Search for a command to run...
Over the past 15 years, commercialization and privatization of space-related activities have grown. This entails financing and investing from both government and private entities; as well as an increase in the development and use of disruptive or innovative space technologies. Commercialization of activities in the space domain has also increased as a topic of geopolitical interest. It has also created the potential for nation-state competition as governments seek to best position their domestic industries for growth. The consequences of this competition may provide opportunities for nation-states to collaborate and experience mutual economic gains as well as generate destabilizing international tension. As the space domain becomes increasingly driven by the private sector, consistent terminology (or at least a shared understanding of terminology) becomes a key factor in state-to-state communication on space development; in businesses being able to direct strategy; and, in general, for audiences' understanding the benefits of space technology. Yet there is no standard approach to ensure that those in government or private sector (whether in entrepreneurship, investment, or policy) have a common terminology to communicate the value of space activities and investment. The terminology that is used to describe those entering the market as players, as well as the technologies or applications they field, varies across community, segment, and national boundaries. This creates significant confusion and, in many cases, erodes academic and market analysis of the space industry. This leads to poor strategic decisions by new entrants to the space-market and wastes resources (time, people, and capital). This article presents findings from a research project that analyzed the role of terminology in describing growth in the space domain. When ambiguous and inconsistent terminology is used in conjunction with established and well-defined business terms, it can create confusion and lead to undesirable consequences. Based on targeted interviews with stakeholders, this study seeks to provide insight into these issues and has three primary objectives: (1) Verify that language inconsistencies are occurring in the space industry, and identify significant examples. (2) Investigate and illuminate challenges/points of tension emerging from these inconsistencies. (3) Document these challenges to improve consistency in understanding. The authors contend that providing an understanding of common terms is important for achieving positive benefits from further commercial activities in space and in establishing supportive and appropriate regulatory frameworks.