The Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC) is the biggest professional meeting for planetary scientists. I’ve gone to most of the meetings since my first one in 2009 as an undergrad. After a decade of attending LPSC, I hit a professional milestone by submitting an LPSC abstract that was rejected with the following message:

”The program committee felt that this abstract is a policy document better suited for the planetary decadal survey or white paper inputs to government officials, rather than a science, mission or instrument paper which would be appropriate for LPSC.”

My goal with this abstract was to provide perspective to the planetary science community about the changes that are happening outside their academic/research bubble that could impact how we explore the solar system. In an attempt to get that message out, here is the abstract that I submitted:

Opportunities & Challenges for Planetary Science with the Growing Commercial Deep Space Sector

Traditionally, planetary science missions are bespoke projects funded entirely by government agencies such as NASA. Over the past few years, the capabilities of the commercial space sector have begun to overlap with the interests of the planetary science community, creating new avenues for scientific investigation and collaboration. This exciting new era presents a number of opportunities but also challenges, outlined here from the perspective of a planetary scientist working in the commercial space sector.

Opportunities

New Exploration Paradigms. With the increasing participation of commercial organizations in deep space exploration, never before have there been so many “shots on goal,” in the words of NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. For example, Blue Origin (in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper Labs) intends to send a human-rated lander to the Moon; SpaceX talks of sending humans to Mars in its Starship spacecraft; 14 companies are competing for robotic lunar landers in the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. While not all projects may succeed, those that do will carve a new path for planetary exploration outside a government agency.

Small Satellites (Smallsats). Smallsats, which include CubeSats, are spacecraft with an unfueled mass of <180 kg. Crucially, the Earth-orbiting smallsat market has resulted in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) buses and components that enable lower mission costs even as smallsats become increasingly capable. (In 2018, NASA’s MarCO technology demonstration at Mars marked the first use of a CubeSat in deep space.) NASA’s Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) program supports the use of COTS components to keep missions costs below a cap of $55M, much more aggressive than Discovery missions ($500M). Notably, other NASA science directorates have already successfully flown smallsats using COTS components, such as the 2016 hurricane- tracking mission CYGNSS. By leveraging the technical progress of the Earth-orbiting satellite market, SIMPLEx provides a low-cost mission program for the planetary science community to ask well-defined, focused questions about our solar system.

Lower Barrier to Entry & Greater Involvement. An ancillary benefit of smallsats is that nations interested in becoming space-faring can more easily do so on a SIMPLEx-level budget rather more expensive mission classes. The MILO Space Science Institute, an initiative led by Arizona State University with Lockheed Martin and GeoShare, provides an example of how to leverage the relative affordability of smaller spacecraft platforms for the benefit of nations interested in space exploration.

NASA-funded Industry Collaborations. Like other US government agencies, NASA is proactive in providing opportunities for engagement with American small businesses whose interests are aligned with theirs. Examples relevant to planetary scientists include:

Balloon & Suborbital Flight Opportunities: NASA pays for payloads that can be launched on balloons or suborbital launches. Industry partners include Blue Origin, World View, and others.
CLPS Payload Development: In 2018, NASA solicited instrumentation and technology demonstrations to be flown on CLPS landers. These programs were Development & Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation (DALI) and Lunar Surface Instrument and Technology Payloads (LSITP).
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) & Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR): These programs provide opportunities for any US small business to develop technologies in response to solicitations by US government agencies including NASA. Proposals must be led by small businesses but can include research institutions and universities, providing an alternative pathway for funding the development of innovative technologies for planetary exploration.

Each of these programs provides avenues for commercial organizations and researchers based at government labs or universities to collaborate. More broadly, increasing the number of flight opportunities with smallsats will give more planetary scientists experience with the complexities of implementing space-bound hardware.

Jobs & Advisory Roles. Product-driven corporations in mature terrestrial industries such as oil & gas, pharmaceuticals, and biomedical research typically have robust research & development (R&D) programs. R&D departments are often staffed with scientists performing applied research for the development of future products. While some NASA prime contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Ball Aerospace have planetary scientists on staff, anecdotally, those hired typically also have engineering backgrounds. Such companies have not typically recruited planetary scientists without an engineering experience, but that may be changing. In 2019, Blue Origin hired Steve Squyres, PI for the Mars Exploration Rovers, as its Chief Scientist and unveiled the its Science Advisory Board of six lunar scientists to advise development of its Blue Moon lander. Additionally, Lockheed Martin recently solicited an entry-level planetary scientist with geochemistry and astrobiology expertise without a requirement for engineering experience. Though just a couple examples, they may be signaling the commercial space industry’s growing recognition of the perspectives of planetary scientists as valuable to their corporate strategy.

Challenges

Limited Market. Companies are—at the most basic level—motivated to operate a sustainable business. For a company to survive, it must either generate profit or solicit investment. In order to profit, there must be a market and customer base from which to generate revenue. This presents a challenge for deep space exploration, where the only customers at the moment are government agencies. Thus, companies are most likely to focus their efforts on where the government funding is focused, which for NASA is currently the Moon. For that reason, planetary bodies of equivalent or even greater scientific interest are less likely to receive commercial attention. Furthermore, unless they are supported by reliable investment, companies must produce ideas that are not just technically sound but also backed by a business case that ensures corporate sustainability, which may not be aligned with scientific merit or community priorities. More bluntly, commercial entities are not beholden to align themselves with decadal surveys or NASA strategy unless it is in their best interest to do so.

Social License to Operate. With the greater capabilities of commercial space companies comes greater impact. Lessons can be learned from the mining industry, which suffers today from its long history of not soliciting and listening to the voices of all its stakeholders, including local communities. As a result, today one of the criteria for a mining project is “social license to operate,” the ongoing acceptance of a mining development by local community members that can affect its profitability. Social license to operate is necessary in space as well: SpaceX has already experienced backlash from astronomers in response to launches of its Starlink satellites, a clear indication that they did not solicit the necessary input from that community to receive social license to operate—despite having met all regulatory requirements. Similarly, companies pursuing deep space exploration should consider all stakeholders that may be impacted by their activities and act in good faith above and beyond the actions currently required by regulation.

Disconnect Between Spacecraft Developers and Data Users. While spacecraft data underpin most planetary science research activities, only a small subset of the community ever gets the opportunity to participate in an active mission. Fewer still are directly involved in spacecraft or flight instrument development for the full mission lifecycle. As such, there is often a disconnect between spacecraft developers (typically engineers) and spacecraft data users (scientists). The dynamic was captured nicely by [1]: “Scientists...always request too much without an understanding of what the spacecraft can and cannot do; engineers, for their part, are described as too protective of the vehicle, and as the saying goes, ‘would prefer to fly a spacecraft with no [scientific] instruments on it!’” Because commercial space companies are primarily in engineering in focus, this inherent tension is likely to exist as well with companies that have little experience with science-driven space missions.

Miscommunication. The community is academic in culture and social structure, where success is defined in publication count and grant awards. Commercial space companies, as described above, are incentivized to generate profit and are largely composed of engineers with few or no scientists on staff. As the two groups begin to interact more and more, their differing perspectives, motivations, priorities, and jargons may result in misunderstandings or even conflict. Space companies can mitigate this impact by hiring planetary scientists to interface with the scientific community; planetary scientists should be curious and open-minded to novel approaches from new entrants to solar system exploration.

Conclusion

Planetary science is at the cusp of a paradigm shift in how we explore the solar system and who is involved. The increasing involvement of commercial space companies presents exciting opportunities for planetary science, even if there are bumps along the way as the communities chart the best path forward. Both groups would do well to remain open and curious to new avenues of collaboration, as we all share a common desire to explore our solar system.

References: [1] Vertesi, J. (2015) Seeing Like a Rover. U. Chicago Press.