Planetary Resources

[Robotbeat]

Positive return and return of the sort VCs expect is miles apart. Small amounts of profit from taking pictures from LEO will probably never cover the amount of up-front capital PR needed (and still needs) to get going, even if they're pretty successful. But it may help keep the lights on while they wait for reality to catch up with their dreams.

PR is, realistically, a philanthro-capitalist venture, and anyone who expects the usual start-up return from them is probably someone who inherited their money, not someone who earned it.

[mlindner]

Not much of value in those particular answers.

Au contraire mon frere!  This answer is choice:

2) 10's to 1000's of kilometers.

Thanks mlindner.  That's something I've been very curious about (strictly for daydreaming purposes, but still very exciting to me!) 

This means they think they can do exoplanet imaging from the equivalent of a 1000+ kilometer diameter lens.  Which is waaaay cool.  It also strongly implies an ability to control where they are in space, and know where they are in space (and time), to a degree that implies optical communication systems at large distances.  Once they crack those nuts, they will need a lot more than 12-50 employees.  I like their interesting development philosophy as well. 

The biggest question at this point (imo) is the reference to decade perched investment.  If that is realistic and in reference to their scope systems, then it makes me wonder if rather than the capability for optical interferometry in the near term, they are just getting set up for when it comes, based solely on faith in Moore's law.  If they already think they can realistically achieve 10's to thousands of kilometers, then the "decade" reference must be with respect to actual asteroid assaying and recovery work.  I strongly hope it's the latter! 

Cool company.  Thanks again mlindner!

Shoot, I misread the original question I think. The question I asked was "from what distance" can they do spectroscopy at. Sorry guys.

Transcript being written right now. You guys might find some more details to your liking in there. I won't be uploading the audio recording itself as I forgot to ask if it was okay to record.

[go4mars]

anyone who expects the usual start-up return from them is probably someone who inherited their money, not someone who earned it.

I'm not sure we know enough about them to judge yet;  As soon as they demonstrate optical interferometry, they'll have no dearth of customers.  If I was a billionaire they approached (I'm not), and they convinced me that they had 50/50 odds of demonstrating optical interferometry within 5ish years (that's the part we the public don't know specifics on), then I'd be willing to write a reasonably healthy cheque.  If there are 24 people working on this at a 'garage in Seattle', and launches each cost less than $2M...   Probably less than $10M budget per year on average for the first few years of which you pay a portion...     Well, it's arguably not a bad gamble for a billionaire.  Clearly not a young man/fast money type of investment... 

[QuantumG]

You can get a cubesat launched for less than $100k.

$1M to first flying hardware is reasonable with the team they have.

Of course, I don't see how that first flying hardware can turn a profit, but with SBIRs and other contracts on the side you can get to the point where a business case of selling data starts to make sense.. so long as you can convince someone that the data will one day be worth something.

[go4mars]

The question I asked was "from what distance" can they do spectroscopy at. Sorry guys.

No problem.  C'est la vie.  But I wonder if her answer was accidentally to the intended context.  She may have assumed you meant interferometry because spectroscopy limited to a certain distance range in space doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe some telescope expert could chime in? 

I salute your decision to not post the recording without permission!  Good form.

[Robotbeat]

anyone who expects the usual start-up return from them is probably someone who inherited their money, not someone who earned it.

I'm not sure we know enough about them to judge yet;  As soon as they demonstrate optical interferometry, they'll have no dearth of customers.  If I was a billionaire they approached (I'm not), and they convinced me that they had 50/50 odds of demonstrating optical interferometry within 5ish years (that's the part we the public don't know specifics on), then I'd be willing to write a reasonably healthy cheque.  If there are 12 people working on this at a 'garage in Seattle', and launches each cost less than $2M...   Probably less than $10M budget per year on average for the first few years of which you pay a portion...     Well, it's arguably not a bad gamble for a billionaire.  Clearly not a young man/fast money type of investment... 

You would do it as a philanthro-capitalist, though. Because you're interested in space, are already a billionaire (and thus don't actually /need/ a return), and we are all mortal and want to make our impression on the world. It needs a profit to survive and even if it grows, you aren't likely to make huge returns like start-ups usually are expected to do (they need to make HUGE returns because a huge portion of them fail).

[Robotbeat]

You can get a cubesat launched for less than $100k.

$1M to first flying hardware is reasonable with the team they have.

Of course, I don't see how that first flying hardware can turn a profit, but with SBIRs and other contracts on the side you can get to the point where a business case of selling data starts to make sense.. so long as you can convince someone that the data will one day be worth something.

$1 million is enough to first flying hardware if the team lives on Ramen. It will take a few years at least (it has already taken some years), and the team consists of a dozen or so aerospace-type professionals. Including overhead, $1 million could probably keep them going for about 6 months if you paid them the usual wages.

If they were university students with the infrastructure of a university (and also living off of Ramen), they should be able to launch a multi-U cubesat for $1 million, perhaps even one with non-trivial optics. But not if you need to actually buy all the equipment needed to test and then integrate such optics. You need an optical bench, air filtration, optical elements, sensors, oscilloscopes, etc... It adds up pretty quick.

Over a decade and using non-paid aerospace folks in their spare time in a garage with salvaged equipment, it is possible to do it for significantly less, but it'd be a hack job and wouldn't be anything like PR is planning on doing.

[QuantumG]

$1 million is enough to first flying hardware if the team lives on Ramen.

Ahh, so you have met Chris

[mlindner]

Here's the transcript. Excuse any typos, I didn't proofread it.

So few notes. Apparently they're even making use of some high schoolers even, and decent amount of college students.
The name of the arkyd satellites is apparently from Star Wars, except with a different spelling. She commented she doesn't think DSI will get away from being sued for using the name "Firefly."
They don't think there are any technological breakthroughs that need to occur for them to be able to do the job.
All platinum ever mined on earth can fit inside a 7m x 7m x 7m asteroid.
They showed a very interesting graph of relative concentrations of different elements in earth's crust versus on asteroids. The platinum group metals were a huge spike into the "more on asteroids" section.

[go4mars]

I appreciate the time you took to do that.  Thanks! 
Death star size comparator.  Good idea! 

I'm glad she mentioned reaching out to conventional mining industries. 
The decision makers in big mining need to consider that a few million bucks is also insurance to downside (even if they think the probability is low, the impact could be devastating so it is potentially worth mitigating by participating if they think the chance is even remotely credible).   

Skipping the question on ground station was perhaps telling (of optical communication?).

Big relief about not launching on North Korean rockets. 

Good recruiter talk!

[go4mars]

You would do it as a philanthro-capitalist, though.

No.  It would be looked at from the perspective of an expected value calculation.  My assumption is that they plan to get optical interferometry working, have huge fleets of eyes in space, and can provide "optical communication at interplanetary distances".  If they can achieve that, they'll be worth a large amount.  I don't know exactly how much, but let's presume 5 billion dollars.  Next, risk it appropriately.  If I think there's a 20% chance of that happening in a decade, I'd make some assumption about inflation, and see how it compares to other opportunities I have on hand.  If 10 million today nets me a 20% chance of $5 billion (ish) in 10 years, it may be a gamble I'd take.  Obviously there are a lot more factors that would weigh in, and the chance of success is extremely subjective.  But that's the main idea.

To bring that down to average joe levels:  If $10 today nets me a 20% chance of $5k (ish) in 10 years, well, that's two Starbucks coffee's I'd forgo. 

[Robotbeat]

Five billion? I doubt it. Who'd give you the money? Do you think NASA would simply give you a ton of money? Also, I sincerely doubt PR has some uber-special sauce for long-baseline interferometry that no one else has. Additionally, with such a small amount of collecting area, you wouldn't be getting anything like a clear picture of an exoplanet surface. You MIGHT be able to tell and exoplanet is round and directly measure its circumference, but because of the ultra-low contrast, you wouldn't likely be able to tell anything else about it that you wouldn't know from a more conventional telescope. It'd be mostly useful for ultra-bright and high-contrast objects.

[JohnFornaro]

Questions

1)  Rough ideas of how they plan to refine asteroids into component parts. 

2)  What distances they believe they can do optical interferometry at.

3)  What their forecasted expenditure budget is in the next 5 years.

4)  Whether the Earth-bound platinum group metal chunks will be landed using active guidance, or passively in an appropriate target area on Earth. 

5)  Circumstances or development phase where they would consider an IPO.

************************************

Answers


1) They said they don't know yet.

2) 10's to 1000's of kilometers.

3a) They said they are not eager to spend money. Their investors are looking at return of investment in terms of decades. The highest cost in the space business is people. They currently have around a dozen people in the company, they said their ideal number of people in the company eventually is 50 people.

3b) The 50 people size was the presenter's personal opinion not the company's.

4) They said they plan to do what works best, no specifics yet.

5a) Didn't get to ask, considering how little they know yet, that sounds a long long way off.

5b) Yes they plan to go IPO eventually, no info on when.

*************************************

Commentary

2) 10's to 1000's of kilometers.

This means they think they can do exoplanet imaging from the equivalent of a 1000+ kilometer diameter lens.  Which is waaaay cool.  It also strongly implies an ability to control where they are in space, and know where they are in space (and time), to a degree that implies optical communication systems at large distances.  Once they crack those nuts, they will need a lot more than 12-50 employees.  I like their interesting development philosophy as well. 

Well, I read the question like this:  Q: At what distance from the asteroid do you all expect to do optical interferometry?  A: Between 10's and 1000's of km.

If that were the case, then that cube sat would need the "ability to control where [it is] in space, and know where [it is] in space (and time)".

I don't get why you've shifted the viewpoint to exoplanets?

If I think there's a 20% chance of that happening in a decade, I'd make some assumption about inflation, and see how it compares to other opportunities I have on hand.  If 10 million today nets me a 20% chance of $5 billion (ish) in 10 years, it may be a gamble I'd take.  Obviously there are a lot more factors that would weigh in, and the chance of success is extremely subjective.  But that's the main idea.

To bring that down to average joe levels:  If $10 today nets me a 20% chance of $5k (ish) in 10 years, well, that's two Starbucks coffee's I'd forgo. 

You can't straight line extrapolate down from $10M to $10.  The few millionaires I know would hold on to their $10M at those chances. 

You only need a few StarBux, not 2M of them.  Ten years of coffee, twice a day is only $36.5k; even with no interest, you'd have a 100% chance of having a lot of your $10M left over.

[JohnFornaro]

Answers distilled from the transcript.

1) "So the first thing we want to do is find out more about them. We honestly don't know enough..."  They're "working on a couple of ideas" for microgravity manufacture, but they don't have enough of a rough idea of how this would be done to risk spending public credibility on discussing it.

2)  Q: How far away do you think with the arykd-100s can you look at the composition of the asteroid? How far away do you need to get?  (Which is the question I would have asked, BTW)

A:  "It depends..."  Your transcript just cuts off.

[Robotbeat]

"1)  Rough ideas of how they plan to refine asteroids into component parts." I think you're mixing them up with Deep Space Industries. Easy to do.

[go4mars]

Five billion? I doubt it. Who'd give you the money? 

My guess:  Militaries for one.  If you could, in real time point dozens of small scopes toward a given point on Earth, and process the digital signals via interferometry, then I strongly suspect you'd find a rich military customer.  If you could do optical communication at interplanetary distances, then I assume most science missions to that range would use it.  If mining companies can image areas to higher fidelity for less money than air photos, while capturing a wider range of the spectrum, they are a no-brainer as a customer.  Weather analysis, tracking ocean currents, maybe even non-invasive tracking of wildlife.  There are many many applications, most of which would involve looking toward Earth.  Astronomers, no doubt would also be interested in buying view time on a multi-faceted interferometer.  In the most recent impact on Jupiter, discovered by some amateur, I suspect someone would pay to point a fleet of interferometer eyes at Jupiter (probably at a price discount) to get a good idea of the immediate effect.
If the annual revenue is several hundred million to a billion dollars, a valuation of 5 billion is arguably not unrealistic. 

I sincerely doubt PR has some uber-special sauce for long-baseline interferometry that no one else has.

This would drive your risk factor in the expected value calculation noted above.  You might place it at 2% instead of 20%.  If so, you probably shouldn't invest.  Others (who have signed their confidentiality agreement, might view the chance of success as higher than you do). 

I have not heard anyone else suggesting that they have this capability/ uber-special sauce.  That suggests they may have a strategic advantage.  Not unlike a drilling company that thinks they know a way to drill deeper than their competitors, or a data processing company that thinks they can build a faster, more efficient super-computer, or myriad other examples.   

with such a small amount of collecting area, you wouldn't be getting anything like a clear picture of an exoplanet surface. You MIGHT be able to tell and exoplanet is round and directly measure its circumference, but because of the ultra-low contrast,

True enough, but it changes when they have fleets of these things all looking.  More is better.  How many of these could you launch on a F9 if the PLF was stuffed with them for example?  40?  100?  If you could recombine the digital data from all of those, that could be a more worthy optical interferometer.  They are talking about mapping out all the NEO's.  I would suggest that's a tricky task with only 2 little eyes and suggests either larger units or (more likely) a lot more of them. 

Expected value calculation.  Not charity.  imo.

[mlindner]

A:  "It depends..."  Your transcript just cuts off.

Shouldn't be cut off. Did it not upload correctly? Don't open it in notepad if you're on windows btw. I saved this from a mac and the line endings won't show up properly in notepad.

[go4mars]

I don't get why you've shifted the viewpoint to exoplanets?

If they mean distance from the target, then that implies reflecting and combining the wavelengths rather than digitally recombining them.  If they meant distance between eyes, then they can look farther, and it suggests digital recombination.  The fact that they talk explicitly about exoplanet viewing implies the latter to me.  Though I agree that the bulk of their revenue would be looking down rather than up.   

You can't straight line extrapolate down from $10M to $10.  The few millionaires I know would hold on to their $10M at those chances. 

The few billionaires I know like to diversify their investments within realms they understand or believe they understand, they like to control things they invest in, and within categories of their portfolio's, closely consider the pedigree of management teams and use expected value calculations.     

[Lar]

Here's the transcript. Excuse any typos, I didn't proofread it.

Thanks SHEDFULS for the work you went to gathering and transcribing. MUCH appreciated.

Wanted to get that in there before I nitpicked the answers too (hey JohnFornaro shoudn't get all the fun)

[Lar]

"1)  Rough ideas of how they plan to refine asteroids into component parts." I think you're mixing them up with Deep Space Industries. Easy to do.

I thought PR was ALSO planning on (with series 300 or perhaps beyond) actually doing resource extraction, some of the pix they've shown were capture/retrieval or on location refining.

PR and DS are both in this space, I think, Just different emphasis.