Technology, Connected - Who Pays To Build The Space Economy?

Episode Date: May 13, 2026

Matthew Weinzierl and Brendan Rosseau, authors of Space to Grow, join Thinking on Paper to explain how the commercial space economy is developing and what governments, companies and investors are trying to build beyond Earth.The space economy already supports communications, navigation, Earth observation and national security. Its next phase could include commercial space stations, lunar infrastructure, microgravity manufacturing, space-based data centres and the extraction of resources from the Moon.In this episode, we discuss:How the commercial space economy worksThe role of NASA in creating private space marketsHow the Artemis programme could support a lunar economyWhy governments fund technologies before commercial demand existsThe business case for commercial space stationsHow Starlink and GPS demonstrate the economic value of space infrastructureWhether space-based data centres could become commercially viableHow investors evaluate launch, satellite and lunar businessesThe growth of China’s space programmeWhy space has become central to national securityWho should own and use resources found on the MoonWhether the Outer Space Treaty is suitable for a commercial space economyHow international competition is shaping the new space raceMatthew and Brendan explain how public institutions and private companies divide risk, finance infrastructure and create markets in environments where costs are high and the rules remain unsettled.The conversation also examines how space activity should be governed as commercial and national interests expand. Mark and Jeremy attempt to rewrite the Outer Space Treaty and consider what a modern framework would need to say about property, resources, security and responsibility.This episode is about the economics and politics of commercial space, and whether today’s institutions can manage the industries now emerging in orbit and on the Moon.Please enjoy the show.--Thinking on Paper is a technology podcast about AI, Space, quantum computing, science, and the systems shaping the future. Connect with us.🏠 Buy us a beer on Substack🎧 Watch us compete with Lex Fridman on YouTube 🎧 Remember Steve Jobs and listen on APPLE 📺 Watch the clips and shorts on InstagramWatch a random video from Rick Beato. Because we love him.--Chapters(00:00) Government and Markets in Space(03:35) Microgravity (07:43) Economic Incentives (12:14) Political Cycles in Space Policy(17:09) International Collaboration (18:45) National Security in Space(21:36) Space Exploration(24:27) The Importance Of GPS(28:49) Space Investment(30:37) Space-Based Data Centers(33:40) Space Resources(38:26) Governance in Space(40:55) A New Space Treaty

If the book was coming out today, one of the things that would include was recent comments from NASA administrator Jared Isaacman who said, you know, it's not there. The business case isn't there. It doesn't really make sense. I'm an economist. I tend to think that the laws of economics are universal. So there's nothing in there that requires gravity, so to speak. To get a dedicated launch on a Falcon 9 rocket is still, you know, $75 million. And that's a high price tag. Here on Earth, we are very much pointing nuclear weapons at each other and calling each other our mortal enemies.

we can cooperate in space and that even when we're ready to pull the trigger down here on Earth, we're very hesitant to do any kind of combative things in space. I think that's something that we should cherish. I don't expect that dynamic to stop. I think as costs keep coming down, you know, launch costs for sure, but station costs, operational costs in space, just in general infrastructure costs, we're going to find new and creative ways to generate lots of benefits for people here on Earth, even those who are skeptical.

Matthew Vinesel, Brendan Rousseau, of the fabulous, awesome, important space to grow. Thank you for thinking on paper with us. What's unique about space is the fact that we're getting a relatively fresh start when you think about it, like relatively clean slate. What is the appropriate amount of top down and then what is the appropriate amount of space, bottom up? Yeah.

That's such a great question. And can I just say, first of all, I love the fact that you guys go into this emergent nature of how we organize society. I mean, as an economist, you're like speaking my language, man. This is beautiful. So I love that starting place. I was thinking, you know, obviously we thought about this a lot really in the book, because the book is, as you guys have covered, a lot about the relationship between the government and markets and how it's evolving. And in some, I mean, one way I've always thought about it since we started working on this is that we started off kind of at one end of the spectrum, right, where it was like almost all government,

basically. And that's probably pretty natural when you're carving out the next big frontier or charting the big frontier. And the pendulum has started to swing toward a more balanced approach. And it's possible, I guess, we might swing too far in some sense in the other direction and have to correct a little bit back. We'll see how it all plays out. But I think in the end, the way I ended up thinking about it was that it's less about kind of the amount of government in some sort of, you know, or government intervention in some absolute number. and more about playing to the strengths of the government and the market. A little bit like we just talked about with the book, actually, funny enough, right? We've learned that there are ways in which or parts in which you want a lot of government

and then parts of which you want very little. And that's really a sign of maturing of the sector. Yeah, and something that I think is important is that it's going to evolve over time, especially with so many of the like critical areas in space need a lot of upfront capital and development and burning down technological risk. If you look at, for example, the launch revolution that really started with SpaceX in the kind of early 20 teens, it took so much government support and intervention and everything. It was really kind of a beautiful partnership between SpaceX and NASA and the rest of the folks in that ecosystem to make that happen. So a lot of kind of push to get you started, but then after a while you want to find that balance where you're not having too much intervention.

You're allowing experimentation where appropriate. you're allowing people to innovate and in some cases to fail if that's kind of the natural way of things. So I think if you look at different slices of, you know, call it the space industry or space economy, it's a very mixed picture where in some areas I think that and I would say, oh my God, yes, this is still very much centrally. We need central command. We need a really focus push from the government. I think the Artemis program and the related activities on the Moon are. great example of that. We're all really supportive of those efforts to kind of kickstart efforts beyond

low Earth orbit. But then in other areas, we'd say, yeah, like, let's take the reins off a little bit and see if we can have the private sector take out some of that risk taking. What are some other examples of what might be some of these space infrastructure products or companies where you really do have to take off the government break? This is in some ways the central debate of economics. I was just teaching my other course at HBS yesterday. We were talking about measures of GDP versus other measures of economic performance. And they're deeply intertwined with like, what is the role of government? What do you want the government to be doing?

What's the, what's the responsibility you want to put on it? So anyways, this is such a great question. Is space any any different to economic? I don't think so. Yeah. So it's a really, I love it. I mean, I, of course, you know, I'm an economist. I tend to think that laws of economics are universal.

So there's nothing in there that requires gravity, so to speak. That's not to say we can't try different things in space. And maybe we can talk more about that. That's certainly one of the reasons I think I'm very excited about it is because we're going to get a chance to try new arrangements. But the fundamental forces and tradeoffs, I think, will be very much the same in spaces on Earth. On your question on getting back to specific space domains,

I mean, stations, I think, are a great topic to lean into this, right? Because we all, I think most of us have a lot of hopes for stations. There was this push towards commercial stations, which seems to have hit some obstacles. And so, you know, is this the kind of place, I think I would tend to think where some of that early push that Brendan was mentioning, where the public sector kind of gets the ball rolling downhill, and then you can eventually take the gloves or take the reins off. That seems like a good example to me. Well, in our top 10 that we did last week, then, yeah, we have Axiom, was Axiom and Vast, both building space stations. and they were right at the top of the top 10 investments for the year. So the money is flowing into the space stations.

So somebody must believe. How important is microgravity to the future of space stations? Proving that is useful or not? So that is, I think, the question. And as you highlight from the chapter, I think Matt and I both, as we really look at this closely, depending on the day, some days we're super excited about it. And other days we look at the history and say, you know, it's been decades that there's been

this promise and still not as much to show for it as we'd like to for the investment. And in fact, if the book was coming out today, one of the things that would include was recent comments from NASA administrator Jared Isaacman who said, even just recently, it was kind of striking where he said, you know, it's not there. Like the business case isn't there. It doesn't really make sense. So do you hear that from a very pro-business commercially minded? let's take risks a NASA administrator is really striking.

I think it's kind of, it shows how much work we still have left to do. To your question about microgravity, I think at its core, what is so exciting about it is that the absence of gravity creates physical conditions that we really cannot replicate here on Earth. That is something that is remarkable. It's just remarkable. I mean, how many things can you even think about in terms of natural, labs for experiment and innovation where the laws of physics really kind of operate differently.

They're not broken because obviously it's just different things happen. But the way that heat gets transferred, the way that all these little things, the way that, you know, the way that plants grow, it's just a fundamentally different environment. And myself, and I think Matt as well as optimists about human ingenuity. And if you give humans the opportunity to experience something different, then I think we're going to find amazing things that they never. thought of in the first place. It's the kind of the classic like, hey, you know, we started off with sticks and rocks and now we've got Bluetooth and Wi-Fi and spaceships going to the

moon. Like, of course, we'll find amazing, remarkable things to do it. The challenge I think is that number one, getting to space in the first place is still very expensive to get a dedicated launch on a Falcon 9 rocket is still, you know, $75 million. I mean, that's a high price tag just to experiment and see how we can do this. So that's, that's, that's, that's, That makes it really hard. And then also, if you have a space station that is designed for humans on board, which a lot of these commercial Leo destinations are, that's a whole another giant set of costs.

And also, I really think it limits the amount of experimentation you're able to do. There's really interesting stories of, you know, science that potentially people wanted to put on the interastal space station. But because it's, you know, a giant tin can floating in orbit where people need to exercise to stay healthy and do all kinds of things, you know, it's kind of always shaking a little bit and there's always, it's always rocking and rolling. I'm a researcher in a lab. I don't want to go into space to do my job. Exactly. Exactly. So I think my conclusion would be it's an open question. It's one that I think in the fullness of time, it will look back and say, of course this was valuable. Of course this was immensely valuable. But I think the pathway that it will take to get there, I think kind of low cost incremental experimentation where we ship away at this one step at a time is probably a path for success.

How do the economic incentives work there, Matthew, because we're talking short time spans here on Earth for your ROI. You need to get your money back. But then we're talking about however many decades into the future where this is actually a realistic choice for many of the labs around the world. But how does the industry incentivize the duration of that gap? Yeah, it's a really big question. I mean, I know you guys talked about the financing side of space.

I tend to be, I'm an optimist by nature for the reason Brennan and I like working together on this, I suppose, because we both are. And I tend to be particularly optimistic, actually, about the financing side of this stuff in the sense that I think financial markets are very creative. Like, if there's value to be found, a lot of smart people trying to figure out how to get that value funded so they can claim a piece of that. And, you know, the Long Horizons thing is, of course, a big challenge in space. on the other hand, financial markets are pretty good at taking long horizons and cutting them into chunks,

where at each point you can evaluate progress and get your return and sell it to the next person down the line. So I kind of feel like we know how to do that. And then the real question is, is there actually value? So if the markets really believe there was, I think they would figure out ways to fund it. With the one caveat that it is nice to have a floor, right? So if the government can provide a little bit of a guarantee that this is not just, going to all go to zero. I think that can reassure financial markets in a big way. And that's why it's been such a big deal that the national security spending has gone up so much, why it's been so

important to watch Administrator Isaacman and now he's thinking about commercial stations and other aspects of space because I think the private capital markets do want to feel like there's some downside. Virgin orbit went to zero. And what was that rocket company that went to, that was valued at $2 billion without any rocket? Like how does, how does that work? Unfortunately, you could be naming a couple at this point. Yeah. The government's had its fingers burnt. Is it going to get its fingers burnt again?

It's always tricky when the government invests in some sense because there's a lot of scrutiny on government investment in a way that private capital markets, like their investors understand that if you're in the VC space, you're going to fail a huge, like a huge share of your investments are not going to work out. And that's fine. That's the model.

government investment tends to be more risk-averse because they think the political blowback on those failures is really high. And historically, that's been true. So I think helping the broader public and certainly Congress people understand that if NASA is going to be operating a little bit more as a venture financier, it's going to be some failures along the way as an important part of progress. Yeah. I think it's important to know, as we tried to throughout the book, that NASA has come a really long way, not just NASA, but the entire. U.S. government in embracing this approach. If you look at its flagship kind of cornerstone set of missions right now, it's the Artemis

program, and NASA is very protective of those kinds of, you know, flagship missions, especially with astronauts on board, try to do things that have not been done in over half a century. And what does NASA do for its potentially the most critical component of that program? It's landers. It chooses two commercial companies that have not built lunar landers before. It is, in a sense, a leap of faith. in the way that you would expect an organization that is leaning into the promise of private markets to take. And sure, there's been hiccups along the way.

There's been a lot of back and forth of SpaceX. And then, you know, I'm biased. I work at Blorge. And so it's been interested to see that process on the inside as well. But I think that's exactly what we want our government agencies to be doing is organizing the market in a way that only they can around these, you know, pushing the envelope missions forward. helping companies develop technologies that they would never be able to pursue on their own and burning down the risk.

And eventually I think these are the kinds of things that are really going to benefit all of us. So it's exciting. You're not going to hear about athletic greens. We have no electrolyte drinks or AI agents to sell you. The show you're listening to, thinking on paper, is funded entirely by me and Jeremy. So this is an advert for us because we sponsor ourselves and we need your help. please subscribe wherever you're listening or watching thinking on paper. And if you're feeling really generous and kind, please leave a comment.

You mentioned the idea of the fundraising, the expectation, the timelines and how that is shifted from a fundraising perspective in a timeline approach. There's also the timeline of election cycles and politics. And man, we're trying to point and get our arms around some really big goals, some really moonshot, pardon the pun, endeavors, what do we need to do because we're these, these time, there's a mismatch between these, these political cycles, these fundraising cycles, what's the secret to making it all work? And is there a secret? Or are we just kind of having to learn as we go and adjust? The secret to functional democracy. That's what you'd like us to

address in the next 30 seconds. I'll give you 90. I'll give you 90 if you want to give it a rip. Yeah. Okay, I have three, three thoughts maybe. There's maybe more space specific, right? Because at least, That's probably the point. Like, how do we, how does space policy transcend election cycles, which is something we could maybe get a handle on? One thought is space has been bipartisan for a very long time, and I think that's really important to try to preserve that, because that's part of the problem with political cycles is that they're driven bipartisan shifts. And so if you can keep some consistency across time, and that's the responsibility of each generation, right, to not make it political in that or partisan in that sense. And I guess related to that as the second piece, which is the national security side of it. And this is always a little complicated because it's not like a free lunch to lean into the national security side of things to boost enthusiasm for space. There are reasons you might be uncomfortable doing that.

But it is also true that national security is probably the number one responsibility of a state. And so it can, I think, extend your horizons of thinking if you think that this is a national security priority. And so that's one way, I think, to get beyond a little bit of that. And then the last thing I'll just say briefly is we often talk at HBS about, in the end, does economics trump politics or does politics trump economics? No pun intended with the president's name. And as an economist, I tend to think that economics wins out. You can't defy the forces of economics in the long run. And if there is a lot of value out there in space, if we can really create a much bigger pie for everybody, that's a huge unifying force that I,

but I hope brings people together over time. Politics or economics. So economics is the equation. Politics is the interpretation and manipulation of the results of the equation. What do you think about that? Am I seeing that right? Yeah, I've never heard that before. I like it.

I already have five quotes from you guys that I love. This will be my sixth. I think what I like about that, just a first blush, is that the equation is like, that's the truth. Right. Like in some level, you can't deny the equation. You can play with the equation. You can manipulate it, but eventually there is the ground truth. And I, economics has a bit of that element. Like, you can't force people to pay really for something that doesn't have value in the long run. It's just not going to happen. Brendan. I was going to add a footnote to what Matt was saying, which is there's in terms of continuing the momentum for current projects from one administration to the next, there's the national security angle. And there's also maybe the kind of softer edge of that, which is just national prestige. So something that we've seen over the past few administrations is the Artemis program are returned to the moon and plans to stay on the moon. It was created during the Trump administration. And it was notable that when the Biden administration came in, almost everything else that the Trump administration had stood up for the first time was, you know, kind of changed or scuttled.

But two things that did endure were the Space Force stuck around and the Artemis program stuck around and largely in the same form. And part of the reason for that is because I think all the reasons that Matt listed, but also because we are in a competition or a race, we're doing it with China, which has very clear and very, you know, efficient lunar plants that they're exercising. So nobody on either side of the aisle wants to be seen as responsible for a slow rolling America space program when there are geopolitical competitors out there that aren't. And so I think to the extent that that can be a unifying factor that can keep us focused on the same goals and maybe not have us start looking side to side for distractions, I think that's a healthy thing. And to the extent that it generates real progress and real execution, I think that builds momentum that can sustain itself. So I'm really encouraged by the direction that we've been going, and especially the reaction to Artemis II last week or two weeks ago. I don't know about you guys, but I was kind of blown away by how. almost universal it seemed. I got notes from all kinds of friends who are not space people at all,

saying that they had tears in their eyes and multiple times throughout the mission. So it's a very, very good time, I think, to be working on space stuff. It was stunningly beautiful and all over. Even in Little Old England, my kids, they saw it, they were talking about it at school. It really was a global moment. But in this world of fleeting moments, Mike, my worry is that it's already. not tomorrow's fish paper to use the British economy, but it fades very quickly. You mentioned China. You mentioned transcending national borders.

How do we transcend international borders? And how do we fit China into that conversation? Let's continue on that because it's the story that a lot of people who aren't interested in space industry are aware of that. You guys have said in multiple episodes on the book, how do we not sort of bring our mistakes from Earth into space? And I think this is certainly related to that. Brendan, maybe I'll let you speak to this because you had, Brendan has often said this really lovely thing about how the U.S. Soviet rivalry worked out in space. And like in some ways, that's a model for how we might look towards the U.S. China one. Yeah.

No, pressure's on now. The world is watching. Yeah, no, I have two thoughts on this. The first is that I think that it's natural that as we go into further and further into the space domain, the same kinds of activities and behaviors that we have as humans towards one another individually, from one nation to another or whatever, we're going to bring all that with us. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think it is important that you have some form of security or police force or military force in space,

the same way that we do here on Earth. I mean, it would be chaos if we said there should be no kind of national security devices here on Earth that probably wouldn't work out well. We should do the same in space. At the same time, and we've all talked about this, I do think that going into a new domain where we don't have the scar tissue of different interactions in the past and it really gives us the opportunity to do something new, I do think that it gives us the opportunity and the responsibility to behave in a way towards one another that we want to chart the future that we want and that we can have and that maybe we only can't have in space because it isn't fully contested and weighed down with the baggage that a lot of our interactions here on Earth are. And I think that's a beautiful thing. There's something intrinsic about space that makes us want to have that kind of for all mankind attitude. And I think we should really preserve that.

And to Matt's point about the Cold War rivalry is that I think we've shown that even when here on Earth, we are, you know, very much pointing nuclear weapons at each other and calling each other our mortal enemies, we can cooperate in space. And that even when we're ready to pull the trigger down here on Earth, we're very hesitant to do any kind of combative things in space. I think that's something that we should cherish. At least it gives us a symbol that other ways are possible. There's a really cool power that space accomplishments echo throughout society, and it did this in the Apollo missions, and just a sense of awe and sense of wonder that we're missing in the world when we get into this, me versus you, it's a race. I'm running here, you're running there. I got to beat you. I'm going to step on your head to get there. The moments that I found so compelling with the Artemis mission is when these astronauts. saw the earth, setting behind the moon. I mean, what a perspective. This is the whole pale blue dot thing, but bigger and different.

And you have these people saying, guys, trust me, from this perspective, we are all made of the same stuff. We are all here for the same purpose. Yet we are pushing each other around in the wrong way. Those are the moments that need to be echoed, I think. But as Mark says, they're, they're, unfortunately, like humans come together in these beautiful. beautiful points where we're here and there's a big moment and then it kind of fizzles away. How do we create the reverberation of moments like that to help create the economy that we want to see above our heads?

Moonbase. Yeah. Well, okay. This is a really important conversation, I think. And I'll do a sort of deep cut. So footnote two in chapter 12 mentions an idea. Yeah, there you go. That I think is really important.

It's a really old idea in economics. It's called do commerce, which is gentle commerce or sweet commerce. The idea that, you know, if we're building something valuable together, we're less likely to blow it up, basically. And it's a very contested idea. I mean, throughout history, people have said, like, do nations who trade together go to war together? There's lots of different evidence on it. There's a new paper, actually, that just came out a couple weeks ago in economics that claims to have better evidence that actually this theory does kind of of hold that nations that trade together tend not to go to war together. And whether it holds in

history and on earth is maybe a different question anyways. Going out into space, you know, how do we keep the momentum? How do we keep this idea that we're not really, this is not a zero sum endeavor. This is like if there's ever been a positive some endeavor, this is one of them. This is it. And how do we keep that momentum? I think leaning into the economics is not a bad way to do it, right? Because the inspiration is wonderful. It's human. It's deep. It's important to have those narratives. but day to day, people want to see benefit in their lives. And so Brendan is always really good about bringing us back. Like, what is the space sector doing for normal people every day?

And I think the more it can do, the more like we are to sustain that moment. So what's it doing for people every day, Brendan? Oh, man. How much time do you have? What would you say are the top three things that it's doing for my uncle and my brother who are listening to this? I mean, it's a great question and I really do appreciate you asking it. Um, the, the way that I think about what space does for us today is that it is this invisible backbone that upholds the 21st century way of life. And it's, it's almost hard to point at one thing or another, although I will, um, in the same way that if someone asks you, what does oxygen do for me every

day? I don't like, I don't think about oxygen. It's not bringing me value. It's like, well, if it's gone, you would realize it real quick. There's actually a great quote from, um, forget who it was. But there was an international group that did a study of what, you know, a space catastrophe or a day without space would look like. And the conclusion that they came to is that it would turn into like early 20th century kind of relationship very quickly. Just because we rely on space so much. So the main way that people interface with space directly or the way that feels most tangible every day is through the GPS system or other global navigation systems. There's the obvious way where when you call an Uber, that's where it knows where the car is and where you are. But it's also baked into so many other systems, our financial transaction system, our energy grids, everything else.

I mean, if GPS goes out, you lose a lot of things, even just if you're sitting in your living room, you would notice very quickly. And then, of course, like on the national security side, every mission relies on countless pieces of both space, connected hardware and assets and space and all kinds of. of things. So if you like your national security, that's important too. And there's a whole bunch of other smaller things. What I'm really excited about, not only about how we're using space today, is that we're exploring, we're finding new and creative uses for space to do sometimes familiar things and sometimes completely new things. So the example that I love to cite is Starlink. Starlink is very much kind of a crazy idea that started less than a decade ago saying, hey, what if we could provide really good high-speed globe-spanning internet from space in a way that only space can.

And in just a few short years, I mean, they just started deploying the system in like 2019 or 2020. There's always millions and millions of customers getting internet in places where they can't at really high speeds. And that's great as a first step to get access to internet for people where they couldn't before. But what's really exciting about that is that it creates entirely new ecosystems, where you can have entirely new things be possible in places where you couldn't before

because there is this giant web of very high-speed internet truly everywhere on the earth. That's where things start looking a little bit different. And your self-driving car, your self-flying drone, and all these kinds of things become possible. And then there's a million other things. I'm going to get off my soapbox because this is where I could go on and on. I really love it. And I think the promise of what we could see in the next few. decades. It's so inspiring

of it. I think you do a great job in the book of talking about the space to earth economy and the information you're able to capture and process and send back to the earth is huge. And that's where some of the monetary value is starting to get created. But you also have like, we talked about this before the show is like space is polarizing too. And like seems half the comments that we get on our socials are, wow, this is amazing. I can't wait. It's awesome. This is really cool thing we're doing. And you have the

people are going, don't we have enough problems on Earth to solve? Are we just running away from those? What do you say to those people about space? Yeah, I mean, it's a totally reasonable question. And it's a question honestly has been asked since the 1960s. People think about the Apollo era as this unifying moment. Everyone was like, yes, let's spend four and a half percent of the federal budget on space. But in fact, there were a lot of people back then too who thought, wait a minute, we've got serious problems here on Earth. So it's a perpetual question for good reasons. And I guess I would just speak to where Brendan was already talking about some of the value that's been created, and then the potential to create really exciting and, you know, transformational value to solve some of the very problems people are most worried about.

I know you guys have done several episodes on space-based solar. And, you know, that's speculative. It's going to require a lot of technological development. The promise is also extraordinary for what that could do for us here. And, you know, AI data centers are maybe a little bit trickier to necessarily draw the benefit to everybody, depending on your views of AI. But I think they are a really important example of how the market finds ways to explore value creation that we can't foresee that can be transformational. So I don't know if AI data does just work out in space. A lot of smart people think they will.

And when we were writing the book, they were like not even a figment. I think we maybe mentioned them once in the book. It was nowhere near the press they're getting now. And I don't expect that dynamic to stop. I think as costs keep coming down, you know, launch costs for sure, but station costs, operational costs in space, just in general infrastructure costs, we're going to find new and creative ways to generate lots of benefits

for people here on Earth, even those who are skeptical. Both your views on space-based data centers since the publishing of your book. Brendan, let's start with you. Sure. Well, I should disclose that I'm part of a company where we have announced a 51,000 satellite constellation of data centers. So obviously, in one respect, I am very much pro the opportunity for data centers in space. I think it's one of these topics where in some sense the potential value is obvious. I mean, especially with all the concerns about data centers here on Earth where they use of resources, they spike energy bills.

They're now very politically tricky. If you've been follow the news around data centers, there's a lot. It's a very polarizing topic in whatever communities they're coming up in. So in some sense, the promise of, you know, what if we put them in orbit where they don't affect anyone's energy costs? They can connect to one another and kind of be out of the way, but still immensely valuable to us. I think that the promise of that is something that will endure for a long time. I do think that there's a lot of technological risk that needs to be burned down. particularly around how do you dissipate the heat that is generated in space.

People think of space as very cold, but it's the challenge is that you can't really get rid of heat unless you use radiators. And if you have a lot of heat and a lot of systems, you need very, very large radiators. And then that causes all sorts of other problems. So there's a lot of smart people working on it. I do think it is not a 2020s idea. I think it's maybe 20-30s, maybe at best. But we'll see. Hope Springs a Channel.

And if it ends up working out, I would be thrilled. Could you just speak just for a little bit longer on potential cooling solutions? Sure. Three words for it. Big-ass radiators, very, very large radiators. It is really the best solution right now. Unless there's kind of a novel or creative solution that comes out of it. And a lot of people are working on it right now.

That seems to be the path forward. I know that's something you mentioned, StarCloud. I know that's something Star Cloud is working on very closely as is everyone else. The good news is that that means bigger and bigger systems and we have bigger and bigger rockets that are being built. That's when I work on all day every day is New Glenn. So there's there's the miniaturization of those big ass radiators. Is that what I'm right there? So that's that's physics limited. That's that's where the challenge gets in is that you need what's really key is the surface area, because that's how you dissipate the heat.

And so you can only get that surface area in certain ways. And you kind of need it to be big. Yeah, it's inverse what the tech side of it's doing, right? Because the tech side's always getting smaller and smaller and more powerful, more powerful. It doesn't track. And it's a tricky game. It terrestrily, it happens a lot. I come from the data center world a little bit, too.

So like traditional cooling and what's happening on Earth has been a challenge. but you're right. And up there, it's one of the biggest. Yeah. My takeaway, just because real quick, because you've mentioned kind of both sides of this, some people are so excited about it, exuberant about it, and then other people are really naysay. For me, my takeaway is I am glad that people are working on this problem. Will it work out on the timelines that people want?

I really don't know. That's one of the exciting things. I don't think anyone really knows. But I am so much happier to live in a world where a broad swath of the community, especially the business community and tech community is thinking about this issue and investing money in it, everyone from Google to the small players. That is positive. And we need that to be explored and all these other applications too. Sorry, Matt, go ahead. No, that's great.

I don't have a lot of technical expertise to add to this. I will just mention that this is a stag. Right. So you guys talk about the stag hunt. And like, I'm so thrilled there's a stag that we have found to go after. And it wasn't like somebody from the center. said, we got to do this, right? This is the market finding something big to raise huge amounts of money to go after. And that's, that's great, no matter how it turns out. Any of the stacks?

In the long-term space resources, there's an entire solar system full of resources, including ones that are immensely valuable to us today, not only those, but also ones that we don't really know what we would do with them, but boy, I bet we would find some productive uses for them if we had, you know, continent-sized abundant materials. And that's, and you don't have to mine them in a way where you're, you know, strip mining next to a kindergarten or something like that. That's, that seems like a universal win. And then the ability to generate huge amounts of power through solar panels or other means

where it's always solar moon, solar noon. I mean, the list just goes on and on and on. They're incredibly hard to go after. I think that's part of the fun. But I, I am really encouraged that it is a forest. full of stags out there in space. Nice. Nice. Nice.

No, the stag hunt, we had a lot of fun with the stag hunt game and pushing some ideas around. So I would love to talk to you guys all day about this. So maybe we can do a round two or find something down the road. But I want to leave us with, we like to do a lot of thought experiments. Sorry, Jamie. So just before that, I'm so curious about Matthews' quotes from us and because, oh, right. I'll run through them. There you.

Thank you for the T-Up. Okay. Great reminder. So first of all, I love that you call yourself the USS Enterprise of Technology Podcasts. That was like, I think I, I think my hands went off the steering wheel because I was so excited about hearing that, but do my Star Trek route. So that was great. My second one we've already talked about was how not to bring our earthly failures into space. I thought it was so great that you.

That's not, people don't always talk about that in space discussions. I think that's such a useful reminder. Maybe a more narrow one. In the property rights discussion, you've had exhum the hum, which I love because I am a big fan of David Hume and I thought that was pretty funny. I like the idea of a T-shirt. That sounds good.

I also appreciated in the discussion of space debris that you offered your apologies to the Coase family for not believing in the Coz theorem. That was very funny, not believing that it applied in this case. That was very thoughtful of you. And as a fan of the Coz theorem, I appreciated the apology to myself. And then the last one, you said,

this was great. I felt like I was back in English class in high school. you know where you do like that close reading of the text like maybe the authors didn't even know they were doing this but were they doing this you said is chapter 12 the answer to chapter 11 which is so great it was like were we subconsciously answering our own question so anyways those were my top ones we had a lot of fun thank you for highlighting some of our favorite parts too we really did let's i'm gonna i'm gonna throw this out there this this last little bit don't feel like we need to go for hours on it like let's we can we can use constraints as a powerful vehicle

to help us through this. All right. So imagine this. Okay, Matthew, you get a phone call. It's like the authority of the world. Let's just call it the authority of the world. Matthew, I read you and Brendan's book. You seem to have a really good handle on all this.

We haven't done anything since 1967 in the Outer Space Treaty. We have no idea how to govern all this stuff that's going to happen up there. I want to pull you both in. You agree to it. what are your first steps? And this can be live riffing right here, boys. Wait, my first, okay. Okay, so honestly, are we the first two that I called?

Brendan and I are the first two. First two there are calls. You can maybe assemble the team. Who do you bring in? Do you exhume the Hume? Like, what do we? No, no, no, yeah. Hey, if that's on the table, for sure.

Absolutely. A few of the greats. Let's exhume a few of the greats. It's funny. I just saw Project Hell Mary, like probably many of you and many listeners. And they have, that kind of happens, right? they assemble a team. And I think that has to be in some ways the first step.

I mean, I have to say, again, as an economist or whatever, I'm a little skeptical of like any room full of whatever, figuring out the big answers to these questions in any coordinated centralized way. Like, I like emergent order. I think we're going to have to do that. But if this committee is being formed because we've got to do something to get some rules down on paper,

I think the first step is you've got to call in people with a wide range of expertise. I mean, and that, again, back to what we do in our course. we're bringing people from all aspects of this base sector, not just startups, not just legacy primes, but also the government side of the table, the nonprofit side, because they each bring their own wisdom. And so that would be the first step for sure is to get that list of whatever it is, 25, 30 leading thinkers together. Okay. So we need names. So we need names. Well, okay. I'll give you one name. I mean, I guess if we want to make the full list, but

And full disclosure, actually, I serve on the board of her nonprofit. So I guess it's a little bit self-dealing in that sense. But Ariel Akwa is a local scientist and entrepreneur here in Boston who is developing a technology to build large structures in space that self-assemble. And she has a startup that's doing that in a business sense. She has a nonprofit. She's a venture arm. But she's one of these builders in the space sector who just thinks very long-term,

very benefit to all motivated. And so she'd be in the room if I could, if I could start the list. Jeremy, write that down. We need to invite her to think on paper with us. She'd be a great guest to you guys, yeah. All right. So Brendan, he's handling, pulling the team together, getting the right folks in the room. Where does your head go?

Sure. I mean, the thing I would want to start with is what do we want the end state to look like? Like, what is it that we really want to accomplish? And for me, I think there'd be a lot of different views on this. But for me personally, I would want to encourage economic competition. I would want to encourage a flywheel of activities that pushes us forward. I think the risk with some of these kinds of top-down, you know, broad treaties is that it can kind of put a damper on everything. So I'd want to make sure that we're not doing that.

But what I do think is truly dangerous, if not destructive, is when it's overt. military, you know, kinetic competition. I don't think anybody really wants that, but I think that everybody is preparing for, you know, whatever the future might be out there. Thankfully, the tip of the spear at this point very much is, you know, science and exploration and things like that. The things that we're lucky to be at a point in history or space history where the things that we're worried about, you know, are, oh, China sending another lunar rover to the far side of the moon. They're the first ones to get to the far side of the moon. I mean, if you step back, that's a fantastic thing that have to be worried about, that someone out there is doing new and

groundbreaking science and it just happens to be, you know, quote unquote, the other side. I think that's great. I want to encourage that as much as possible, to the extent that you can bring national security leaders together and kind of chart out clear rules of the road and behaviors that are acceptable or not acceptable in the same way that we have. have laws of the sea and well-understood traditions of what it means to operate in a professional manner in those settings. I would love to see something like that too. I'm not sure how optimistic I would be that one kind of grand treaty to Matt's point can solve all of this. I think that maybe the path that we're on now where there's a little bit of strategic ambiguity might fuel the

fuel the forge in a way that's healthy. And I'm hoping that there is enough real reluctance for any kind of major conflict in space that we can try to avoid that, or at least prevent it. Good start, gentlemen. I like it. What would you add, Jeremy? I want to hear your guys' answers.

So I'm a big proponent of the Martin's Clause. I'm not sure where I ran across but just this idea, it largely says don't be an asshole. Like it kind of, Mark, Mark shortened it to that. But I think a lot about like what could the minimum viable architecture for this governance be. And I don't know that anyone has the answer, but I know it's a really cool question to keep thinking about. Mark, you? I'll save mine for the next episode, thinking on paper.

Cliffanger. Matthew Vinesel, Brendan Roses. authors of the fabulous, awesome, important space to grow. Thank you for thinking on paper with us. It's been a pleasure. Until next time, be disrupted. Stay curious. Keep thinking on paper.