Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of the Space Industry
Published in 2015, this chronicle by @novalis78 details the mechanics of building a profitable, self-funded business without venture backing.
Core Principles for Independent Builders:
Charging customers from day one acts as the ultimate filter for building software that solves genuine, high-urgency problems.
Keeping fixed overhead low and leveraging lean infrastructure allows founders to stay alive until market tailwinds kick in.
Small, repetitive improvements in customer retention and conversion rates yield massive returns over multi-year horizons.
Community Debate Themes:
The community focused on B2B customer acquisition channels, cold email vs SEO distribution, and balancing full-time employment with side-project development.
CATEGORY Bootstrapping & MRR →
HISTORICAL ERA Cloud & Mobile Era (2014–2019)
COMMUNITY SCORE ★ 6 points
TOTAL DISCUSSIONS 4 comments
Thank you to grinich for posting a readable link.
I have great hopes for In-Situ Resource Utilization and building industrial capability in space, because I think that it has two-fold answers for the primary problem faced by the space industry right now: doing something about the money problem. In short, nobody in government is interested in spending Apollo-scale dollars on space anytime in the near future. Sure, they might like to have people think that a big plan for Mars is in the offing, but when it comes to actually spending the money, it's just not happening.
ISRU answers this on two fronts. First, it allows you to do a lot more with less, by spending less on putting expensive mass into space. Second, when taken to its conclusion, it provides for the real missing link: a return on investment from space which is not just information. Informational returns from space can be easily met through smaller, cheaper, better probes and satellites, and thus don't need an industry in space. They also don't require us to have a growing space industry here on Earth either.
The debate about humans vs robots in space is driven just as much by concerns about a shrinking/stagnating industry as it is by dreams of a Jetsons future. Industrial returns from space could provide a growing demand, which informational returns do not currently provide. Note when I say 'industrial returns' that does not mean shipping chairs and tables made of moon dust to Earth; rather I'm thinking in the sense that if I spent to build a factory in Bulgaria, the return to me is that now I own a factory in Bulgaria and can benefit from being able to own a portion of the production in Bulgaria- I don't expect the return to me to be the actual factory output shipped back to my door. Without some kind of demand (in the economic sense) from space, you can't even pay the teleoperators back here on Earth, even if you already had a telefactory built up there right now.
Two weeks ago, I happen to have toured the Swampworks (modeled on the famous Lockheed Skunk Works) at KSC where the dirt work happens. It's a cool place with cool and quirky people. I also have a few grad school connections with people responsible for this work. The robots they have are very cool. They are doing Good Work.
However, I know that it is NASA's pattern to make really cool plans (up to the point of demo hardware) which then get shot down for budget reasons before it comes time to launch them. I'd hate to see this happen to them. It doesn't always happen. But it happens often enough that startups can look like less of a risk than depending upon Congress. I'd love to see them do two things: 1) drop that seed factory to a sub-$100 million cost so that it could be done as a risky private venture instead of a risky government venture and 2)do an on-Earth seed factory construction project to demo the process. I realize that would be a more expensive project than the work they are doing now, but I think that it would go a lot farther.
Uh, is there a version that isn't behind a paywall?