of the global-leader of launch service providers (launcher of ESA's Rosetta), Arianespace SA, stated that because space tourism does not benefit enough people, and given "a new space race" between India, China, the United States, and other nations (that is allegedly underway), space tourism should not be prioritized by government funding. Let me explain why I think he needs to reconsider.

According to The Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald, which reported on an interview between Israël and Fairfax Media, Australasia's leading multi-platform media company (and publisher of AFR and SMH), Arianespace's chief executive has said the he does not believe in space tourism - it even is a waste of funding. In Israël's opinion, tourism operations, such as Virgin Galactic's and potentially SpaceX's (being also a strong competitive threat to Arianespace's cargo business due to SpaceX gaining market share and continuously reducing costs - economies of scale), should not be a priority for government funding. "But he also said government support and funding should be kept for space programs that focused on helping as many people as possible rather than wealthy space tourists on services like Virgin Galactic." 

"If I had a dream it would be more about using space to deliver global connections to humanity than a few seconds of space tourism." - Stéphane Israël. I ask, why not fund both?

To coarsely sum up my understanding of Israël's opinion:

1. A new, competitive space race is underway, so scientific exploration should be funded, exclusively, and funding should not be wasted on space tourism.
2. Space tourism does not benefit enough people, so, again, funding should not be wasted on it.

I understand his points, but I have to disagree. The existence of a space race, similar to the one between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, I find to be highly unlikely. Today, collaboration on scientific ventures as well as the sharing of recently gained scientific and technological insight between nations is quite common. The cooperation on generating new ideas, designing new technology, and executing marvelous missions, speak against the threat of a new space race. Today, value is found in sharing and collaboration, rather than in hoarding and isolation. I do think that scientific exploration and research in space deserve more funding than it currently has access to - for the benefit of humanity; however, my point is: that's simply not a good reason to stop, or neglect, assistive funding for space tourism operators. There is a greater, potential economic impact to be achieved - a reality that should be embraced rather than rejected.

While by 2022 according to Reuters, "the space tourism industry ... is expected to be worth $1 billion," the three following types of impact from space tourism, all which call for innovation in products and services, create a chain reaction, a multiplier effect, that strongly amplifies value for the global economy:

1. There is a direct impact from spending on inputs, such as engines, computers, other resources necessary to manufacture space vessels, build ports and facilities. While the salaries of thousands of employees will be used to purchase consumer goods and services, supporting livelihoods and creating substantial economic activity.
2. In supplier industries, there is an indirect impact from the spending on inputs, such as composites, raw materials, electrical wiring, and semi-conductors (and so on) to build components. And here again, employee salaries in the supplier industry will continuously be utilized to purchase consumer goods and services, positively impacting local, state, as well as national economies.
3. An induced impact, on consumer goods and services industries, as housing, entertainment, food, and clothing, is generating benefits down the line due to the multiplier effect.

It does so much more than simply serving the wealthy end-consumers. Space tourism is a great, innovative addition to the global economy - a brand new industry - that eventually supports itself from paying end-consumers at an increasing demand rate with potentially declining ticket prices. Furthermore, for new and innovative technologies and software, that are being developed here, other application will ultimately be found. 

by Peter Steenhuis

Sources:

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us/service-solutions.asp

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/focus_on_astronauts_not_space_tourists_degGHu6r8jpKOfb3NCb3YL

http://www.fairfaxmedia.com.au/Company/Corporate-Profile/corporate-profile

http://www.smh.com.au/business/space-tourism-is-a-waste-of-humanitys-time-says-arianespace-chief-executive-stephane-israel-20141120-11qfv8.html

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38331spacex-challenge-has-arianespace-rethinking-pricing-policies
http://www.spacex.com/about
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-usa-space-tourism-idUSBRE82J0W720120320