Thread by @Jack_B_Reid

Day 2 of #SGC2022 is starting with @dylan of @VoyagerSH. "Space is a new paradigm that inspires us to re-imagine the best version of what humanity can be... that requires that we acknowledge that we aren't living up to our very best."

Recommends Victor Frankl's "Man Search of Meaning".

Refers to conventional spaceflight as "disposal airplanes."

"It's no wonder why we haven't been back to the Moon."

Points out that the number of people crossing the Karman Line is rapidly increasing (including himself), currently at around 621.

But only 24 have seen the earth in totality.

"More likely to be a billionaire or win a Nobel Prize than go to space." Thinks that this will change soon.

I find it interesting how much he is focusing on human spaceflight thus far, considering that @VoyagerSH's activities are much more diverse.

Says something about importance of human experience, beyond specific economic gain, in the eyes of many of those investing in space.

Another book recommendation, Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma."

Argues that disruption comes from the bottom of the market, not the top. Doesn't consider Tesla to be an exception, disruption didn't start until Model 3.

Points to smartphone sales compared to PC sales (the former crossed over the latter ~2012 and continued to go up).

Four Horsemen of Space Finance:

1) Illiquidity
2) High capex
3) High risk (both financial & technical)
4) Long time horizons

I do wonder the extent to which 1 is just a function of the other 3 (though I'm no venture capitalist)

Still thinks that expected returns are enormous on a longer time horizon (10+ years).

Argues that collaboration (public-private, international, standards, etc.) can mitigate the Four Hoursmen and that we need to mitigate high-profile failures.

Thinks the new @FCC deorbit rules are just the start. Industry needs standards on tech and interaction.

Says most companies with capability lack ambition, most with ambition lack capability.

I'd be really curious who he'd name in the former category (though I certainly have my guesses).

Asked about whether US should ditch things like ITAR

Glossy answer: We need to reduce barriers to collab
"Real" answer: Things that space will bifurcate, things like Five Eyes will grow. Separately there will be a Chinese led sector. Countries will have to pick which to join.

^While I don't think it's desirable, I do think his "real answer" is a pretty reasonable prediction. The Artemis Accords are likely to be an early example of countries choosing sides and developing tighter collaboration within that group.

Asked about debt versus equity in space industry (currently more reliant on the latter): It's hard to monetize specialty assets (the bank doesn't want your rocket when they foreclose on you). The high capex also inhibits free cash flow that banks like to see.

Points that other high capex industries in the past, those had government underwriting to "unlock the debt market, which is about 14x the equity market." Thinks we will need similar underwriting for the space industry.

Overall, I really enjoyed this talk, particularly the back half where he got into actual challenges and avenues. Too often the space finance folks are just being pure boosters in a way that conveys no real information. I actually got the feeling that Dylan knows his industry.