Designing the Lunar Mining Ecosystem
Tags: Space, Technology, Blockchain

The Moon has always been a hot topic even amid Mars. It is also the closest celestial body beyond Earth’s gravity well. In this piece, an attempt will be made to conceptualize the lunar mining ecosystem. While studies exist by far more intelligent and accomplished professionals, most tend to focus on the technical systems architecture for going to the Moon, settling on the Moon[1], using the Moon as a base for further system exploration[2], [3] and systems architectures for mining[4] the Moon. This attempt will be a focus on the mining ecosystem of the Moon from an economic engineering perspective.

Ecosystem Design Approach

Most ecosystems can be considered systems and within them complex systems. Engineering methodologies like System of System (SoS) are tools to help design and engineer these complex networked systems as they not only aid in technical architecture but also aim to model the socio-technical features. While these are relevant and can be used in this context, one of the vital issues associated with designing SoS architectures is that the component systems of a SoS may not have been designed, established and used with regard to the role in the SoS and this significantly limits designing options of the SoS. It is also based on the inherent assumption the SoS is governed by a single entity. Most SoS architectures are designed with centralized governance in mind which makes sense since, it evolved from the defense sector. Most ecosystems have a high degree of compos-ability and thus, an emergent behavior is bound to creep. This very emergent behavior is an uncertainty and in a traditional SoS engineering principle, it is maintained and controlled — effective in a centralized architecture.

In a lunar mining ecosystem, miles away from breathable air and enforcement, this method can be argued as futile, a waste of an entity’s capital and resources. A way around this is using an open systems approach[5] which consists of characteristics such as open interface, synergism, self-governance, emergence, conservation, reconfiguration, symbiosis, modularity; which according to the author is used by biological SoS and is interoperable, flexible and sustainable in human-made SoS architectures. An alternative open SoS approach[6] is using a systems dynamics perspective with systems life cycles exhibiting features such as system reactions, adaptation, cohesion, preferred patterns, connected variety, limited variety and cyclic progression to show how they evolve — a description that is applicable in both biological and human-made systems. In either case, these open architecture strategies pose a commercial challenge due to issues related to commercial gain and protection of intellectual property (IP)[7], especially in an ecosystem with a harsh environment. These SoS frameworks inherently rely on a proprietary model; are used to build a technical system without incentive models, mechanism designs & policies; do not amplify the stakeholders’ value-added activities inside the ecosystem and cannot be tested with real-world games.

The methodology[8] used here is that of platform design. This framework builds upon the traditional lean start-up and business model canvases with ecosystem value flows in mind especially in a self-governing ecosystem which tend to be decentralized. While, SoS architecting accounts for the socio-technical features, it does not define exchange of value in an SoS and this is because traditionally SoS emerged from a military and defense domain where centralization is key to efficacy and exchange of value within the SoS has minimal (or) no need for consideration. This methodology, like SoS considers stakeholder interactions, motives, ecosystem (or SoS) purpose, members and governance — it goes beyond SoS by also considering games, value network specifications from a social and human-centered viewpoint rather than a mission-centered viewpoint common in military and defense.

The platform design approach will be used as an experiment in designing the lunar mining ecosystem which traditionally would be attempted using systems engineering and/or system-of-systems modelling. The key takeaways[9] of platform design are:

It can be used to design for attraction — designing for an existing context, for example, redesigning an existing organisational process like a sales or marketing funnel strategy or, it can be used to design for emergence — designing for a context that doesn’t exist yet, for example, a lunar mining ecosystem. The main goal of a platform design approach is amplification. Amplifying the potential of the platform players by extending their reach, achieving their objectives, and responding to any pressures in an ecosystem that is troublesome. The design approach is fluid and constantly changing. It is an evolutionary process that progresses by adding experiences, designing, and redesigning modules of the ecosystem consistently.

Scoping the Ecosystem

At first, one could state that the scope of the ecosystem is the lunar surface where miners, refiners, prospectors, and other stakeholders associated with lunar mining would inhabit this boundary. While this may be true, this experiment is about information/data and the context being scoped is mobilizing a boundary less lunar mining ecosystem. As mentioned above, one can design for emergence (or) an existing context. To define an existing context/market, this context/market must have existing products, services, that the ecosystem already provides which in the case of the lunar mining ecosystem is partially true but mostly false. Partially true in the sense, space launch companies help provide services to the Moon, satellite manufacturing companies produce spacecraft like remote sensing to detect, scout and prospect (from afar) on the Moon’s surface. These products and services are components in the value chain that lead to a higher valued service such as mining regolith, refining regolith to name a few.

Platform Design Contexts[10]

But what makes this a context that needs to be designed for emergence rather than an existing context, is the fact that producers and consumers would eventually self-organize while on the Moon due to the nature of the ecosystem being miles away from breathable air and/or enforcement — in a boundary less environment. It can be stated that, the Outer Space Treaty, the Artemis Accords (or) the Moon Agreement apart from the other space legislation could protect an entity’s role. While this is true historically, the current geopolitical climate does not provide the evidence to suggest such obligations would be upheld by all entities at the present time[11]–[15]. This geopolitical ballet while natural in a historical sense[16] inhibits progress in a more modern society especially one that is highly organised with efficient supply chains connected via highly proficient communication network protocols i.e. TCP/IP, HTTP/HTTPS, SSL — which has led to social networks, eCommerce platforms, infrastructure-as-a-service platforms and more — components that weren’t quite formalized as today, during prior Thucydides trap encounters[17].

In the next series of articles we will go into more detail regarding the ecosystem, its entities, roles, value-exchanges, core relationships, transactions, channels and more, as well as an attempt of a complex systems engineering approach.