The United States of Australia goes global

By Dharshun Sridharan Co-Founder - Piston Labs and Nipuni Silva, People Stream – Piston Labs

Space as a Global Domain

These are just some of the world’s first Astronauts, Cosmonauts or Taikonauts to have represented their respective countries in Space. There are more! But it’s important to note that these names are not mentioned for any specific reason, but rather to highlight the multijurisdictional and multi-cultural affair that is Space.

For the last fifty years, countries around the world have defined their own Space strategies to enable investment for research and development (R&D) to unlock the true value and opportunities from the Space Domain. Interestingly, some countries have gone to extended efforts to further create individual strategies for individual sub-jurisdictions, such as Australia (and its states/territories). Whilst this is not a negative thing, it can often lead to duplication across the Space Supply Chain, some efficient and some not, leading to mis-coordination of the industry and can detract away from a streamlined and united objective for Australia in the Space Domain.

A high-level analysis across global Space Domain participants highlights a slightly differing message, as the concept of sovereignty plays its part. But this dis-united nature is not the purpose of the article, but rather, it is to analyse the commonalities across the Space Domain to emphasise the need for a Global & Interoperable Space Strategy. In this instance, specifically for Australia.

This globalised ideology highlights jurisdictions that may be considered the world’s subject matter experts in a particular capability, to allow Australia to find its place in Space and enable rich participation and leadership. Starting with this viewpoint, can enable a specific jurisdiction to focus on a specific capability, and then, if still warranted, coordinate capability building activities across the Space Supply Chain at a sub-jurisdictional level.

Space Supply Chain: The Hypothesis

The state-by-state hypothesis presented in Part One of this article, had been derived purely by the locations of a specific capability’s Centre of Excellence (CoE). But it does highlight the need to consider other factors and requires a deep review of Australia’s Supply Chain and National Operating Model. Worth emphasising in this review would be the identification of upstream and downstream capabilities beyond the Space Domain. This in itself forms a separate body of work to fully assess the positives and negatives of such an Operating Model shift. It is a body of work that would be warranted in order to move from the innovation or disruption phases of the industry, to one that is more mature and operationally sustainable in approach.

Accordingly, whilst the below considerations do not list the entirety of the discussion required, it does highlight aspects that should be considered, or have failed to have been considered in the recent past, leading to a flurry of decisions being made on how to grow the Space industry without stifling innovation and growth.

There is a critical mass required within a specific capability for it to flourish, else it risks not having enough resources and investment to improve perpetually and continuously. On the flip side, oversaturation of a capability may also lead to economic instability. The immediate step in correction of a potential situation (or situations) akin to the above is through the manipulation of the industry to incentivise efforts and investment in other untouched capabilities. For example, there is a perception that the satellite or launch capabilities are drawing most of the investment, and therefore other aspects may be left behind, which could end up being Australia’s niche. Whether this perception is true or not, the usage of incentivisation practices could be a way to balance out the industry and encourage growth along the Space Supply Chain.

The negative effects of this were faced during COVID-19 whereby the impacts of not having a sustainable Supply Chain in Australia for various products was felt. For example, the shortage of ventilators during the heights of the pandemic.

There is an optimal level of redundancy required in some industries to ensure quality and efficacy, but this is a careful balance between innovation, disruption, disintegration, and consolidation of an industry. However, this in itself can be managed through cross-industry relationships, whereby elements of the Space Supply Chain are utilised by other industries.

Whilst not exhaustive, one can understand the complexities of setting up the state-by-state hypothesis as the underpinning Operating Model for the Space industry within Australia, when overlayed with these considerations. However, it should be noted that a coordinated, streamlined, and sustainable Space Supply Chain is a necessary component in supporting the ambitions of Australia’s Space industry, especially given the cross-industry interactions such a movement would benefit from.

Australia’s Role in the Space Supply Chain: A Proposition

Understanding where Australia plays a significant role in the Global Space Supply Chain means identifying the relevant capabilities and their CoE. Identifying and implementing the state-by-state Operating Model aligned to each state or territory’s CoE for a particular capability-set, forms the first step.

The second step then becomes understanding the maturity of each capability within the borders of Australia, and as it relates to the wider Global ecosystem. The rest of this article.

Only at this point can it be clearly identified which capabilities give Australia an edge in the Global Space Domain and which capabilities are a necessary part of Australia’s sovereign capability and a necessity for our own sovereign operations. What this means is, at this point, a capability or a group of capabilities may be identified, enabling Australia to commercialise this offering to become a service provider of it to the rest of the world.

For example, NASA has regarded Australia’s robotics and autonomous systems capability and its remote operations capability as world-class, and a real potential and frontrunner for utilisation in lunar or other off-world resource extraction efforts. The current NASA Deputy Administrator, Pamela Melroy, had even mentioned this during the NASA Contingent visit in 2023. This is a capability that may be predominately apparent in Western Australia, but is actually one that is a national capability, with the likes of CSIRO leading a similar, yet augmentative charge, in this domain.

The exercise to identify Australia’s place in the Global Space Domain begins to place the nation into a position where, like NASA (or USA), may have a capability that is too advanced to be ignored and thereby becoming a critical part for the future exploration, research, and development of off-world applications. And it’s not just us, Canada is an excellent example of a country who has gone through hurdles to become a pioneer in Space Robotics. The story below is one that Australia could adopt in capturing the international audience with a nation-defining capability.

CANADA’S STORY

Canada's journey towards becoming a pre-eminent destination for space robotics is a testament to its visionary approach, unwavering commitment to innovation, and strategic foresight. The nation's emergence as a go-to country in this field can be traced back to its early recognition of the immense potential of robotics in the Aerospace sector.

In the early 1980s, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) initiated the Space Engineering Program, laying the foundation for Canada's expertise in space robotics. This visionary step led to the establishment of key institutions like the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), which became instrumental in advancing the country's space ambitions.

A pivotal factor in Canada's rise to prominence in space robotics has been its collaborative partnerships with international space agencies, most notably NASA. These alliances facilitated the launch of the first Canadarm on the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1981, a historic achievement that showcased Canada's capabilities. The subsequent development of the Canadarm series and the sophisticated robotic hand, Dextre, for the International Space Station solidified Canada's reputation as a vital contributor to space exploration.

Canada's success in space robotics can be attributed to its unwavering commitment to innovation. Strategic investments in research and development, along with a vibrant ecosystem of collaboration between academia, industry, and government, have fostered a culture of technological advancement. The CSA, in close partnership with the country's industry, has played a pivotal role in pushing the boundaries of space robotics.

Through its visionary approach, strategic partnerships, and unwavering commitment to innovation, Canada has emerged as a global leader in space robotics. Its contributions have not only propelled the frontiers of space exploration but have also showcased the nation's ability to nurture innovation and solidify its position in Aerospace technology. As Canada continues to invest in research and development and embrace emerging technologies, its trajectory as the world's go-to country for space robotics is poised to continue, shaping the future of space exploration.

The conceptualised supply chain, as represented in the Conceptualised Space Supply Chain image above, could be replicated for the international domain, highlighting a potential conceptual Global Supply Chain depiction of the international ecosystem. Diving into the details of each country’s strategy would have a similar, yet create an internationalised depiction of the Supply Chain. Whilst this hasn’t been performed in this article, the depiction would hint at this Globalised lens, providing for a European Space Agency (ESA)-like model.

For context, a high-level scan over the NASA and ESA model highlights two differentiating features. The NASA model seeks to retain a highly specified sovereign capability set that includes coverage over most, if not all, the domains required for a Space Superpower. This in effect, highlights the state or territory-based model, having a specific jurisdiction as the CoE.

ESA on the other hand, due to its ‘regional’ appearance, is much more internationalised in its concept, providing for each country in the European Ecosystem to play its part in providing a sensical contribution to the European Space arena. Therefore, highlighting a much more internationalised collaboration model, suggesting that Australia’s place in the Global Space Supply Chain is truly its Robotics and autonomous systems and remote operations capabilities.

Whilst the purpose of this article is not to critically analyse Australia’s place in the Global Space Domain, it does in effect emphasis the need to focus on a National Capability by identifying where the nation’s strengths and weaknesses exist. In this case, it could be argued, very strongly, that this lies in the Robotics and Autonomous Systems and Remote Operations capabilities. The benefit of this identification, therefore, can drive directed investment, educational programs, international partnerships to help accelerate Australia’s Space Industry and the connected value chain.

Space Supply Chain Operating Model: Hub-and Spoke

Based on analysis conducted over Part One and Two, the way forward becomes one that emphasising the interconnection between National Interoperability (i.e., hub and-spoke Operating Model) and Global Interoperability (i.e., Australia’s place in Space).

This emphasis becomes centric to proliferating the concept of state-based collaboration, not competition, before enabling nation-based collaboration. Australia is whole when all its states and territories are functioning together. COVID-19 highlighted several difficulties in national coordination due to the three tiers of government (Federal, state, local), but Space is one such Domain where difficulties (and failure) is not an option.

Individual state-based strategies exist today, and whilst some seek to align to Australia’s Civil Space Strategy – they also build an unhealthy level of competition, at the expense of collaboration, and do not entirely highlight where the true CoEs reside. Like any participant in any industry, it is highly unlikely that an organisation can be a leader in everything. Sometimes, being a fast follower, or a user is the best approach.

A collaboration-first strategy, in a disruptive yet innovative industry, demands leadership from the front – the Australian Space Agency plays this role. Each state and territory already have world-leading skills, resources, and Subject Matter Experts. These should be inputs into deciding which state or territory retains the ‘Leader’ role (i.e. hubs) and which play the ‘Follower’ role (i.e, spokes). This highlights the need for the delegation of partial responsibility for the operationalisation of the Australian Space Agency’s strategy to the individual states and territories, rather than transfer of complete responsibility. With this delegation implemented, the strategies of individual states and territories would be much more targeted than the strategies that exist today.

For reference (and as mentioned section 4), whilst not jurisdiction centric, NASA, follows a similar model, albeit it is more facility focused. Each facility is the CoE for a different capability, with the other facilities in the NASA ecosystem being in existence to support one another and create a country-wide collaborative model.

There are a number of additional considerations that need to be made, that include strategic direction for the nation, but also sovereignty requirements. Most importantly, this would be a recurring activity as the Space ecosystem continues to develop over time.

As re-iterated numerous times, this is not an indictment on the current skillsets and areas of interest or focus for each state or territory, but rather an opportunity to define a collaborative and ‘completed puzzle’ Operating Model to operationalise the Australian Space Agency’s national strategies.

NASA depicts a healthy template for interstate collaboration, whilst ESA depicts a healthy template for international collaboration. These templates are what have been suggested for Australia to follow as it matures.

Collaboration will Unlock the Space Domain

Disruption and innovation happen. Sometimes triggered by negative factors, and sometimes positive. The Space Domain is undergoing that.

To get to that steady state, as represented in the Disruption Maturity Curve image, there is a need for collaboration for the purposes of achieving the ultimate objective, whatever it may be.

This article has highlighted an overarching suggestion to effectively strategise at the national level, before delegating to particular states and territories where a specialist capability exists (hubs) for operationalisation and collaboration, before creating further spokes as necessary to ensure a sufficient Space Supply Chain. This in turn highlights the effectiveness of a hub-and-spoke Operating Model.

NASA depicts a healthy template for interstate collaboration, whilst ESA depicts a healthy template for international collaboration. These templates are what have been suggested for Australia to follow as it matures.

Whether these suggestions highlighted through this report are enacted within the short-term, in the long-term, or as the industry settles into this steady state, the hub and-spoke Operating Model will likely fall into line with how a matured industry operates. Ultimately, states and territories in alignment, regardless of borders and naturally collaborating, in the Space Domain, is the key.