Kopelman, M.D. (2010) Varieties of Confabulation and Delusion. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 15, 14-37.
ABSTRACT: Interest into the area of working memory has increased in recent years. However, there is a lack of empirical exploration regarding how memory contributes directly to forensic investigations. It is suggested a more complete analysis of the nuances involved with working memory is needed in order to bridge the gap between past human behavior and criminogenic outcomes. Practitioners of cognitive, applied, and police psychology have generally asserted that memory is malleable; meaning retrieval outcomes relative to the brain are both delicate and prone to inaccuracies. Yet, the concept of memory has proven to be a staple of the criminal justice system. It is memory that oftentimes serves as the impetus for the advancement of a valid defense to prosecution. Conversely, the accurate, corroborated retrieval of past events can lead to the successful imprisonment of a violent offender. This paper examines the neural bases of memory, and discusses how forensic professionals can enhance the efficacy of retrieval within interview contexts. False and repressed memories will be discussed due to their relevance in criminal investigations. Age considerations and clinical pathology affecting memory will be appraised, as will a section detailing procedural safeguards for practitioners when interviewing involves a memory component.


Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by KrisBlueNZ, Dec 18, 2013.
has a problem. I believe that representing the "input" transistor as a diode is misleading. All of the text between the first diagram (showing a transistor with a fixed base bias voltage) and the third diagram (showing the NPN and PNP versions of the current mirror) is wrong in places, and misleading generally.
The circuit explanation fails to explain that the collector current in the "input" transistor is essential to the operation, and understanding, of a current mirror. Almost all of the input current flows into the collector of the input transistor; the two base currents are much lower (due to the current gain of the transistor).
Therefore representing the input transistor as a diode, or describing it as operating like a diode, or even being "diode connected", is misleading, and prevents proper understanding of the current mirror's operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_mirror - The Wikipedia article. It is not as clear as it could be.
users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/ece3050/notes/bjt/bjtmirr.pdf - W. Marshall Leach's description. Accurate but not highly descriptive.
I did not find a really clear explanation, but I did not do a long search.
I also found some other descriptions that make reference to the base-emitter junction acting as a diode. I have to assume that the people who wrote these descriptions do not properly understand the operation of the current mirror.
I posted some more detailed material in a comment thread on a YouTube video. This thread was what directed me to the AAC article in the first place. You can find the thread at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=U6qZPx4uD0g if you search on the page for my username, KrisBlueNZ.
I would be happy to rewrite that section of the tutorial if you want.
I agree that the E-book description is lacking. I don't believe it is really possible -- though I could well be wrong -- to adequately describe the operation of a current mirror while ignoring -- or mentioning only in passing -- the effect of the base-emitter voltage.
The key to understanding the operation is to recognize that the configuration forces the base-emitter voltage of both transistors to be the same. Because the collector current is a function of the base-emitter voltage (in the base Ebers-Moll model), this means that the collector currents of the transistors will be the same (assuming matched transistors).
If you want to rewrite the tutorial, keep in mind that you will have to do it using charge-carrier flow (i.e., electron flow) instead of charge flow (i.e., conventional current), as that is how the owner of the E-book wants it.
I agree that the base-emitter voltage is important to the description, and I'm not suggesting that that detail should be removed.
Thanks for the explanation that I already knew At least it confirms that I'm not alone in my understanding. When I tried to explain it in the comments on the YouTube video, I got arguments from people claiming that the input transistor behaves like a diode, which is also what the tutorial says.
I don't particularly WANT to update it. Perhaps you (or someone else) could contact the "owner" and see what he wants to do.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you didn't understand the importance of the base-emitter voltage. That was more for completeness in establishing my viewpoint for others that are reading this.
The input transistor IS acting like a diode. If you put it into a box with just the two terminals (collector and emitter) exposed but, inside the box, with the collector connected to the base, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that box and another box that truly contained just a diode, at least not as long as you constrained your measurements to the forward-biased region. So it is not unreasonable at all to refer to it as a diode-connected transistor or to describe it as behaving like a transistor. You simply have to step up from the fixed-forward-voltage-drop model of a diode (or transistor) and use the exponential-forward-voltage-drop model. Even here, it is sufficient to simply acknowledge this and point out that there is a one-to-one monotonic relationship between diode voltage and diode current (keeping in mind that we haven't thrown in temperature or other effects yet) and that this relationship is the same as the relationship between base-emitter voltage and collector current (keeping in mind that we haven't thrown in Early voltage effects yet, either) of the image transistor.
If you disagree that it behaves like a diode, then please do explain why you believe that to be an inaccurate description, preferably in significant mathematical detail, so that we can discuss it and try to come to a consensus. Even if we don't, we will all walk away at least aware of a different perspective that we might not have been aware of before.
The mods see these posts, as do others that like to maintain the E-book. I don't maintain the E-book because I'm opposed to using the charge-carrier-flow model.
The input transistor IS acting like a diode. If you put it into a box with just the two terminals (collector and emitter) exposed but, inside the box, with the collector connected to the base, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that box and another box that truly contained just a diode, at least not as long as you constrained your measurements to the forward-biased region.
No! At least, not the way I interpret "behave like a diode", and certainly not like the base-emitter junction of the output transistor.
Here is my explanation by example. Assume that the transistor's base-emitter characteristics are such that with exactly 0.65V between the base and emitter, the base-emitter junction will draw 1 mA. And assume the transistor has a current gain of 100, and neglect the Early effect and any other imperfections.
If you put the transistor in a black box and connect only the base and emitter, then apply 0.65V to it, you will measure 1 mA.
If you then connect the collector to the base, and apply 0.65V to it, you will measure 101 mA.
This is why I believe the "diode-connected" description is a misnomer. Sure, it only conducts in one direction, like a diode, but it doesn't have the same V-I characteristic as a diode. If you test it with a curve tracer, you will see the difference. The black box equivalence test will fail.
I think a lack of appreciation of this important difference may be the reason that some people describe the input transistor as operating "like a diode".
For another explanation showing the important difference, see my comments on the YouTube video that I linked to in my first post.
So it is not unreasonable at all to refer to it as a diode-connected transistor or to describe it as behaving like a transistor. You simply have to step up from the fixed-forward-voltage-drop model of a diode (or transistor) and use the exponential-forward-voltage-drop model.
I don't understand what you're saying here. AFAIK a diode HAS an exponential current vs. forward voltage curve. A transistor with its base and collector connected will have a much sharper knee, and a much lower incremental resistance for a given forward voltage, than a diode.
Even here, it is sufficient to simply acknowledge this and point out that there is a one-to-one monotonic relationship between diode voltage and diode current (keeping in mind that we haven't thrown in temperature or other effects yet) and that this relationship is the same as the relationship between base-emitter voltage and collector current (keeping in mind that we haven't thrown in Early voltage effects yet, either) of the image transistor.
I certainly agree that the I-V curve is monotonic, and that superficially it looks similar to a diode's I-V curve, but I don't think that means that it behaves "like a diode".
I have explained the reason why I don't think it behaves "like a diode". The difference might be insignificant if it's used as a rectifier, but it's critical to understanding the operation of the current mirror, and to my mind, comparing the input transistor to a diode in any way is simply misleading and wrong.
I hope I've explained my position clearly enough for you to understand how I'm thinking. Perhaps you understand my issue already, and have an answer to my criticisms. If you can address my concerns directly, please do so!
I agree. The electron flow model is important when you're understanding semiconductor physics, but when you're working with component symbols and circuits, conventional current is more sensible.
You are then asked whether the box contains a diode or a diode-connected transistor.
You claim they are distinguishable, so how will you distinguish them?
In particular, if you are saying that the above equation only applies to one or the other, which does it apply to and what is the equation that applies to the other?
You are correct to point out that I got a bit sloppy at one point. I said that the I-V characteristic for the diode-connected transistor matches that of the Ic vs Vbe for a matched transistor. This is not precisely correct (though it has no effect on whether the diode-connected transistor has a diode characteristic). While this is a common approximation, the correct statement would be that it matches the Ie vs Vbe characteristic of a matched transistor.
I see that the V-I curve of a "diode-connected" transistor has the same shape as the V-I curve of a diode, but not the same scale. I don't have the maths skills to be able to be more specific, but I think they might be distinguishable because of the value of one of the parameters in the formula, because of the relative steepness of the curve for the transistor. I don't know if it would be possible to find (or imagine) a diode that would match the curve of a high-gain transistor. I suspect not.
After thinking about your point for a while, I need to be be more specific about my objection to the diode comparison. The problem with describing the input transistor as a diode is that its characteristics are very different from the base-emitter junction of the output transistor, which is also "a diode".
It must be clearly explained that the "diode" formed by the input transistor conducts far more current (for a given forward voltage) than the diode formed by the base-emitter junction of the output transistor.
If this is not pointed out clearly, the reader would naturally assume that since the transistors are identical, the "diode" formed by the input transistor will behave like the base-emitter junction diode of the output transistor.
And when you have to explain this input "diode" in that way, comparing it to a diode becomes pointless, and simply misleading. It is a lot clearer to avoid the diode idea altogether, and explain the current mirror simply as two matched common emitter amplifiers with commoned inputs, where one amplifier absorbs most of the input current and the other supplies the output current.
Well I think that I understand what you are trying to say. The ordinary real diode for sure has a different I-V characteristic (slope) because of this "n" in Shockley equation.
So in real life diode I-V characteristic don't match transistor "diode" connection.
But it does not change the fact that in theory we are able to match this two devices.
As you can see I managed to get almost perfect match.
And also don't forget that it is well established to call this BJT connection a "diode-connected transistor". And it is impassible to change this.
Discuss a bit more with tshuck and if you come to a conclusion and you still want to write a revised version of the article, you are welcome to do so.
It is not guaranteed that the article will be updated very soon, though.
I could get a bunch of diodes and a bunch of transistors and you could measure them and you would find (subject to the particular part numbers I picked) that there is no discernable pattern. For instance, if you were to use the current at a particular voltgage drop the device with the smallest current might be a transistor or it might be a diode. Likewise of the device with the largest current.
The important point, though, is that when we talk about the diode-connected transistor having an I-V characteristic that is (approximately) matched to the reflector transistor, we are NOT talking about the Ib vs. Vbe characteristic. We are talking about either the Ic vs. Vbe charactersitic (which is a very close approximation) or the Ie vs. Vbe characteristic (which is an exact match). Of course, the is still ignoring other effects such as temperature and Early effect.
Even though the match is only approximate for the Ic vs. Vbe charactersitic (which is usually the one we are most interested in), the match is good to withing 1/β, which typically makes it better than 1%. Considering that even transistors right next to each other on the same die may not be matched to within 1%, that's good enough for all practical purposes. Where this effect becomes significant is when you have more than one reflector transistor. It is what limits the use of BJT current mirrors from being usable to bias more than a handful of transistors. MOSFETs, on the other hand, don't suffer from this problem; I have used single FET mirrors to bias literally millions of FET reflectors.
That is most likely an incorrect assertion. A careful interpretation of the Ebers-Moll BJT model equations will show this to be the case. No doubt the current will be higher than 1mA in the latter case, but not by that substantial amount. Probably less than an order of magnitude.
Interestingly, the quality factor, 'n', is not part of the "true" Shockley equation; it was added later to account for effects seen in transistors.
I've never been able to track down a good history of the quality factor, but from what I've been able to piece together (and this may well be quite wrong), in the early days when Shockley developed his model diodes had an n-value close enough to 1 that he didn't recognize a need for any adjustment. When they started characterizing transistors they found significant imperfections and therefore added the quality factor. By the time I was studying this stuff in the ~1990 time frame, the rule of thumb seemed to be that transistors had an n-value of ~1 and diodes had an n-value of ~2. But the last few times I have tried to track down information it seems that, for diodes or transistors, the n-values are close enough to unity that the n-value is usually left out of both the diode and the transistor equations any more.
If anyone has any better information, I'd love to hear it. One of the many things on my list is to take some measurements on some (modern) diodes and transistors and see what the quality factors actually look like.
I didn't read this closely enough the first time.
If you put a transistor in a box and only connect the base and the emitter, you will probably get a lot more than the 1mA of current. Remember, the device is now being operated in the saturated region and the familiar Ebers-Moll model doesn't apply. You would have to resort to the unapproximated Ebers-Moll equations but that requires knowing things like the reverse common-emitter current gain.
I've just spent a few minutes tinkering with the unapproximated equations and applying the constraint that Ic=0, but am keep getting useless results (such as Ib=Ie.. duh). I want, of course, to see if I can get Ib(Vbe). I'm probably just overlooking some obvious manipulation.
But stepping back from that, the notion of this diode-connected transistor behaving like a diode does NOT claim that this diode has the same characteristic as the Ib vs. Vbe characteristic. We really don't care about that at all when describing a current mirror. The base currents are internal to the mirror circuitry. What we are interested in is the relationships between input current to the mirror (the collector current of the programming transistor) and the output current (the collector current of the reflecting transistor). These relationship are very well matched (for matched transistors and before other effects are considered).
It's a bit of an anomaly directly driving the base emitter junction with a constant voltage source - nominally 0.65V - without any limiting resistance.
For the sake of the argument (however) one could consider the idea. In the first case, with the collector not in circuit (floating) it's difficult to model. But one could consider the collector tied to ground via a very high resistance - say 100MΩ. This would ensure virtually zero (negligible) collector current. Alternatively, one could tie the collector through the same high resistance to a positive supply rail sharing the same common as the base drive. This latter configuration would allow one to assume the transistor is "saturated" with effectively zero collector current - strange as that might seem.
One could then make a few assumptions, again for the sake of the argument. Suppose Vce = 10mV for this case - a random guess.
One could then set up a solution of the un-approximated Ebers-Moll equation for the case of Ic=0 [Amp]. I tried this in Excel using goal seek, with the aim of getting Vce to 10mV whilst adjusting both VBC and Beta_R - using an assumed VBE as the starting point. One comes up with a solution for VBC and Beta_R which satisfies the requirement. From this one can use the un-approximated equation for Ib to find the saturation current Is, whilst setting Ib=1mA as proposed.
As a final step, all the derived values (including the assumed forward current gain of 100) can be used to find Ic & Ib for the case of VBC=0 when the base and collector are directly connected and driven directly by a 0.65V source..
It's a bit of a anomaly directly driving the base emitter junction with a constant voltage source - nominally 0.65V - without any limiting resistance.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying this; just that, from a modeling standpoint, once you determine the Vbe resulting from a set of bias conditions (or stipulate a Vbe) you can, for the sake of static analysis, replace whatever bias circuitry is resulting in that particular Vbe with a voltage source of that same amount to make the analysis easier.
What kind of value did you come up with for βr? Was it in the 0 to 20 range, which is my understanding are common values?
Somewhere about 2.1 for βr.
In the end it's rather a lot of hand waving to resolve an initially fuzzy assumption. One could try this on any simulator using a spice model for a typical transistor. The OP may well have a point about the e-book potentially leading people to a poor understanding of the subtleties of current mirrors. Hopefully, he can come up with something clearer & help sort out any uncertainties in the confused minds of some readers.
Thanks to everyone who has responded. I have certainly revised my opinion, although I still think that it's misleading to describe the input transistor as behaving like a diode.
My objection remains as I said in post #7. Describing the input transistor as behaving "like a diode", without any further explanation, implies that it behaves like the base-emitter junction of the output transistor, which also behaves like a diode and is in a matched component.
Adding the explanation that the input transistor behaves like a diode, but not like the diode formed by the base-emitter junction of the output transistor, makes the comparison with a diode pointless.
In fact I don't think that describing the input transistor as behaving like a diode helps at all in understanding the operation of the current mirror. I think it is tangential and a distraction.
Thanks for your reply. I think you understand my objection to describing the input transistor as "behaving like" a diode.
I see you got a very close match between the diode and the diode-connected transistor. You had to use some customised parameters with the diode and transistor models. Do you know whether there would be any real-world components with parameters like those?
That's not exactly what I said. I know forward voltage (for a given current) is quite variable. I'm talking about the SLOPE of the V-I curve.
This is a significant difference, and that's why I think it may not be within the range of variation that could happen due to process and parameter differences in component manufacture.
Jony130 was able to get a match in his simulation but I don't know whether the parameters he used are reasonable for real world components.
Yes, I see that. I did not get that impression from the tutorial.
This is why I think the comparison is misleading. There are two matched transistors in the current mirror. The output transistor has a base-emitter junction that behaves like a diode. If you say that the input transistor behaves like a diode, you are implying that it behaves like the matched junction.
If you explicitly point out that the input transistor's "diode" has significantly different characteristics from the output transistor's diode, then I don't see how the comparison has any value in explaining the operation of the current mirror.
As I said before, I think it's tangential, and a distraction to understanding the current mirror's operation.
I meant that you would adjust the applied voltage until the base-emitter junction draws 1 mA. That has to happen at SOME voltage!
But I think you're saying that the collector current, and/or whether the transistor is saturated or not, has an effect on the behaviour of the base-emitter diode. Is that right? If so, I'm not surprised, but I didn't know that.
I don't understand the Ebers-Moll model. I think the maths is beyond me.
But stepping back from that, the notion of this diode-connected transistor behaving like a diode does NOT claim that this diode has the same characteristic as the Ib vs. Vbe characteristic.
We really don't care about that at all when describing a current mirror. The base currents are internal to the mirror circuitry. What we are interested in is the relationships between input current to the mirror (the collector current of the programming transistor) and the output current (the collector current of the reflecting transistor).
Exactly. So what's the point of describing the input transistor as operating like a diode? It doesn't help with understanding the current mirror at all, as far as I can see. It's just a distraction and a source of confusion.
If that were true, the current mirror wouldn't work!
Assume that the transistor's base-emitter characteristics are such that with exactly 0.65V between the base and emitter, the base-emitter junction will draw 1 mA. And assume the transistor has a current gain of 100, and neglect the Early effect and any other imperfections.
The base-emitter junctions of the input and output transistors have the same voltage across them, and the same base current. Their collector currents must be the same, because they are (most of) the input current and the output current, respectively, and the output current is nearly equal to the input current. So how can the input transistor's collector current be much less than 100 mA?
I think you may be raising a similar point to WBahn - that the base-emitter characteristics are affected by the collector current. But in the case of the input transistor, the collector is not disconnected, and the transistor is not saturated.
Right. That's what I intended.
You guys have lost me here. I guess my understanding of transistors only covers the basics. I hadn't even heard of the Early effect until I got involved with current mirror explanations.
I'm grateful for everyone's input.
Perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning.
In post #5 I think you proposed two test conditions. The first assumed only the base and emitter were connected and the second was the case with the collector connected to base. In the first case you proposed that a current of 1mA would flow in the base-emitter junction with a Vbe=0.65V. You then propose that in the second test with the collector joined to base the current draw would be (1+β)*1mA or 101mA.
This is not correct despite your objections. The Ebers-Moll equations show the contrary and the current mirror will work perfectly well in the circumstances.
For the two test conditions you propose, the current would increase from 1mA to somewhere around 3mA. As I suggest, apart from the Ebers-Moll approach, one can readily verify the two outcomes using Spice based simulations - which I have now done and verified the result of a modest increase in current consistent with the Ebers-Moll prediction.
Yes, that's what I meant. The base-emitter voltage is set so that 1 mA flows into the base, with the collector disconnected. Then the collector is connected to the base.
I'm aware that my understanding of transistors is a bit superficial, so I tried a simulation using LTSpice IV V4.20g (2013-12-17). I don't suppose the model is 100% accurate either, but it's going to be close enough for me to learn from, right?
I connected a voltage source to the base-emitter junction of a 2N3904 transistor and adjusted the voltage to get 1.000 mA. The voltage was 0.716517V.
Then I connected the collector to the base and re-measured the total (or the emitter) current. It was 9.86 mA. According to my assumptions, that would mean the current gain was 8.86.
However, the base current had dropped from 1 mA to only 33.57 µA. This answers my question to WBahn - yes, changes in the collector current and/or voltage DO affect the base-emitter diode characteristics. I'm not surprised that there is SOME effect but I didn't think it would be so much.
So in this situation, the transistor is showing a current gain of 292.7.
So you're right. The base-emitter voltage that produces 1 mA of base current with the collector unconnected will not produce 101 mA of total current with the collector connected to the base.
changes in the collector current and/or voltage DO affect the base-emitter diode characteristics. I'm not surprised that there is SOME effect but I didn't think it would be so much.
Hi KrisBlueNZ, it seems everybody is satisfied now.
Nevertheless, may I place one short comment?
All you guys always spoke about the Ebers-Moll model - and you have indicated some problems to understand the model.
Why not try a simple (simplified?) physical explanation in one sentence?
As soon as the collector node is connected to a voltage which exceeds the base voltage most of the carriers (99% or more) emitted by the emitter are attracted by the collector and travel NOT to the base node (as before with open collector) - thus drastically reducing the base current.


text:
Canada Becomes the First Nation to Formally Commit to the NASA Lunar Gateway Plan
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that Canada will become the first international partner to join the US led Lunar Gateway program, a plan promoted and managed by NASA but expected to be partially funded by multinational contributions from countries such as Canada.
Trudeau's announcement is the first formal statement of commitment to the program from another nation.
The NASA Lunar Gateway is intended to serve as a follow-on program to the current International Space Station (ISS) and will serve as a stepping stone for NASA's deep space exploration plans.
NASA's newest best friend. Canadian PM Trudeau explaining that "Canada is stepping up" to build another Canadarm for the US Lunar Gateway and also contribute in other ways. According to Trudeau, the new Canadarm "that will repair and maintain the Lunar Gateway" will be "built in Canada by Canadians," although he didn't say which domestic (or foreign owned) company would build it. As always, space politics (even in Canada) is mostly about jobs, not science. The full press conference is available online under the title, "LIVE NOW – Watch Prime Minister Justin Trudeau make a historic announcement about Canada in space!" on the CSA Facebook page. Screenshot c/o Facebook.
Although the fiscal specifics are unclear and likely won't be known until after the 2019 Federal Budget is tabled on March 19th, 2019, Trudeau did make a verbal commitment of $2.05Bln CDN over the next twenty-four years to contribute to the NASA program.
That's less than $100Mln CDN a year, which isn't a lot and could certainly end up being far less depending on whether or not this announcement refers to new funding or is simply a reallocation of existing funds.
Trudeau also announced several smaller space focused funding programs, including $150Mln CDN for a CSA administered Lunar Exploration Accelerator Program (LEAP) to assist small and medium Canadian enterprises (SMEs) to develop new AI, robotics, and health technology for use in lunar orbit and for a Junior Astronauts program.
The LEAP program is expected to appeal to the majority of Canadian space focused companies such as Bolton ON based Canadensys Aerospace, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia based Leap Biosystems, Moon Express Canada and others who aren't as politically well connected as Westminster CO based Maxar Technologies.
Although not noted explicitly during the press conference, Maxar's Brampton ON based MDA Space Systems subsidiary will almost certainly receive the lions share of the new funding as the prime contractor for the "3rd generation Canadarm" needed to support the Lunar Gateway.
In response to Trudeau's announcement, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine issued this February 28th, 2019 NASA post, "Canada Commits to Joining NASA at the Moon," which called Canada:
... a vital ally in this lunar journey as they become the first international partner for the Gateway lunar outpost with their 24 year commitment to deep space exploration and collaboration.
Inflammatory twitter comment. Graphic c/o @Canadainspace.
As outlined on the February 28th, 2019 Justin Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada website post, "Historic investments in Canada's space program to create jobs and new industries," Canada will:
... develop and contribute a smart robotic system – Canadarm3 – that will repair and maintain the Gateway. Canada's partnership in the Gateway ushers in a new era of Canadian excellence in space, and will be the cornerstone of Canada's new, ambitious space strategy.
The Government of Canada will invest $2.05 billion over 24 years for Canada's space program. This investment will create hundreds of good, well-paying jobs over the next ten years – from scientists and engineers to technicians and computer programmers – and will contribute $100 million annually to Canada's gross domestic product.
The Canadarm program has historically served as a wedge for Canadian access into other facets of the US space program such as transportation to the ISS for Canadian astronauts and enjoys a wide, bipartisan support across party lines.
But some have already categorized the new funding as a political issue. For example, the February 28th, 2019 SpaceQ post, "Canada is Going to the Moon," categorized the Trudeau governments announcement as being:
... designed to send a message before the budget comes out on March 19.
The commitment means that come election time, if the Liberals are not re-elected, that a plan and some funding will in place, making it harder to renege on the commitment."
SpaceQ is funded in large part through advertising revenue provided by Canadarm prime contractor Maxar/ MDA.
With its strong Liberal party connections, it's also evidently in Maxar/MDAs best interest to suggest that politics is at the core of any positive government decision going into the next election. Maybe Spaceq is simply acting in the best interests of its sponsor instead of its readers.
And maybe SpaceQ has a point. As outlined most recently in the January 9th, 2019 post, "Why did Maxar Subsidiary SSL "Terminate" its Participation in the DARPA GEOsynchronous Satellite Servicing Program?," Maxar has been having troubles lately and is looking to the Trudeau government to commit to new funding for the Lunar Gateway program to pull its fat out of the fire.
On the other hand, Canada is now a preferred partner for the NASA program. Canadians can now lobby NASA to ask Canadian companies to contribute to the Lunar Gateway program and be funded by the Canadian government. Several companies have confirmed that NASA will soon begin asking for contributions which are completely independent from Maxar/MDA which relate to unmanned Lunar rovers and in-situ resource utilization.
It's useful to note that Trudeau finished up his Thursday morning press conference without being asked any questions on his space policy. He was instead asked questions relating to the SNC Lavalin affair. Maybe everything is indeed eventually boiled down to politics, especially when an election is expected in the fall.
Has the Trudeau government picked Maxar/MDA as the Canadian lottery winner for Canadian space funding for the foreseeable future?
We'll know more when the 2019 Budget is tabled in Parliament on March 19th.
Labels: Canadian Space Agency, Canadian Space Strategy
Graphene Electronics Now One Step Closer
European researchers have announced that they have succeeded in carving out graphene to nanoscale dimensions without ruining its electrical properties; a key step towards making practical graphene nano-electronics.
As outlined in the February 19th, 2019 NanoWerk post, "Graphene 'sandwich' key to new electronics," the researchers were operating under the European Union (EU) Graphene Flagship program, a €1 billion EUR ($1.5Bln CDN) initiative launched in 2013 to bring together academic and industrial researchers with a plan to commercialize graphene.
Graphene, first discovered in 2004, is a form of carbon made up of hexagonal atoms that is only a single-atom thick.
Graphene's unique structure gives it remarkable properties: it is over 100 times stronger than steel, a better electrical conductor than copper, transparent, flexible, and impermeable to most gasses and liquids. Recent research has even shown the possibility of graphene being a room-temperature superconductor, a holy grail of modern science.
Graphene's properties have led to much hype over the past decade, with promises of a revolution in physics and engineering. However, lack of research and difficulties in mass production have kept its promise unfulfilled.
Scientists have long tried using traditional lithography techniques to produce graphene-based nanoelectronics and photonics. However, since graphene is only one atom thick, all its atoms are exposed to the outside world; even small defects and impurities impede its properties.
Graphene Flagship researchers at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) solved this problem by coating graphene with protective layers of hexagonal boron nitride. The team then used nanolithography to drill nanometre-sized holes into the boron nitride, enabling electrical current to flow through the graphene at 100-1000 times greater rates than previous efforts.
The researchers claim this new technique is a key step towards the building of defect-free graphene nanoelectronic and photonic devices.
The ability to produce defect-free graphene-based devices combined with recent breakthroughs in mass production techniques, may have the next few years finally bring graphene's promise to life.
Brian Orlotti is a network operator at the Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network (ORION), a not-for-profit network service provider to the education and research sectors.
Labels: Commercial Space Activities
Will Australia Become the Third Nation to Encourage Private Sector Space Mining?
Both the United States, with its "Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015," and the Grand Duchy of Luxemboug are well known for recent legislation allowing their citizens and domestically based corporations to claim ownership over space based resources.
Mars (on the left) has more than a little in common with the Australian outback (on the right) according to the December 4th, 2014 ABC News Australia post, "Mars V Australian Outback." As outlined in the June 10th, 2018 VentureBeat post, "The best countries for tech companies: 2018 rankings," the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has named Australia, Singapore and Sweden as "the countries most prepared for technological change, and the most attractive places for tech companies to invest in the next five years." It's a shame that Canada wasn't in the top ten rankings. Photo's c/o NASA and Jane Stapleton.
Those laws are designed specifically to encourage private sector extraterrestrial exploration and resource extraction. Now it looks like a third nation could soon be following along the same path.
As outlined in the February 14th, 2019 the Conversation post, "Australia: well placed to join the Moon mining race … or is it?," there has certainly been a lot of discussion on the topic since the establishment of the Australian Space Agency on July 1st, 2018.
Australia's Space Roadmap. Cover c/o CSIRO.
The article noted that one of the priorities of the new space agency is "developing a strategy to position Australia as an international leader in specialized space capabilities" such as space mining.
It also pointed out that terrestrial mining operations often use autonomous drills, robotic tools optimized for extreme environments and other high-tech tools which could be useful for mining operations on Mars or the asteroids.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the independent Australian federal government agency responsible for scientific research, has noted space resource utilization as a key element of its 2018 Space Road Map, more formally known as "Space: A Roadmap for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia."
As outlined in the Space Road Map:
Australian industry has a unique opportunity to leverage the nation's strengths and advantages to increase its role in the international space sector by providing strategic contributions to global value chains that result in economic return and improve the lives of Australians.
Growing the ecosystem and downstream utilisation of space-derived data and services, such as Earth Observation, positioning navigation and timing, and satellite communications.
Building an Australian industry to track space objects to ensure the continued availability of space assets.
Leveraging Australia's research and industrial strengths to develop cutting edge technology for global space exploration and utilization.
The Wilde Project is named after Oscar Wilde (it's a long story), and includes Australian researchers from multiple schools and faculties organized through the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research (ACSER) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney. It plans to design a space mission to "process water from the permanently shadowed craters at moon's poles" to demonstrate the feasibility of a variety of tools and methodologies to the mining community since "both the (Australian) space agency and CSIRO now have it as a priority." Screen shot c/o UNSW Engineering.
But while Australia has (so far at least) not moved forward with the necessary legal regulations needed for citizens and domestically based corporations to claim ownership over space based resources, the national news outlets have starting to notice the local mining expertise and how that skill-set is applicable to the space industry.
According to the February 22nd, 2016 Huffington Post Australia article, "Australia Will Lead The Way In Space Mining Because We're Used To Operating In Isolated, Extreme Environments."
As outlined in the December 4th, 2017 WA Today post, "Gold, water and platinum: Australians lead the way towards asteroid mining boom," Australia "will have asteroid mining before we have people living on Mars," because "there is money involved."
It's odd that no one in Canada has figured this out.
Mining in Australia, much like mining in Canada, is a significant primary industry and contributor to the domestic economy.
Labels: business incubators, Commercial Space Activities
The Next Three Important Dates For the Canadian Space Industry
The 2019 Canadian Federal Budget (expected to be tabled in the Canadian House of Commons on March 19th, 2019), along with the fourth quarter 2018 report (expected on February 28th, 2019) and the year-end stockholder meeting (currently scheduled for May 8th, 2019) of Westminster CO based Maxar Technologies, are currently the hottest topics of gossip among those who focus on the Canadian space industry.
It's because Brampton ON based MDA is both the maker of Canada's iconic Canadarm and a Maxar subsidiary. Since the formation of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) in 1989, the space industry in Canada has been wrapped around Federal government funding for its favorite contractor.
This state of affairs is in the midst of changing. But change comes slowly to the industry and many are hoping that change will be delayed or superseded by announcements deriving from one or more of those events.
As outlined in the February 20th, 2019 CTV News post, "2019 federal budget to be tabled March 19: Morneau," Finance Minister Bill Morneau "will introduce the Liberal government's pre-election budget on March 19 in a document expected to touch the issues of prescription drug costs, skills training for workers and helping more millennials get into the housing market."
As part of the budget, the government may or may not announce a commitment to the Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway (LOP-G), a US based initiative with a Canadian component manufactured by Maxar Technologies and covered previously in this blog, most recently in the the January 10th, 2019 post, "That Canadian Space Plan Where We Give Most of the Funding to a Failing, Foreign Owned Maxar is Dumb."
An announcement in favour of the LOP-G would be a boon to Maxar/MDA since the company would then be almost guaranteed to receive a multi-billion dollar contract to build a new "next-generation" Canadarm for the LOP-G.
But that might also not happen because, as noted most recently in the January 30th, 2019 post, "Why did Maxar Subsidiary SSL "Terminate" its Participation in the DARPA GEOsynchronous Satellite Servicing Program?," Maxar has been having a bad year and governments don't want to be perceived to be supporting failing, foreign owned companies.
As for the other two dates, they will likely be the two last chances for a failing Maxar to put its fiscal house in order.
According to the February 7th, 2019 Maxar press release, "Maxar Technologies Fourth Quarter 2018 Investor Call Scheduled for Thursday, February 28 2019," new Maxar President and CEO Daniel Jablonsky and recently appointed Executive VP and CFO Biggs Porter will host an earnings conference call to review Maxar's fourth quarter results, on February 28th, 2019.
Jablonsky and Porter (or their replacements, if nothing improves after after the fourth quarter results are announced) will also likely be around for the year-end stock holder meeting which, according to the January 29th, 2019 Maxar press release, "Maxar Technologies Announces Date of Annual Meeting of Stockholders," will be held on May 8th, 2019.
According to the February 13th, 2019 Seeking Alpha post, "Maxar Technologies: Betting On Space," Maxar needs to announce a cut of the quarterly stock dividend plus the successful sale of Palo Alto CA based Maxar subsidiary SSL for a reasonable amount of money, perhaps around $500Mln US ($660Mln CDN), in order to turn around the company.
Of course, even a big Maxar turnaround might not shake any LOP-G commitments from an embattled Federal government gearing up for a fall Federal election.
The Justin Trudeau Liberals might simply have too much on their plate to worry about any large but failing multi-national corporation other than the Montreal PQ based SNC Lavalin.
But that would be another story entirely.
Labels: CanadArm, Canadian Space Agency, LOP-G, MDA
InvestmentSpace 2019 on Friday, February 22nd in Toronto, Ontario
It's not going to make an immediate difference, if only because the room will contain far to many of the "usual suspects" of the Canadian space industry. They'd mostly prefer to pine over a quieter past when space was properly managed and fully funded by the appropriate government agency working through a trustworthy prime contractor.
It's also a little late to the party, given all the other events around the world over the last five years which have been focused around much the same topic.
Be that as it may, the 2019 InvestmentSpace Conference, sponsored by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), the Toronto ON based Creative Destruction Lab (CDL) and the Ontario Center of Excellence (OCE), is gearing up for a full day of presentations at the St-Regis Hotel in Toronto, Ontario on Friday, February 22nd.
As outlined on the February 18th, 2019 CSA website devoted to the event:
InvestmentSpace 2019 will bring together venture capital investors, aspiring Canadian space entrepreneurs and start-up companies looking for pre-seed (under $500,000) or seed funding (under $5 million), as well as business accelerators and incubators focused on space start-ups.
The event will feature panel discussions by successful space entrepreneurs and investors as well as a session for start-up companies to showcase and pitch their business ideas.
According to the program, a variety of usual suspects are expected to present during the event. They include:
Mike Greenley, the group president of Brampton ON based MDA Corporation, now a subsidiary of Westminister CO based Maxar Technologies.
Michael Pley, the current president of Ayr ON based Pley Consulting, a member of the ill-fated Space Advisory Board (SAB) and the former president of Cambridge ON based Com Dev International, a Canadian based company purchased by Charlotte NC based Honeywell International in 2015.
Iain Christie, the executive vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC).
But there will also be some interesting new presenters, potential funders and curious attendees at the event. They include:
Sergio A. Escobar, the CEO of Montreal PQ based BCF Ventures, a "super angel fund" focused on early stage start-ups and inspired by the best practices from Silicon Valley. As outlined in the December 11th, 2018 Betakit post, "BCF Ventures Reaches $12 Million in Commitments for its 'Super Angel" Fund," the fund intends to provide at least ten start-ups with $500,000 CDN annually over the next several years.
Ozan Isinak, the president of the Keiretsu Forum Canada, which is part of a global angel investor network with more than 2500 accredited investor members throughout 47 chapters on three continents.
Michelle Killoran, a principal at Toronto ON based OMERS Ventures, a venture capital firm focused around technology, media and telecommunications companies.
Ana Misra, a co-founder & director of the Markham ON based York Angels, "a supportive linkage between local entrepreneurs, seeking early and mid-stage capital, and investors with a commitment to the economic development of the Region and to the entrepreneurial spirit of their community," according to their website.
A complete listing of the speakers and attendees is included online with the InvestmentSpace program.
Even with dozens of companies participating and at least a few opportunities to talk with actual private sector venture capitalists and investors, the true worth of the forum won't be known for months, or perhaps years and will become apparent only after one or two of the start-ups gain either fiscal traction, public recognition or international notoriety.
There's also the question of whether this new investment event will be able to properly compete with the great many other US and European based investment conferences in the financial, resource, aerospace and manufacturing sectors which frankly, have been going on for a long-time and attracted a great deal of international capital.
If InvestmentSpace 2019 wants to be any more than a minor stop on a far larger international investment circuit, they'd better put on a great show this Friday.
In space, no one can see your national boundaries.
Space Could be the Most Perfect Construction Site for the Most Perfect Fiber Optics
According to Mountain View CA based Flawless Photonics President and CEO Chandra (CK) Singla, the real future of manufacturing in space could begin with a small automated, fiber optic fabrication laboratory (the "Fab Lab") currently scheduled to launch in April, 2019 with the next SpaceX Falcon-9 resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS).
The December 2018 cover of "Upward Magazine," the official publication of the ISS National Lab explored the increasing efforts to manufacture exotic fiber optics in a micro-gravity environment in the article "Exotic Glass Fibers from Space. The Race to Manufacture ZBLAN." Graphic c/o Upward Magazine.
Singla is currently working with co-founder Rob Loughan, plus a small team of material science, optical fiber and micro-gravity experts to bring a new generation of innovation and creativity to the final frontier.
He spoke about the upcoming mission, and about why optical fibers are an order of magnitude more useful when manufactured in space, with this blog last Friday.
"We've been focusing in this area to understand how to achieve the theoretical promise of several glass compositions to provide a 10 times or greater improvement in performance of optical fibers, by increasing the operational spectrum at far lower attenuation. Our work builds upon the research on the effects of microgravity on ZBLAN optical fibers by NASA materials scientist Dennis Tucker," said Singla. "The upcoming mission is our proof-of-concept."
CK Singla. Photo c/o CK Singla.
Optical fibers are flexible, transparent strands made by drawing glass (silica or fluoride gas) or plastic to a diameter slightly thicker than that of a human hair.
The strands are used in many industries including telecommunications, aerospace and healthcare because optical information travels over longer distances and at higher bandwidths (data rates) than is possible with electrical information traveling over electrical cables.
But on Earth, gravity influences strand formation by encouraging flaws and crystals to develop within the fibers made from the more promising fluoride glasses during the manufacturing process. Those flaws slow down the transmission of optical information in much the same way as a cloudy window makes it difficult to see through.
According to Singla, as data transmission needs grow exponentially, telecom and data network operators looking for new solutions are closely following our development roadmap due to the possibility of "sending ten time the data ten times further" using far less infrastructure, provided the influence of gravity is removed from the manufacturing process
The simpler infrastructure will save more than enough money to cover the cost of the added ISS portion of the manufacturing process.
"We're going to use the Fab Lab to test out our theories. If the mission succeeds, it will have a transformative effect on healthcare, telecommunications and other industries," he stated.
The fibers manufactured on board the ISS will be returned to Earth for testing several weeks later on board the Dragon capsule during its return trip.
Flawless Photonics is currently in the midst of plans to raise $20Mln US ($26.5Mln CDN) to commercialize their work.
As outlined on the Mahwah NJ based private equity and venture capital firm Moe Funding LLC undated post, "Space Manufacturing Platform." the technology is
... optimized for the size constraints and the rigors of space travel in order to cost effectively launch our equipment on existing rocket technologies such as those from SpaceX, and can easily be handled and installed by astronauts at the International Space Station's commercial research lab, 360 miles above the Earth.
The result is FlawlessFiber™ which has better attenuation and spectrum bandwidth than any fiber made on Earth today. It is composed of a special glass called ZBLAN rather than silica, and its capabilities far exceed the physical properties of silica glass fibers. So what's the catch? ZBLAN optical fibers can only achieve their ideal performance if they are produced in the absence of Earth's gravity. Which of course means, we go to space!
FlawlessFiber™ will revolutionize many industries that currently use optical fibers while creating entirely new products and markets that do not yet exist because these perfect fibers simply can't be produced here on Earth.
According to the May 11th, 2018 Space.com post, "Making Stuff in Space: Off-Earth Manufacturing Is Just Getting Started," Singla and his team aren't the only people working on the process, although they do seem to be the closest to creating a commercially salable product.
Our plans are to begin quarterly flights to the ISS with enough supplies to create commercial sized quantities of our fibers, just as soon as we complete our proof of concept and complete our fund raising.
It's also worth noting that high-quality ZBLAN fiber optic cables manufactured in the traditional manner on Earth are currently quite pricey, despite being limited by attenuation that is greater than silica.
Any manufacturing process able to increase the performance 10X or more would change the economic equation and the resulting product could end up with significant market share while being very profitable.
Given that, we can reasonably expect to hear more from Flawless Photonics, CK Singla and their partners in the near future.
A New Generation of 3D Printed Nano-Material Sensor Platforms
A NASA team has received a $2Mln US ($2.65Mln CDN) grant to develop a 3D-printed nanomaterial-based sensor platform. The small, low-power, high sensitivity platform could greatly enhance space exploration efforts.
The team, headed by technologist Mahmooda Sultana and located at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, will spend the next two years developing the platform.
The platform will be capable of sensing a wide variety of data such as minute concentrations of gases, atmospheric pressure and temperature, then transmitting them wirelessly from a self-contained platform measuring just two-by-three-inches. Such tiny platforms could be deployed on planetary rovers to detect small quantities of water and methane or serve as biological sensors to monitor astronauts' health.
Key to the effort is a 3D printing system developed by Ahmed Busnina and his group at Northeastern University in Boston. The 3D printing system deposits nanomaterials (such as carbon nanotubes, graphene, molybdenum disulfide and others), layer-by-layer, onto a substrate to create tiny sensors. Each sensor can detect different gas, pressure level or temperature.
Nanomaterials are highly sensitive and stable at extreme conditions. They are also lightweight, radiation-hardened and require less power, making them ideal for space applications.
Under the partnership with Northeastern University, Sultana and her team will design the sensor platform, determining which combination of materials are best for measuring minute, parts-per-billion concentrations of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen.
Northeastern University will then use its 3D printing system to apply the nano-materials.
The approach differs dramatically from how multi-functional sensor platforms are currently made.
Rather than building one sensor at a time and then integrating it with other components, 3D printing enables the printing of an entire suite of sensors onto one platform, dramatically simplifying integration and packaging. In another innovative twist, Sultana's team plans to print a wireless antenna and circuitry onto the same silicon wafer as the sensors, further simplifying instrument design and fabrication.
According to Sultana, the project addresses NASA's need for small, low-power, lightweight, and highly sensitive sensors as an alternative to the mass spectrometers currently used on space missions to detect molecules of interest. Although mass spectrometers can detect a wide variety of molecules, they have difficulty distinguishing between types such as water, methane and ammonia.
A suite of small yet powerful sensors built into a compact package recalls the iconic 'tricorder' devices seen in the 'Star Trek' franchise. The work done by Sultana's team reminds us that the science fiction of yesterday can become the science fact of tomorrow.
And Now for a Moment to Discuss the Upcoming EU Copyright Directive and Small News Outlets
European Union (EU) negotiators have agreed to the wording of Articles 11 and 13 of the infamous EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, known more commonly as the EU copyright directive.
As outlined in the February 13th, 2019 IPPro Magazine post, "EU copyright directive: article 11 and 13 text agreed," the final vote on whether to implement the directives could occur as soon as March 25th - 27th.
As noted in this blog, most recently in the August 20th, 2018 post, "Breaking for Vacation and to Research Issues Relating to Online Press Freedom: Back on September 4th," the legislation will have a substantial effect on freedom of speech on the internet, news coverage in general and the ability to link directly to primary source material for news and commentary.
The BBC has weighed in on the EU copyright directive with its February 13th, 2019 post, "What is Article 13? The EU's copyright directive explained," which noted that "Google has been particularly vocal about the proposed law, which it says could 'change the web as we know it'" and "Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive states services such as YouTube could be held responsible if their users upload copyright-protected movies and music."
Its worth noting that this blog will also be affected, since it often links to sources and uses tools and services provided by major US based internet giants such as Google, YouTube and others targeted by the EU copyright directive.
Change is almost certainly coming over the next few months, although very few are aware of the specifics of those changes.
We'd better stand by for adventure.
Labels: New Media
A Short History of Canada's Military Space Policy and How it Fits into the Current US Space Force Discussions
Part 5: The Current Liberal Government
This series of posts is attempting to answer some of the questions surrounding the appropriate Canadian response to the recently announced US plan to create an expanded United States Space Force.
Part one ("The Axworthy Doctrine") focused on how the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's led to a new Canadian focus on aggressive, international peacekeeping missions requiring space focused communication and surveillance capabilities of a type which Canada didn't then possess.
Part two ("The Changing Political Landscape") discussed why Canada never had a military space policy prior to 1998 by going back to the 1960's and the federal liberal party under Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.
Part three ("Towards Northern Sovereignty") dealt with the changing focus of Canadian foreign policy from international peacekeeping towards northern sovereignty, a policy developed in the 1990's under then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien which also required a substantial space-focused component, and what happened when the Canadian government realized that it still didn't possess those capabilities.
Part four ("Funding an Appropriate Force") outlined Conservative Prime Prime Minister Stephen Harper's reaction to the policies of the previous Liberal government. It would have been a great strategy, if only the Canadian government didn't keep cutting back on the budget.
Here is part five of this series.
PM Trudeau in 2019. Photo c/o CP/ Darryl Dyck.
In the run up to the 2015 Federal Election, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau (the eldest son of Canada's fifteenth PM, Pierre Trudeau) instinctively understood that the problem with the Stephen Harper Conservative government (at least when it came to defence policy) was simply that no one could find the funding for the Conservative "Canada First Defence Strategy."
As outlined on the Liberal Party website:
We will maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases.
Under Stephen Harper, investments in the Canadian Armed Forces have been erratic, promised increases in funding have been scaled back, and more than $10 billion of approved funding was left unspent.
This mismanagement has left Canada's Armed Forces underfunded and ill-equipped, and the courageous members of the Forces unsupported after years of dedicated service.
It sounded good. It's just a shame the new policy took until June 2017, well after the Trudeau government had won the October 15th, 2015 Federal election, to roll out..
As well, the new policy seemed to be more of a reaction to US policy which, under current US President Donald Trump, simply wasn't prepared to let Canada have as much of a free ride as had been true in previous eras.
If Canada could borrow military assets from its allies in order to complete a mission, then it would need to build up its indigenous capabilities.
The current statement of Liberal Defence policy (at least until after the next election, scheduled for October 21st, 2019) is the June 6th, 2017 "Strong, Secure, Engaged – Canada's Defence Policy."
As outlined by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan in his July 7th, 2017 statement in the House of Commons, "Strong, Secure, Engaged" – A new defence policy for Canada," the new plan will:
... recapitalize the Royal Canadian Air Force, with a full fleet of 88 advanced fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18s. This should have been done years ago.
The previous government planned to purchase just 65 fighters, but didn't actually purchase any, and didn't budget adequately even for that inadequate fleet. 88 fighters are required to fully meet our NORAD and NATO obligations simultaneously, not just risk manage them, as the RCAF has had to do for a number of years.
This plan fully funds, for the first time, the Royal Canadian Navy's full complement of 15 Canadian Surface Combatant ships necessary to replace the existing frigates and retired destroyers. Fifteen. Not "up to" 15 and not 12. And definitely not six, which is the number the previous government's plan would have paid for, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported last week.
Minister Sajjan. Photo c/o Chris Wattie/ Reuters.
The minister also promised to "recapitalize much of the Canadian Army's land combat capabilities and aging vehicle fleets" and made "new commitments to emerging domains, particularly space, cyber and remotely piloted systems" in order to "address current and looming gaps in existing capabilities."
All of which sounds well and good, except when you note that, as outlined in the October 30th, 2018 Defence News post, "Canada to accept bids for new fighter jet in May — here are the potential competitors," Canada hasn't purchased any new fighter jets yet and doesn't even plan on taking bids for the replacement aircraft until May 2019.
As for the ships, it's worth noting that, as outlined in the February 8th, 2019 CBC News post, "Ottawa makes its $60B frigate project official, even as rival's court challenge goes forward," while a contract was awarded, no money seems to have changed hands.
Military procurement is a mess, and not likely to clean itself up anytime soon.
Most importantly, and as outlined in the March 6th, 2018 MacLeans post, "What's happening to Canada's defence spending?," no new funding was allocated in the 2018 Federal budget for the military, which kinda suggests that the Liberal defence policy is slowly walking down the same path as the previous Conservative plan.
As for Canada's space capabilities, there has been some movement, as outlined in the February 4th, 2019 post, "UTIAS-SFL and Raytheon Canada Building Military Funded Spy Sats," which noted $46.2Mln CDN for new funding under the Department of National Defence (DND) All Domain Situational Awareness Science & Technology (ADSA S&T) program.
Also noteworthy were the eight Canadian companies which received multiple contracts totaling $6.7Mln CDN through the Department of National Defence (DND) in late 2018 in order to develop "situational awareness" applications focused around the analysis and assessment of synthetic aperture radar(SAR) data generated through Canada's Radarsat program.
In this case, it was the funding mechanism, not the military strategy, which was noteworthy.
As outlined in the December 17th, 2018 post, "New Radarsat R&D Funding is Mostly for Software Analytics But Includes Some Interesting Surprises," the DND contracts were structured as public private partnerships with costs split 50-50 between DND and the various private sector participants.
But dropping a few million here or there for a few new programs doesn't amount to much compared to the total Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) annual budget of approximately $25Bln CDN.
Canada's military space strategy remains mired in ideas generated decades before and still focuses on how to more effectively gain low-cost access to civilian and military US satellite command, control, communications and space situational awareness assets.
Although the strategy remains the same, most would agree that space is a far more complex environment to operate in today, than it was when Lloyd Axworthy held public office.
Is this our only choice in the matter or are there other options? That will be the subject of our final post on this topic.
Last episode: "Funding an Appropriate Force," as part four of "A Short History of Canada's Military Space Policy and How it Fits into the Current US Space Force Discussions," continues.
Next episode: "Future War, Micro-Sats Controlled by AI "BattleStars" Supported by Fast Launching, Hypersonic Transports and Space Based Solar Power," as part six of "A Short History of Canada's Military Space Policy and How it Fits into the Current US Space Force Discussions," concludes.
Labels: DND, military space
Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains Thinks He's Doing a Good Job
Sometime this week, the Canadian government is expected to release a 100-page report titled "Building a Nation of Innovators."
The report is intended to highlight the various policies, programs, plans and funding mechanisms the Federal department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) has undertaken since 2015 in order to embrace innovative methodologies, digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) applications.
But it probably won't mention anything about Canada's space industry, which is a shame since the space industry is one of the drivers of innovation in the Canadian economy.
As outlined in the February 9th, 2019 Financial Post article, "The race to future-proof the economy: Navdeep Bains on the state of innovation in Canada," Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains is already providing a sneak peak at the contents of the report.
According to Bains:
...it's a report card, because people need to know as a government you made promises, are you living up to those promises? And what does it mean to them, to their communities, for their own prospects and for their kids' prospects?
The speed and scope of change is phenomenal, and that creates anxiety and concerns that Canadians have. And we're dealing with that and saying, look, we want you to succeed.
Front cover. Graphic c/o ISED.
The full interview is available online. The report is also expected to be available online and will likely be referenced at least once or twice during the upcoming Federal election in the fall of 2019.
The Innovation Minister wants to be judged by this report and by how he has succeeded in advocating for Canada's Innovation Agenda.
He's right. We should do this.
The policy was originally outlined on the July 26th, 2016 Federal Government website "Positioning Canada to Lead: An Inclusive Innovation Agenda."
Editors Note: The Federal government has released its report.
As outlined in the February 12th, 2019 ISED press release, "Canada is building a nation of innovators," the report "presents the Government's progress in laying a solid foundation for Canada to remain competitive and for Canadians to succeed in the global economy."
But it doesn't say much else. It spends most of its 100 pages talking about preliminary results and what could happen if the Liberals are allowed to carry through with their plans.
There are a few mentions of the space industry, most notably on page 70, where the document states that "Canada can, and must, do a better job in unlocking the potential of its space sector for the benefit of Canadian businesses and society at large."
The complete report, under the title Building a Nation of Innovators, is available online so the curious can confirm the content for themselves.
Labels: Canadian Space Strategy
Mars One Finally Goes Bankrupt
The plan always seemed more akin to the plot of the 1967 Mel Brooks movie "The Producers," which focused on the down-on-his-luck producer Max Bialystock (played by Zero Mostel), who teamed up with a timid accountant (Gene Wilder) in a get-rich-quick scheme to put on the world's worst show and make off with the production funds.
Be that as it may, Mars One Ventures AG, the commercial arm of the Mars One effort to colonize the red planet, was liquidated on January 15th, 2019 in a case heard in the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, according to a January 16th, 2019 filing (#CHE-375.837.130) by the canton's commercial register.
As outlined in the February 11th, 2019 Space News post, "Mars One company goes bankrupt," the filing was first publicized February 10th, 2019 on Reddit.
According to the Space News post, "the filing offered little information about the bankruptcy case or how the company was liquidated. Bas Lansdorp, founder of Mars One, confirmed that the company was bankrupt, but provided few additional details."
As outlined in the post:
Mars One gained headlines several years ago with plans to privately finance human missions to Mars, with those selected to fly on those missions committing to a one-way trip with no prospect of return to Earth. In its 2012 announcement of its plans, Mars One said it expected to have people land on Mars in 2023, a date that it has subsequently delayed to no earlier than 2032.
Mars One claimed it could pull off the initial mission, through the landing of the first four-person crew on Mars, for $6 billion, a figure the organization offered few details about and one widely criticized in the broader space industry as far too low. Mars One planned to raise the funds for the mission by selling broadcasting rights, citing the large revenues generated for the rights to events like the Olympics and the World Cup.
This blog first noted Mars One and its activities in the March 22nd, 2015 post, "Springtime for Mars One," which noted the similarity to the Mel Brooks movie and predicted the company would eventually fail.
As noted in the December 5th, 2016 post, "Another Call for Federal Assistance in Space, plus Kepler, Clyde Space, ULA & Mars One, Which Can Now Sell Stock," Mars One even attempted a reverse merger of the Swiss based publicly traded Innovative Finance AG (InFin).
The expectation was that selling shares in a publicly traded company would allow Mars One to raise money. But that plan didn't work out. As outlined in the Space News post:
Mars One has provided few financial updates since it announced in December 2016 that Mars One Ventures had gone public after an acquisition by InFin Innovative Finance AG, a Swiss firm previously working on mobile payment technologies that was already traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
The last shareholder update by Mars One Ventures was published in June 2018, according to the investor relations section of its website. At the time trading of the stock had been suspended on the Frankfurt exchange, with hopes of resuming it in August.
A series of intermediary steps, kicked off with great fanfare, also eventually ground to a halt.
Mars One awarded study contracts in 2013 to Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL) to develop an orbiter to serve as a communications relay, and to Lockheed Martin for a Mars lander based on the design for NASA's Phoenix mission.
However, activity on those projects ground to a halt by early 2015 after the companies completed their initial studies and did not receive funding for additional work.
Mars One bears uncanny similarities to various businesses being proposed even today which promise great things but don't have any obvious revenue models.
Examples would include the European based Swiss Space Systems (SSS) which, as outlined in the January 24th, 2017 post, "Swiss Court Confirms Swiss Space Systems Bankruptcy But CEO Jaussi Might Buy Assets and Start Over," once attempted to partner with the City of North Bay ON in an attempt to launch a mini-space shuttle and Halifax NS based Maritime Launch Services (MLS) which, as outlined most recently in the April 13th, 2018 post, "Ukrainian Rockets Like the Cyclone 4M Are Too Dangerous an Investment for Western Interests: Kyiv Post," also has a problematic revenue model.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. A man's reach should always exceed his grasp, just so long as the investors do their appropriate due diligence to recognize the difference between shit and shinola.
The Washington DC Based Wilson Center Begins the Next Phase of Its Campaign for a Renewed Canada/ US Space Partnership
The Washington DC based Wilson Center, the US think-tank which organized the September 7th, 2018 event "Over the Horizon: A New Era for Canada-US Space Cooperation?" which included many US and Canadian senior space focused bureaucrats, has published a February 2019 White Paper on "The Potential for a US-Canadian Spacefaring Partnership: Canada's Role in The US Return to Space Leadership."
The front cover of the twenty-one page February 2019 Wilson Center position paper on "The Potential for a US-Canadian Spacefaring Partnership: Canada's Role in The US Return to Space Leadership." Graphic c/o Wilson Center.
As outlined in the position paper:
Canada has a well-developed partnership with NASA that supports space science and exploration, but the changes in US priorities for NASA will require a recalibration of this partnership and open new opportunities for the CSA. Canada's small but highly regarded commercial space sector will similarly see new business opportunities including the chance to enhance supply chain participation in the US space marketplace.
But an expanded US space marketplace also implies expanded application of US rules in space and some in Canada may resist the extraterrestrial application of U.S. law in the same way that prior US efforts to apply rules extraterritorially in Earth-bound geopolitics led to strong objections from many Canadians.
To its credit, the paper is a reasonably good inventory of both US and Canadian legislation currently covering each nation's space policy.
The paper is especially good with its mention of the 2008 Canadian Long-Term Space Plan (LTSP), which was commissioned (but never adapted) by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the consequences of the 2012 David Emerson led Aerospace Review, which dealt with space at length in its second volume ("Reaching Higher: Canada's Interests and Future in Space"), but is seldom referenced by most commentators.
In fact, the paper was quite flattering to the Harper government although it was less than complimentary to the current Justin Trudeau Liberal government.
According to the position paper:
The Trudeau government has yet to put its stamp on Canadian space policy, and in particular, it has not taken decisions on major new spending or projects in which the Government of Canada will invest.
The structures put in place to develop Canadian space policy and priorities are adequate to the task, but decisions must be taken to transform Canadian ambitions for a continued role in the space domain into achievements.
It also argued that a Canada-US partnership could benefit both sides:
First, Canada has been in the position of being one customer among many ever since it developed a space program, and so in contracting, cost-control, and the management of relationships Canada's experience has value as a model for how US government entities might adapt.
Second, Canada's commercial space sector adds to and complements the same sector in the United States.
MDA Group President Mike Greenley is also on the lobbying circuit, a sure sign that, at least as of today, the Federal government has not made a final decision on how to support its space industry. Greenley will be speaking on the topic "Canada in the New Trillion Dollar Space Economy," at a private event sponsored by the Ontario Aerospace Council (OAC) in Toronto ON on February 15th, 2019. Photo c/o The Empire Club.
The Wilson Center White Paper concludes by stating that:
This review of recent space policy decisions taken in the United States and Canada point to the potential for the two countries to work together. The countries have similar goals, and now the structures necessary in place to facilitate action and partnership.
With smaller budgets and a smaller space sector, as well as a preference for collaborating with other countries on space related scientific endeavors, Canada's space policy development has been held back while the United States put its attention and resources elsewhere.
The renewed US engagement on space provides the missing element for Canada: a set of missions and goals it can consider and even partner with the United States to attain.
But while the call for cooperation between the two nations almost certainly has the approval of many of the senior bureaucrats on both sides, the end result will likely be dependent of the current Justin Trudeau Liberal government and the upcoming 2019 Federal election, currently scheduled for October 2019.
Maybe we'll get some indication when the 2019 Federal Budget is released. Or maybe not.
Labels: Canadian Space Agency, NASA
Honeywell Will Formally Open Its Already Operational Smallsat Tech Incubator in Old COM DEV Facility
Maybe things are starting to look up for Canada's space industry.
Sometime this month, Charlottesville NC based Honeywell International, will formally open its Space Division's Greenhouse, a technology and space focused incubator in a facility originally owned by the old Cambridge ON based COM DEV International.
Of course, the Honeywell Greenhouse has unofficially been opened for almost a year. It's been publically referenced as far back as the August 22nd, 2018 Space News post, "Small satellites are at the center of a space industry transformation" and many of its core staff have held their formal titles since June 2018.
Before then, most worked for COM DEV and focused on doing pretty much what they had been doing since Honeywell brought the iconic Canadian space company and spun out its Cambridge ON based exactEarth smallsat subsidiary as a separate company in late 2015.
But a formal announcement, as outlined in the January 7th, 2019 Space News post, "Honeywell to open technology incubator," has just got to come as good news, even if only as an implied commitment that the facility will remain open in some capacity.
According to Space News:
The market for geostationary communications satellites has slowed at a time when companies around the world are beginning to build small satellite constellations.
Increasingly, customers demand reliable satellite components they can acquire quickly and inexpensively. To meet that demand, Honeywell is "picking technologies it is really good at making and bringing them into this new age," Mississian said.
Honeywell has 25 full-time employees working in the Greenhouse established in the Ontario, Canada, facility that was home to COM DEV International before Honeywell acquired the satellite component builder in 2015. The Greenhouse also pulls in expertise from the larger company.
The Greenhouse will work on a variety of projects relating to optical intersatellite links, reaction wheels, optical imagers and technology developed initially by COM DEV for Canadian government contracts.
As outlined in the September 1st, 2017 SpaceQ post, "Cambridge Facility Sees Workforce Reduction of 49% Since Honeywell Acquired Com Dev International," up to 49% of the facilities estimated 550 employees were either laid-off, retired of left the company within two years of it being acquired by Honeywell.
Labels: business incubators, Com Dev, Commercial Space Activities
Part 4: Funding an Appropriate Force
Part one ("The Axworthy Doctrine") focused on how the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's led to a new Canadian focus on aggressive, international peacekeeping missions requiring space focused communication and surveillance capabilities of a type which Canada did not then possess and had to borrow from the Americans.
The Northwest Passage and its challenges. Graphic c/o World Cultural Pictorial.
Part two ("The Changing Political Landscape") discussed why Canada never had a military space policy prior to 1998 by going back to the 1960's and the federal liberal party under Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau who refused to differentiate between space based military assets for communication/ surveillance and space 'weaponization' in order to come across as supporters of the United Nations Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963) and the UN Outer Space Treaty (1967).
Part three ("Towards Northern Sovereignty") dealt with the changing focus of Canadian foreign policy from international peacekeeping towards northern sovereignty, a policy developed in the 1990's under Jean Chrétien. It's a policy which often places us at odds with traditional allies, such as the US.
Here is part four of this series.
So what tools does the Canadian military need to acquire in order to reliably perform its missions? To answer that question, we need to know the missions.
In 2008 incoming Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper defined those missions in the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) which mandated the capability to undertake them, either separately or together.
Conducting daily domestic and continental operations, including the Arctic and with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
Supporting a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Responding to a major terrorist attack.
Supporting civilian authorities during a domestic crisis or natural disaster.
Leading and/or conducting a major international operation for an extended period.
Deploying forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods.
Of course, the Harper government intended to make a series of equipment purchases in order to bolster the DND ability to undertake the above missions.
PM Harper in 2008. Photo c/o Britannica.
The purchases included:
New military trucks, land combat vehicles and support systems.
C-17 Globemaster and C-130J Hercules aircraft plus CH-47F Chinook helicopters for troop transport and additional fixed wing aircraft for maritime patrol, and search and rescue.
New naval vessels including at least one icebreaker (the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker), three joint support vessels (to replace the aging HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver), between six to eight arctic offshore patrol ships and the Canadian single class surface combatant (which will replace the aging Iroquois class destroyers starting in 2016-2017 and the Halifax-class frigates at a later date).
65 new Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II fighter jets to replace 1980s era CF-18 Hornets.
Naturally, when purchases are contemplated a budget is needed and the budget for this program was a big one. It called for an annual increase in DND funding from $18Bln CDN in 2007-2008 to over $30Bln CDN by 2027-2028 and totaled out at around $490Bln CDN over the 20 year period covered by the strategy.
That's a lot of money.
The space component of the package was designed primarily to tie together all the big ticket ships, planes and other equipment to insure that they can communicate with each other and sense what's going on around them.
As the eyes and ears of the future Canadian Forces, the space component might also be the most important part of the program. It was certainly the least expensive.
It was wrapped around a variety of space based systems including RADARSAT, RADARSAT 2 and the follow-on RADARSAT Constellation project, which used synthetic aperture radars (SAR) designed to obtain a finer spatial resolution than is possible with conventional photography or radar scans, and their associated ground stations.
Also of note was the ship tracking capabilities of Cambridge ON based exactEarth LLP (then a subsidiary of Cambridge ON based ComDev International) and several smaller satellites such as the Sapphire Canadian space surveillance satellite (launched in 2013 and built by MDA) and the Near Earth Object Surveillance Satellite (NEOSSat) launched in 2013 ostensibly to track small asteroids near Earth asteroids but partially funded by the Canadian military for its ability to also track orbiting satellites.
These smaller systems allowed Canada to continue doing pretty much what it had been doing since the 1990's, which was to build smaller components which could be plugged into larger systems developed by others to gain access to those systems and help to offset some of the costs of national defence.
Of course, the key to the implementation of the complete plan was consistent policy and long term funding guarantees, a situation that wasn't entirely possible given the lack of consensus over defence spending within the various Canadian political players over the last few decades.
According to the Air Force Association of Canada 2008 position paper titled "Implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy," while it's easy enough to support the CFDS, the 'devil' was always in the details:
Indeed, the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence and Security has been openly critical of the need for the Government to redress the level of the Defence budget to ensure that the CFDS is affordable.
Concern has also been expressed regarding the ability of DND, working with Public Works and Government Works Canada, to implement the scope of projects identified for prosecution. The involved procurement process for defence projects, coupled with the demands placed on a limited number of program staff, mitigate against timely acquisitions.
Moreover, the political imperative for attractive industrial and regional benefits to offset large offshore purchases further compounds the process and length of time to get to contract. A federal election will also present delays in government approvals or potentially a change in direction if the party in power changes.
Perhaps that's why no one held their breath waiting for the implementation of the CFDP and why no one suffocated when the Harper government failed to allocate sufficient funding to move the program forward.
By 2015, it was time for the Federal Justin Trudeau Liberal government to have a kick at the can. Their plan will be the subject our the next post
Portions of this multi-part overview were originally published in the January 16th, 2011 post, "Canada's Military Space Policy: Part 4, Funding an Appropriate Force."
Last episode: "Towards Northern Sovereignty," as part three of "A Short History of Canada's Military Space Policy and How it Fits into the Current US Space Force Discussions," continues.
Next episode: "The Current Liberal Government," as part five of "A Short History of Canada's Military Space Policy and How it Fits into the Current US Space Force Discussions," continues.
Labels: DND
Canada Becomes the First Nation to Formally Commit...
Will Australia Become the Third Nation to Encourag...
The Next Three Important Dates For the Canadian Sp...
InvestmentSpace 2019 on Friday, February 22nd in T...
Space Could be the Most Perfect Construction Site ...
A New Generation of 3D Printed Nano-Material Senso...
And Now for a Moment to Discuss the Upcoming EU Co...
A Short History of Canada's Military Space Policy ...
Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains Thinks He's Doin...
The Washington DC Based Wilson Center Begins the N...
Honeywell Will Formally Open Its Already Operation...
UTIAS-SFL and Raytheon Canada Building Military Fu...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl