JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
There’s a common failure mode in thinking about space exploration where we get caught up in the engineering challenges—delta-v calculations, radiation shielding, life support systems—while missing the meta-level coordination problem. 🧵
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
I want to think about an alternative framework: what if we model space exploration as a multiplayer game with imperfect information?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
The Game Structure The playing field is our solar system, and each player represents a space-faring entity. We have: • State actors (NASA, ESA, CNSA) • Private companies (SpaceX, Blue Origin) • Dark horse candidates (that guy on Reddit who swears he can build a fusion drive using only Arduino components and pure optimism)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Each player starts with three types of capital: 1. Financial capital (measurable, transferable) 2. Social capital (what NASA calls “public goodwill”) 3. Technical capital (which, crucially, depreciates when unused) This already gives us interesting dynamics.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Financial capital can be converted into technical capital through R&D; technical capital can be converted into social capital through successful missions; and social capital can be converted into financial capital through public support and funding. But these conversions aren’t guaranteed or linear.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Failure Modes The game gets interesting when we look at failure modes. Unlike chess, where a lost piece is just a lost piece, space exploration failures propagate in complex ways:
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Catastrophic Failures (e.g., Challenger, Columbia) • Direct cost: High • Social capital impact: Complex and non-linear • Secondary effects: Industry-wide regulatory changes
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Technical Failures (e.g., Mars Climate Orbiter) • Direct cost: Medium to high • Social capital impact: Low unless catastrophic • Technical capital impact: Can actually be positive if lessons are learned
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Financial Failures (e.g., various space tourism ventures) • Direct cost: Variable • Social capital impact: Negative spillover effects on entire industry • Meta effect: Changes in funding landscape
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
What’s interesting is how these failures interact with player strategies. SpaceX’s early failures were buffered by private capital, while NASA’s failures faced intense public scrutiny. This creates different risk tolerances and strategy sets for different players.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Victory Conditions and Nash Equilibria The game has multiple possible victory conditions: 1. Scientific achievement (first detection of extraterrestrial life) 2. Commercial success (profitable space-based industry) 3. Political achievement (national prestige) 4. Humanitarian achievement (species backup on Mars) These victory conditions are fundamentally different games being played on the same board.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
This creates what we can comfortably call the “Space Race Prisoner’s Dilemma”: • If all players cooperate, we maximize the chance of achieving the harder victory conditions. • If any player defects to pursue easier victory conditions, they gain advantage. • If too many players defect, the harder victory conditions become effectively impossible.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Feedback Loops Between Victory Conditions Achieving one victory condition can dramatically alter the game for others. For example, commercial success in asteroid mining could increase financial capital across the board, but it might reduce political urgency for Mars colonization.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
The Meta-Game and Regulatory Capture The most interesting aspect isn’t the game itself, it's the meta-game of rule-setting.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
JA Westenberg pfp
JA Westenberg
@joanwestenberg.eth
Players spend significant resources trying to shape the rules: • SpaceX changed launch vehicle reusability from “impossible” to “expected.” • Blue Origin uses litigation to shape regulatory frameworks. • NASA influences international space law through soft power.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction