The document discusses how governments need to support commercial space initiatives and get out of the way of innovation. It argues that only businesses can create sustainable growth and jobs. Specifically, it says governments should remove barriers to commercial-off-the-shelf technologies and support commercial business proposals, using robotic satellite servicing as an example of a promising commercial idea held back by lack of policy support. It concludes that governments need intelligent policies that support industry and commercial advice, and let businesses lead when the technology is ready.

1. 10/26/2014 Lead, Follow, and Get Out of the Way I SpaceNews.com
Lead, Follow, and Get Out of the Way
By Wayne A. Ellis I Nov. 9, 2011
These are tough times, and they do not look like they will be getting easier any time soon. Past government
policy has facilitated a number of debt problems that are coming to a head the world over, and the effects of
which are dragging the global economy down, including the space economy. Many governments have been
using taxpayer funds to try and generate some kind of stimulus, but to date there does not seem to be much
effect. One thing is clear: Only business can create sustainable employment that is geared to producing
products and services that are in need. And the space industry is no different, despite its legacy of public
support and subsidization. Now is the time to release the potential of commercial ideas and innovations to start
rebuilding significant parts of our economies.
I am speaking of commercial-off-the-shelf technologies as well as commercial business initiatives. Commercial-off-
the-shelf products, by their very nature, are designed, optimized and delivered with the end-users in mind and
are made available as soon as possible because that is in the best interest of clients. To get certain sections of
the economy going, it is therefore imperative that government institutions begin to remove barriers that would
impede the adoption and implementation of key technologies that are needed now.
One of the key values of commercial-off-the-shelf products and services is that they relieve the end-user of the
work required to experience a certain benefit — in effect, commercial-off-the-shelf allows people and
organizations to optimize their time in their area of expertise, or better yet, in making better and informed
decisions. And the space industry is just one of many right now that need policy- and decision-makers to be
spending more time on making the right choices versus instituting government make-work programs.
Commercial business initiatives also should be fundamentally supported. These tend to be extensively (in time
and in resources) studied across a number of business factors such that when a company announces a
technology or process that it believes will meet a need, we can be largely assured that it has done its homework
to a great extent (as the survival of the business may depend on it). Since often there is no fallback position for
delaying activities, commercial companies are more active in pursuing innovation in order to get capabilities
fielded. And it is the rapid pursuit of innovation that is necessary to maintain competitiveness among the
various rapidly growing economies around the world.
Let's take the example of in-space robotic servicing. What is holding up this technology offering? Certainly it
cannot be the need: Over the past few years there have been a number of in-orbit incidents that, according to
the companies involved, have generated expected losses of over a half-billion dollars — money that could have
been saved or invested had an on-orbit robotic servicing system been available. These include losses due to
incorrect orbit placement, such as Express-AM4 (insured for $260 million); losses due to incorrect deployments of
satellite components, such as New Dawn ($310.2 million in lost revenue) and Telstar 14R/Estrela do Sul 2 (40
percent capacity loss); losses due to satellite system failure, such as Galaxy 15 (nine-month usage loss); losses
due to space systems running out of fuel while productive systems remain viable, such as Eutelsat W3B (a total
loss) and Amos 5i ($12 million in direct damages); and losses due to space junk occupying valuable space real
estate, such as Cosmos 2251/Iridium 33 (a total loss for Iridium). Is it really that hard to justify a business case
here? And beyond that, is it really that hard for government bodies to figure out that this is a capability whose
time has come?
The case study of Intelsat's New Dawn spacecraft is particularly ironic, considering the precarious status of that
http://www.spacenews.com/article/lead-follow-and-get-out-way 1/2

2. 10/26/2014 Lead, Follow, and Get Out of the Way I SpaceNews.com
company's possible $280 million investment in MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates' robotic servicing business
proposal. While the current plan is to provide refueling services for spacecraft lifetime extension, it is not a far-
fetched idea that the makers of the Canadarm for the space shuttle and the Mobile Servicing System for the
international space station could be up to the task of creating a robotic mechanic. In fact, with the drawdown of
shuttle operations, perhaps now is the best time to take advantage of that expert capital.
Let's also not forget the effect that an on-orbit service could have on the cost of insurance, which in 2010
provided coverage for approximately 175 satellites worth $17 billion, and whose total market capacity is in the
area of $600 million to $800 million. It should be a no-brainer that an effective and responsible service will
reduce risk to satellite builders, owners and operators. And while initial assumptions may be that this would
hurt the insurance industry with fewer systems being launched and replaced, conventional wisdom dictates that
both reduced development costs (from lower insurance and perhaps even less reliance on robust system
redundancy) and safer skies will encourage more flying, i.e., industry confidence in the space support
infrastructure should lead to the launching of more systems.
Granted, there will always be risk involved when you are trying to bring together two objects that are rapidly
moving along their orbital paths — but here again is the opportunity to move that technological yardstick even
further. I'm sure there was much trepidation in the development of air-to-air refueling technologies or in robotic
surgical procedures, but these technologies exist (and are improving) today. The point is that someone at the
right level had to have the vision and courage to support these kinds of innovations.
There are, of course, examples of increasing confidence in commercial-off-the-shelf products and commercial
innovation. The continued support and investment in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. is one, and the
passing of the torch of low Earth orbit launch insertion from U.S. government to the Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services program is another. And let us not forget the establishment of the commercial
spaceport in New Mexico. Granted, these examples are somewhat related but the message is clear: Government
needs to lead with intelligent and logical policies that support industry, follow (or at least listen to) commercial
advice that pertains to sound business practices, and get out of the way when the technology and time are
right.
Wayne A. Ellis is an independent aerospace and defense consultant with AppSpace Solutions Inc. and a board
member of the Canadian Space Society.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/lead-follow-and-get-out-way 2/2