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
Another reference that might be worth a few moments of discussion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/successful-test-fire-massive-falcon-heavy-rocket-poised-boost-space-science
DB
Table E-1, p. i; Figure 3, p. 13; Figure 4, p. 14; Table 4, p. 18; Table 5, p. 18:
ReplyDeleteThese are all about amount of money invested over time. To some extent this should be redundant data in that it should result in more space missions, which will be duly scored and accounted for in our analysis when they happen. Also, importantly, seed-type investment is not likely to be a good metric of advances because a maturing industry will rely less and less on this, not more and more, and we want our metric to grow as the space industry grows. What this data does show, however, is speculative excitement - nice if you like space, but hardly a basis for measuring actual progress in space exploration.
Figure 6 is interesting in that it shows a dramatic decrease in funding projects by borrowing money, and a dramatic increase in speculative investment. This is consistent with a "hype cycle"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle) type scenario, not real progress. Recall the history of AI, with its periodic winters and periods of excitement.
Figures 8, 9, 12, 13 are logically related to the previous figures and have the same problems. Same with 17, 8, 20.
I do not think this report is useful for our core purpose. However, it does serve as a leading indicator that we might expect more missions (and a consequent impact on our metric) in a few years. So, it is interesting to read up on, and since these reports come out yearly, we might like to review them yearly. They also provide something to comment on in our accounts regarding the most recent few years as depicted in our graphs, because our graphs currently smooth based on data from before and after each year, a method that requires adjustment when applied to recent years as one always wants to do.