Lost in Space? NASA and the Changing Public-Private Eco-System in Space

U.S. public activities in space directed via NASA are undergoing change. While NASA has historically been able to drive market creation, through its procurement policy (which is much weaker in Europe), the past decade has seen a visible shift in US space policy, away from NASA-directed developments in low-Earth orbit (LEO) towards an ecosystem with a mix of private, not-for-profit, and public actors in LEO. This has fundamentally changed NASA‘s role from an orchestrating/directing role, to a more ‘facilitating’ one driven by commercialization needs. This shift in mission and approach has ramifications for the LEO ecosystem as well as NASA’s innovation policy, which has previously centred on clearly defined “mission-oriented” objectives, such as putting a man on the moon or creating the shuttle fleet. Such objectives required ‘active’ innovation policy whereby NASA both funded and ‘directed’ the innovation, within its walls and with its partners. The emerging multi-actor ecosystem approach has involved a more open-ended objective that does not have a unified nor clearly defined end-game. In this situation, NASA’s ability to shape activities in a direction in line with its mission will depend on its relationships with other members in the system. The rise of new actors in the space eco-system, and new relationships between them, presents interesting challenges for innovation policy informed by an Innovation System approach. In this paper, we critique the market failure approach of public intervention in markets and describe further work to be done in the innovation systems literature - more focus on the interactions between agents (and the type of agents) as complimentary to the dominant focus on funding programmes in innovation systems. In this paper, we present the evolving processes of NASA’s engagement in building a low-earth orbit economy to draw out case specific insights into a public agency shifting its mission to incorporate approaches to facilitate the market creation policy. The paper focuses on the way that NASA structures its new innovation policy, away from a classical supply side oriented R&D investment through NASA itself, towards a policy of orchestration and combination of instruments rather. We close the paper with a reflection on the ramifications of NASA’s approach to building a sustainable low-Earth orbit economic ecosystem.

[1]  Robert Scanlon Aligning product and supply chain strategies in the mobile phone industry , 2009 .

[2]  Mike Wright,et al.  Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems , 2014 .

[3]  H. Gemünden,et al.  Opening Up for Competitive Advantage – How Deutsche Telekom Creates an Open Innovation Ecosystem , 2009 .

[4]  F. Geels From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[5]  C. Pérez Technological revolutions and financial capital : the dynamics of bubbles and golden ages , 2003 .

[6]  Joachim Offenberg,et al.  Balancing between mutualism and exploitation: the symbiotic interaction between Lasius ants and aphids , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[7]  Susana Borrás,et al.  The Innovation Policy of the European Union: From Government to Governance , 2003 .

[8]  S. Lazzarini,et al.  Integrating supply chain and network analyses: The study of netchains , 2001 .

[9]  Brian D. Wright Grand missions of agricultural innovation , 2012 .

[10]  Linda Weiss,et al.  America Inc.?: Innovation and Enterprise in the National Security State , 2014 .

[11]  Fred Block,et al.  State of Innovation: The U.S. Government's Role in Technology Development , 2010 .

[12]  D. Mowery,et al.  Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work) , 2010 .

[13]  J. Stiglitz,et al.  Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information , 1981 .

[14]  Charles Edquist,et al.  The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art , 2001 .

[15]  Benoit Weil,et al.  Waiting games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[16]  Douglas K. R. Robinson,et al.  Multi-path mapping for alignment strategies in emerging science and technologies , 2008 .

[17]  Mariana Mazzucato,et al.  Firm Size, Innovation and Market Structure: The Evolution of Industry Concentration and Instability , 2000 .

[18]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies , 2012 .

[19]  B. Sampat Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH , 2012 .

[20]  Masaharu Tsujimoto,et al.  Designing the coherent ecosystem: Review of the ecosystem concept in strategic management , 2015, 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET).

[21]  Sean O'Riain,et al.  The Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network States in the Global Economy , 2004 .

[22]  Dan Steinbock,et al.  Globalization of wireless value system: from geographic to strategic advantages , 2003 .

[23]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Public procurement and innovation?Resurrecting the demand side , 2007 .

[24]  F. Huber,et al.  Open Innovation: Revealing and Engagement in Open Data Organisations , 2016 .

[25]  L. Klerkx Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector , 2009 .

[26]  R. L. Brown,et al.  Avenues and incentives for commercial use of a low-g environment , 1981 .

[27]  A. Amsden,et al.  Review of: The Rise of "The Rest": Challenges to the West from Late Industrializing Economies , 2001 .

[28]  Antonello Zanfei,et al.  Multinational firms, global value chains and the organization of knowledge transfer , 2009 .

[29]  R. Garud,et al.  Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical systems: The case of mobile communications , 2009 .

[30]  Andreas Pyka,et al.  Classifying Technology Policy from an Evolutionary Perspective , 1999 .

[31]  J. Peppard,et al.  From value chain to value network: Insights for mobile operators , 2006 .

[32]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe: Investigating future governance , 2003 .

[33]  F. Block Swimming Against the Current: The Rise of a Hidden Developmental State in the United States , 2008 .

[34]  J. Logsdon,et al.  The Space Shuttle Program: A Policy Failure? , 1986, Science.

[35]  R. Wade Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization , 1991 .

[36]  S. Wallsten The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program , 2000 .

[37]  Garcia Clara Eugenia,et al.  SocRobust : final report , 2002 .

[38]  William B. Bonvillian,et al.  ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA model to energy innovation , 2011 .

[39]  Luciano Kay The Effect of Inducement Prizes on Innovation: Evidence from the Ansari X Prize and the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge , 2011 .

[40]  A. Rip,et al.  The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges , 2014 .

[41]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies , 2001 .

[42]  Gordon Tullock,et al.  Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice , 2002 .

[43]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[44]  E. Uyarra,et al.  Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation , 2011 .

[45]  Carlota Perez,et al.  Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems , 1983 .

[46]  J. Funk The emerging value network in the mobile phone industry: The case of Japan and its implications for the rest of the world , 2009 .

[47]  Erik S. Reinert,et al.  How Rich Countries Got Rich ... and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor , 2007 .

[48]  Jong-Tsong Chiang From 'mission-oriented' to 'diffusion Oriented' Paradigm: New Trend of U.S. Industrial Technology Policy , 2017 .

[49]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[50]  Graham M. Winch,et al.  The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[51]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Military R&D and Innovation , 2010 .

[52]  Adrian Smith,et al.  The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions , 2005 .

[53]  Jacques H. Trienekens,et al.  Chain and network science: A research framework , 2001 .

[54]  M. Wright,et al.  Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context , 2014 .

[55]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? , 2012 .