Dear readers,
Welcome to Quartz’s newsletter on the economic possibilities of the extraterrestrial sphere. Please forward widely, and let me know what you think. This week: It’s contractors all the way down, methods of global competition, and angels in the stock exchange.
🚀 🚀 🚀
“We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.”
A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential.
Why does this revisionist history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US.
The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs.
And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership.
As the US plans its return to the Moon, a debate is emerging about the role of private firms. NASA has hired them to do everything from sending robots on the lunar surface to developing the landers that will carry humans there. In the House, lawmakers like science committee chair Eddie Bernice Johnson are skeptical that companies can take on these tasks. This isn’t a crazy idea: Landing on another astronomical body is a greater challenge than flying to low-earth orbit, and there are far fewer obvious non-government customers in the lunar transit market.
For now, NASA has hired Elon Musk’s SpaceX to build lunar landers. Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin is challenging the government’s choice, delaying the whole program until at least August. The corporate tussle, and the two companies’ decision to market themselves as personal projects of their controversial billionaire founders, have led opponents to portray NASA’s partnerships as corporate handouts. But make no mistake: The alternative is still money for corporations—likely much more, and with fewer strings attached.
🌘 🌘 🌘
IMAGERY INTERLUDE
Three Chinese astronauts arrived safely at Tianhe, the habitat that is the core of the country’s new space station. They talked with Chinese president Xi Jinping and started unpacking, as you can see in these images broadcast on Chinese state television:
I appreciate the spiffy uniforms worn by the crew, but have to wonder if they’re operating in more casual wear when the cameras aren’t turned on.
👀 Read this 👀
If you love this newsletter, you probably love long-running global competitions designed to boost national prestige, line corporate pockets, and captivate millions of people. It’s not just Moon races—we also have the Olympics! This summer’s Tokyo Games promise to be a delightful concoction of athletic excellence, geopolitical posturing, and coronavirus paranoia. Follow along the smart way with Quartz’s pop-up Olympic newsletter, Need to Know: Tokyo Olympics.
🛰🛰🛰
SPACE DEBRIS
Critical Race Theory. What makes a “race”? Do the participants need to agree on the rules? What if one of the participants got the finish line 52 years ago? I can’t answer these questions, but they’re all relevant to the idea that the US and China are engaging in some kind of lunar contest. For context, though, space policy analyst Marcia Smith highlights that China and its partner Russia don’t envision sending humans to the Moon until 2036, which might give US planners space to offer a more realistic Moon plan than is currently on offer.
A LEO Mystery. Iridium, the satellite operator, has announced a new $30 million contract from the US Army to design payloads that will support the GPS system when carried on satellites in a different network that was not identified. The mystery network could be operated by another private firm, or one of a number of new satellite constellations being developed by the military.
The Angel’s Shares. In another route for public investors to gain exposure to private space firms, Seraphim Capital plans to go public next month on the London Stock Exchange in a deal that will raise $250 million. The company has invested in more than a dozen firms (pdf), including AST SpaceMobile and LeoLabs, and plans to add shares in companies like Spire and ICEye.
Transporter 2. Jason Statham SpaceX is back with another high-stakes mission into unforgiving territory. On Friday, June 25, the firm will launch dozens of satellites on a Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral, including vehicles from numerous venture-backed space firms, the US Space Development Agency, and the first Spaceflight “Sherpa” Orbital Transfer Vehicle with its own electric propulsion system.
Your pal,
Tim
This was issue 98 of our newsletter. Hope your week is out of this world! Please send your thoughts on the lunar lander fracas, favorite satellites being launched on Transporter 2, tips, and informed opinions to tim@qz.com.