We will discuss in more detail the following from https://brycetech.com/downloads/Bryce_Start_Up_Space_2017.pdf. HA will then take notes and add this reference to our document.
Table E-1, p. i
Figure 3, p. 13
Figure 4, p. 14
Table 4, p. 18
Table 5, p. 18
Figure 6, p. 19
Figure 8, p. 21
Figure 9, p. 22
Notes from today's meeting:
We discussed: https://brycetech.com/downloads/Bryce_Start_Up_Space_2017.pdf and
https://brycetech.com/downloads/Start_Up_Space.pdf
Some initial notes (DB):
- 2017 report focuses on investment trends. The "trends" idea merits closer attention...
- The focus is on outer space startups, a subset of private space industry
* However, a defined subset of the problem is a legitimate contender as a proxy metric or component of a hybrid metric
* It tracks history of private sector investment
+ Table E-1, p. i, summarizes
- Number of new companies per year is an interesting statistic
- The report seems to suggest that private space exploration will become an important contributor in the next several years.
- Fig. 1, p. 4 graphs #of startups per year
- This report should rather dramatically underestimate pursuit of traditional commercial space technologies (e.g. commercial satellite launches)
- Fig. 3, p. 13, graphs amount of investment over time
- Fig. 4, p. 14, graphs amount of investment over time too, but differently and with different results
why the discrepancies between Figs. 3 & 4?
- Fig. 5, p. 15 graphs seed investments (amounts and numbers) over time, but with low resolution
Tables 4 and 5 (p. 18) track investment over time with low resolution
- Fig. 6, p. 19 also graphs investment over time, low resolution
- Fig. 8, p. 21, tracks investment and investor numbers over time with higher resolution
- Fig. 9, p. 22, is similar to fig. 8 but results are diffrerent (need to find out why)
- Fig. 12, p. 24, tracks # angel investors over time, high resolution
- Fig. 13, p. 25 is similar to fig. 12 but for # of venture capital investors
- Figs. 17 & 18 & 20 track number of companies investing, but I think that is not too useful for our purposes
- The 2016 report is the first in the series while the 2017 report updates it.
* We might consider as potential metrics graphs that were in both reports and so are being reported over time in a stable manner.
VK reported on the data conversion problem he has successfully overcome with the wikipedia data table.
It would be good if he explains this issue in his report, as it was a significant time sink.
RD reported that he will be in town on Monday.
Other readings to consider for future discussion include:
- https://www.sia.org/annual-state-of-the-satellite-industry-reports/2017-sia-state-of-satellite-industry-report/ which has links to the yearly reports.
- https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1605b6e32d867f4d (that link will probably only work for DB but we can fix that as needed)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_spaceflight
- https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/science-practices/data-volume-and-units/ (NASA DATA VOLUMES)
- http://highscalability.com/blog/2017/7/5/what-is-nasa-doing-with-big-data-check-this-out.html (What is NASA Doing with Big Data? Check this Out)
- http://news.mit.edu/2013/how-to-predict-the-progress-of-technology-0306
