--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:

> All that said, the real problem in my estimation, is that there is
> no orbital economy at all, notwithstanding the economic assets
> presently in orbit.
>
> Nothing is bought, sold, traded, manufactured, claimed, mined, or
> refined in orbit.
>
> Have you seen the witty satire recently circulated about the wagon
> expeditions to the Desert.
>
> You point out that the satellite repair venture might reduce
> innovation in the space industry and thus maintain the status quo.
> But what drives innovation in the space industry? Surely not a
> stagnant market launching missions into a Desert.
>
> My opinion is that the best thing that government(s) could do would
> be to drop the farce of science in orbit and start launching
> infrastructure.

It is great to hear you and others advocate for infrastructure. So
many plans for this and that and I hear so few for establishing
infrastructure to support everyone.

> An orbital tether system, some means of storing fuel, and better
> yet, refining fuel, also providing orbitally obtained life support
> materials. This is akin to laying down the roads or wagon trails,
> having watering stops for the mules, having some nice vittles for
> the travellers and a place to rest for the weary folk as they
> journey into the desert for their own reasons.

Can you explain more about a "tether system"? Is this the "space
elevator" I hear about or just a means of connecting two otherwise
diparate space contraptions together to form a "unified" system?

> Now let anyone who can pay the fare go to orbit to make what they
> will of their own privately funded ventures. They'll pay for the
> fuel and life support, and a tax will eventaully recover the cost
of
> the other infrastructure.

I think this is a great idea having government build infrastructure
and tax it's use. But I read somewhere that the biggest problem with
Gerard K. O'Neill's plan (L5 Colony building SPS systems) was it's
dependence on government. That dependence was termed "naive" as I
recall.

I am curious. Your idea (and I have read many of your previous posts
as well as enjoyed some rather spirited discussions with you myself)
seems to fall under the same category - dependent on government (tax-
payer) financing. Are you saying that the illusive space market
cannot be motivated by the private sector to develop such
infrastructure? Are we trapped until someone can convince our
government or the collective governments of the world to develop this
infrastructure? Is there any other way in your estimation? Others
should of course chime in with their opinions as well.

> No Mars mission, which will be a one-off mission with no legacy
> hardware.

Oh, yes. I could not agree with you more. I support going to Mars,
but only in the context of a detailed plan for the SYSTEMATIC
development of space.

> Rather, lay down the roads, water pipes and electricity
> grid and let those assets be the legacy for future users and
> missions. Then will come the farmers, oil prospectors,
> saloonkeepers, shopkeepers, doctors, dentists, settlers,
> schoolmarms, etc.
>
> Any chance of this happening? Nope!

Oh, no. Uuggh. I guess that answers some of my questions above.
Drats! You really don't think there's any chance? No way to motivate
the private sector? I would think there could be lots of money to
whomever or whatever develops that infrastructure.

Jack

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:

> > Now let anyone who can pay the fare go to orbit to make what
they
> > will of their own privately funded ventures. They'll pay for the
> > fuel and life support, and a tax will eventaully recover the
cost
> of
> > the other infrastructure.
>
> I think this is a great idea having government build
infrastructure
> and tax it's use. But I read somewhere that the biggest problem
with
> Gerard K. O'Neill's plan (L5 Colony building SPS systems) was it's
> dependence on government. That dependence was termed "naive" as I
> recall.
>
> I am curious. Your idea (and I have read many of your previous
posts
> as well as enjoyed some rather spirited discussions with you
myself)
> seems to fall under the same category - dependent on government
(tax-
> payer) financing. Are you saying that the illusive space market
> cannot be motivated by the private sector to develop such
> infrastructure? Are we trapped until someone can convince our
> government or the collective governments of the world to develop
this
> infrastructure? Is there any other way in your estimation? Others
> should of course chime in with their opinions as well.

No, I'm not saying that government(s) has to fund the endeavor, but
what I am saying is that it will require a large pool of capital and
a coordinated effort.

Although unlikely, it is not inconceivable that a consortium of
companies can get together and pull it off. By my reckoning they
have to be willing to commit at the minimum $100 billion - $500
billion + dollars to establish a barebones orbital economy. That's a
huge sum!

It makes little economic sense to spend billions developing CATS
when there is little market for launch other than satellites.

It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing
lunar mining facilites when there is no one to buy the dirt.

It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing
orbital refining facilities when you can't get any dirt or ores, and
there is no one to buy the refined metal.

It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing
fabrication facilities when you can't get any raw materials and even
if you could, there was no one to buy the finished good.

It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing
means to get volatile gases to support life if there is no one
living in orbit.

It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing
orbital fuel refineries if no one wants to buy your fuel.

You get the point. In isolation, none of these economic activities
makes sense, but if developed in concert, then you develop a
marketplace.

The end result is that you need to extract wealth from the Earth's
economy and transfer it to the orbital economy in order to justify
those coordinated investments. The finished product at the end of
the food chain, IMHO, will be SPS energy. I can't see anything else
that makes sense. So until money is flowing from Earth to pay for
that energy, the other suppliers (i.e. miners, refiners,
fabricators, farmers, technicians, etc) will all have to wait in
order to be paid.

In the immediate future, I think government(s) have the best chance
of marshalling the resources. Will they? No, they won't because
there are too many competing demands for the tax dollars.

In the longer term, I do think corporations will do it. In the next
century or so. That's because the amount of capital in the world is
increasing and this is unleashing competitive forces. The
competition will only increase and this will drive down the returns.
Any corporation that finds itself a lucrative market will have
competitors entering that market and reduce it to a place where the
low cost producer survives, ceterus paribus. Beware, long winded
explantion follows :)

The only way to defend the high returns is to erect a barrier to
entry. Technological innovation is one such barrier, so too is the
need for large amounts of capital.

These days, techonological barriers can be circumvented through the
courts and legislation or through copycat innovation. Look at the
pharmaceutical industry. Viagra opens up a whole new market with
very lucrative returns. Companies try to overturn the Viagra patent,
some countries don't honor it, and some corporations, seeing how the
chemistry of the drug works, can now duplicate the result with
unique new chemical formulations that don't violate the Viagra
patent.

Intel didn't use to have as many chip competitors as it does now
because each Fab plant would cost it over a billion dollars.
Nowadays, a billion dollars isn't as significant a hurdle as it was
20 years ago. The cost of capital is cheaper and access to it is
easier.

So what are companies to do if they don't want to battle it out as
low cost producers? Can they ever find a defensible position where
they can earn significant returns?

Yep, you guesses it. Invest in orbit. Access to vast amounts of
capital is easier these days, but not so easy that one can put
together a war chest of hundreds of billions of dollars. A
consortium that has that kind of clout can freeze out other
competitive consortiums by its first mover advantage.

Think about it. You see what your competitor is up to when it joins
the consortium and you try to establish a rival consortium. Are you
really ready to risk all that money against a rival that is perhaps
now operational, has the best partners, and is locking up the
customers with long term supply contracts, has gotten the best lunar
sites, retreived the lowest delta-v NEOs, has locked up the best
talent. No, just as Ford, GM, and Chrysler had the market locked up
for years, so too will this consortium. At least until the amount of
capital in the world markets increases to a point where the orbital
economy makes room for new entrants just like the auto industry made
room for Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Fiat, Yugo, Lada, etc.

I don't see much future for the small fry UNTIL there is an
established orbital economy. The small fry need the infrastructure
in order to operate. There is no money to be made in building and
operating the infrastructure until such time as there is an economy.

I'm aware of your interest in the MULE concept but I honestly don't
see it as a bootstrapping step. Rather it is another one-off
business venture that is tied to the Earth's economy. It may be
successful but it'll be isolated as a component of a potential
economy to be.

Think of it this way.

It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing a
MULE platform if no one wants to rent space in it.

So to directly answer your question, if you can act as the catalyst
to the formation of the the consortium, then I believe that things
can get rolling sooner.

I don't think it likely though, not as long as there are investment
opportunities on Earth that are lucrative. When there is more money
chasing fewer opportunites and driving returns down, that's when
you'll be seeing the massive move into orbit - because it's sheer
size will make it defensible.

After that, will come the entrepeneurs and the small fry. Further,
the serendipitous results of working in , creating for, and being
inspired by, an environment of cheap energy, cheap temperature
control, cheap vacuum and cheap access to variable gravity will
result in new technologies, new products, and new wealth.

>
> > No Mars mission, which will be a one-off mission with no legacy
> > hardware.
>
> Oh, yes. I could not agree with you more. I support going to Mars,
> but only in the context of a detailed plan for the SYSTEMATIC
> development of space.
>
> > Rather, lay down the roads, water pipes and electricity
> > grid and let those assets be the legacy for future users and
> > missions. Then will come the farmers, oil prospectors,
> > saloonkeepers, shopkeepers, doctors, dentists, settlers,
> > schoolmarms, etc.
> >
> > Any chance of this happening? Nope!
>
> Oh, no. Uuggh. I guess that answers some of my questions above.
> Drats! You really don't think there's any chance? No way to
motivate
> the private sector? I would think there could be lots of money to
> whomever or whatever develops that infrastructure.
>
> Jack

I'm curious on what basis you believe there would be lot's of money
to be made and how much infrastructure is needed before money can be
made, and who would pay to use that infrastructure?

I guess, where we differ is that I think the infrastructure is a
means towards a profit-generting end, and not a profit-generating
end in itself. That end must be a product which earns enough to
finance that infrastructure otherwise no investment will flow to
create the infrastructure.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:

> I don't see much future for the small fry UNTIL there is an
> established orbital economy. The small fry need the infrastructure
> in order to operate. There is no money to be made in building and
> operating the infrastructure until such time as there is an economy.
>
> I'm aware of your interest in the MULE concept but I honestly don't
> see it as a bootstrapping step. Rather it is another one-off
> business venture that is tied to the Earth's economy. It may be
> successful but it'll be isolated as a component of a potential
> economy to be.

My logic in seeing the MULE concept as a "bootstrapping step" comes
from believing that an incremental buildup in infrastructure is more
likely than a huge consortium doing it all at once.

Let's say a product was developed or invented whose cost-effective
production is exclusive to the space environment. Would this not
likely provide some impetus for change in the aerospace industry -
strengthen and enlarge the market for microgravity research, drive an
appropriate policy and legal framework (soft infrastructure),
contribute to the dream of cheaper access to space, etc? In other
words, wouldn't such a discovery or invention likely contribute
significantly to reducing the common impediments to space development
currently hamstringing all efforts? I mean, it seems logical that
cracking the market will set in place a series of events that would
likely drive incremental growth in space development.

I believe this is possible - even more likely than any other concept
or scheme I have read or heard about. And once those impediments
begin to fall, isn't market growth and cost reductions a natural by-
product? Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
ventures once some profitability is demonstrated? And as the market
grows and additional space-borne products are developed, the need for
an industrial infrastructure in space increases.

> Think of it this way.
>
> It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing a
> MULE platform if no one wants to rent space in it.

But people are already doing microgravity research. Granted, the
market isn't that well developed but there's no denying that a market
exists. It's a tough case to make, but not impossible. Surely these
companies currently paying for microgravity research would appreciate
a cheaper more effective way in which this research can be conducted?
And if the cost of microgravity research can be brought down to a
more manageable level, the market grows even larger. As I continue to
study the MULE concept and ways to develop space incrementally,
systematically, I continue to look for holes in the MULE concept. If
the MULE can not contribute to a significant reduction in the cost of
doing microgravity research, then it likely has to be abandoned. The
market isn't strong enough at the current costs. To strengthen the
weak market for microgravity research, cost has to be reduced. I
can't say for sure the MULE will be a cheaper method, but logic and
my limited sense of these matters suggest it is at least likely to.

One comment about market vs. cost:

I believe the market is the critical factor, not cost. While it is
logical to conclude that reducing cost will increase the market, I
believe this to be true only in established, if underdeveloped,
markets. You can't reduce cost in the absense of a definable market.
First comes market, then comes cost reduction, then comes larger
market, etc. Is this backwards? I know there is a great deal of
debate among space advocates regarding the market vs. cost issue.

One other comment about the MULE concept in general: I am not saying
that the MULE is the end-all, be-all of space development. I just
want to demonstrate that we are not completely helpless and there are
ways we can contribute to increasing the likelihood of space
development. The MULE is one possibility - the only one I know of, in
fact.

> So to directly answer your question, if you can act as the catalyst
> to the formation of the the consortium, then I believe that things
> can get rolling sooner.

I think it can. But it's pure speculation. That's the biggest problem
with space development in general - we can only speculate as to the
possibilities. Surely the potential is great but that's been a tough
case to make so far.

> I don't think it likely though, not as long as there are investment
> opportunities on Earth that are lucrative. When there is more money
> chasing fewer opportunites and driving returns down, that's when
> you'll be seeing the massive move into orbit - because it's sheer
> size will make it defensible.
>
> After that, will come the entrepeneurs and the small fry. Further,
> the serendipitous results of working in , creating for, and being
> inspired by, an environment of cheap energy, cheap temperature
> control, cheap vacuum and cheap access to variable gravity will
> result in new technologies, new products, and new wealth.

Boy, do I agree with that last sentence. I see space development as
an end, at least to some extent, to Earth-based limitations on
economic growth. In space, once the infrastructure is in place to
support industry, there will always be room and a need for more and
better services and products. The possibilities are endless.

> > > Rather, lay down the roads, water pipes and electricity
> > > grid and let those assets be the legacy for future users and
> > > missions. Then will come the farmers, oil prospectors,
> > > saloonkeepers, shopkeepers, doctors, dentists, settlers,
> > > schoolmarms, etc.
> > >
> > > Any chance of this happening? Nope!
> >
> > Oh, no. Uuggh. I guess that answers some of my questions above.
> > Drats! You really don't think there's any chance? No way to
> motivate
> > the private sector? I would think there could be lots of money to
> > whomever or whatever develops that infrastructure.
> >
> > Jack
>
> I'm curious on what basis you believe there would be lot's of money
> to be made and how much infrastructure is needed before money can
be
> made, and who would pay to use that infrastructure?

I could be wrong - do Earth-based power providers make money? What
about the telecommunications industry? The companies that provide
water, do they make any money from this service? These are Earth-
based profit-making services - can the same not be applied to space.
There are differences, of course, but there is no reason space
infrastructure itself cannot be profitable.

> I guess, where we differ is that I think the infrastructure is a
> means towards a profit-generting end, and not a profit-generating
> end in itself.

I don't believe it is a profit-generating end in itself, either. I
believe it is the profit-generating beginning.

> That end must be a product which earns enough to
> finance that infrastructure otherwise no investment will flow to
> create the infrastructure.

I agree completely.

Jack

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:

> My logic in seeing the MULE concept as a "bootstrapping step"
comes
> from believing that an incremental buildup in infrastructure is
more
> likely than a huge consortium doing it all at once.
>
> Let's say a product was developed or invented whose cost-effective
> production is exclusive to the space environment.

What you postulate involves a very big leap in the suspension of
credibility department, but if this proposition is critical to your
argument, then I'll go along with it to explore the remainder of the
argument.

OK, a wonder product is developed, what is it? After all these
decades of microgravity research I'm not left with a clue as to what
it could be. Care to comment?

Would this not
> likely provide some impetus for change in the aerospace industry -
> strengthen and enlarge the market for microgravity research,

Let's say the wonder product is a pharmaceutical. I don't see how
its successful development will act as an impetus to further the
research in other diverse areas of product development. Even more
tenuous would be the proposition that work on industrial refining
and fabrication processes will be boosted.

Quite frankly, I don't see the linkage, other than for similar
products.

drive an
> appropriate policy and legal framework (soft infrastructure),

What do you foresee here? I don't believe that there is currently
any legal prohibition to launching orbiting laboratories or
fabrication satellites.

> contribute to the dream of cheaper access to space, etc?

How would this work? There is already a marketplace for launch
services. Couldn't launching payloads to a MULE or independent
satellite facilities be accomodated within the existing technology?
Is it necessary to expend tens of billions of dollars on R&D to
service a market for the first successful product that is developed
in orbit? Does that make economic sense? How big is the market for
the wonder product? Can enough cost savings be gained from a new
launch design to make the new rocket competitive when that R&D has
to be amortized into the price? Will the market for the new product
be so large as to be able to single-handedly support the R&D effort?
How can this be determined so early in the product's life to allow
the R&D to run its course? Do you expect the orbital innovations to
flow like water after the first innovation is announced> If so, why
then, and not after all these yars?

In other
> words, wouldn't such a discovery or invention likely contribute
> significantly to reducing the common impediments to space
development
> currently hamstringing all efforts?

Not necessarily. The first litmus test would be to compare the
economic value generated, or likely to be generated, by the wonder
product, against the economic costs of "reducing the common
impediments to space development." Sticking with the pharmaceutical
example, if a marginally improved drug to treat depression is
developed I can't see that it could cover the expenses associated
with meeting your goal. If, OTH, a drug is developed that extends
lifespan by a generation and reduces the ailments of age and is
generally an elixer of health and happiness, then sure, that will
warrant spending countless billions on making sure that drug is
widely available. The calculus is thus shifted in your favor. How
likely is the latter example compared to the former?

But how does the wonder drug help spur research into metallurgy,
engineering for varibale gravity, and the countless other avenues of
mundane research necessary for the product development to support
the needs of an orbital population?

I mean, it seems logical that
> cracking the market will set in place a series of events that
would
> likely drive incremental growth in space development.

I don't follow. Why does it seem logical? Just look to Earth for
counterexamples. You can get gold from seawater, you can desalinate
seawater to have fresh drinking water, you can extract heavy water
from seawater, you can crack seawater to get liquid hydrogen and
liquid oxygen. Other than some desalination plants, the other
technologies aren't used. They're not used because they're not
economic and substitutes exist. Thus, being able to successfully
develop one product doesn't open the floodgates for all products.
>
> I believe this is possible - even more likely than any other
concept
> or scheme I have read or heard about.

You need to expand on this statement some more for me to be able to
understand what you mean.

I'm inferring from your writings that the other schemes you refer to
are SPS. Let's compare: the technology of SPS is well understood, so
too is the engineering. What still needs to be determined is cost
effectiveness. By that I mean, can all of the necessary costs
associated with constructing SPS be borne by the revenues generated
from selling that power. Furthermore, can the power be sold into the
marketplace at a price competitive to substitute sources? That's the
big unknown.

Yet, you express confidence in the success of space research and/or
manufacturing as being the driver to bring about an orbital
infrastructure, but the unknowns with this vision are much more
numerous. The SPS proposal is almost fleshed out completely, whereas
your propsal is wispy as last night's dream. You can't identify a
product, a market, a competitor, a process, etc.

On what basis do you make your assessment? On the basis of existing
research I have to strongly disagree with your belief. SPS is the
most likely driver for future development. I will though, reconsider
my position when more substance is added to alternative proposals.
It seems to me that you're arguing from a position of faith and not
evidence. It's akin to the "prove god exists" arguments that take
place between the religious and the skeptics. The believers presume
the existence and their arguments follow from there, whereas the
skeptics won't allow that presumption to serve as guiding principle
for the evidence that is cited.

And once those impediments
> begin to fall, isn't market growth and cost reductions a natural
by-
> product?

Sure, as a best-case scenario. Surely, you've heard of cost
overruns, dwindling markets, bankruptcy. The Apple preceded the PC;
what happended there? The Betamax was superior to the VHS. HDTV
signals are superior to NSTC singals yet people aren't swamping the
stores buying their HDTV sets.

Even if we accept your conclusion, it is not unique to MULE. It
would apply just as much to other endeavors, such as SPS.

Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
> ventures once some profitability is demonstrated?

No. To be absurd in my example, if I can't harvest copra
successfully from an island in the middle of the Pacific, that won't
have any bearing on whether Intel builds a Fab plant there.

And as the market
> grows and additional space-borne products are developed, the need
for
> an industrial infrastructure in space increases.

You magically assume too much to reach your conclusion.

>
> But people are already doing microgravity research. Granted, the
> market isn't that well developed but there's no denying that a
market
> exists. It's a tough case to make, but not impossible. Surely
these
> companies currently paying for microgravity research would
appreciate
> a cheaper more effective way in which this research can be
conducted?

Yes, SpaceHab is such a company and their performace isn't burning
up the stockmarket. Yes, I'm sure that the companies would indeed
appreciate cheaper methods, but that doesn't mean that MULE is
cheaper or is even the answer. That needs to be demonstrated, and
further, you need to demonstrate how your proposal serves the market
better than SpaceHab.

> And if the cost of microgravity research can be brought down to a
> more manageable level, the market grows even larger.

No, to start, only the potential market grows. Then you have to
still convince decisionmakers to conduct microgravity research
rather than terrestrial research. They can get more bang for their
buck on Earth, so is the microgravity environment so necessary that
they're willing to pay so much more to have access to it? You've
altered the equation, and on the margins you've brought new people
on board, but can those new projects cover the cost incurred in
making access cheaper? I don't know.

The
> market isn't strong enough at the current costs. To strengthen the
> weak market for microgravity research, cost has to be reduced. I
> can't say for sure the MULE will be a cheaper method, but logic
and
> my limited sense of these matters suggest it is at least likely to.

You really need to expound more on your logic because I'm not
following your train of thought on this matter. All I can conclude
is that MULE becomes a one-off business model that flies or crashes
on its own merits but doesn't add to the infrastructuralization of
orbit.

>
> One comment about market vs. cost:
>
> I believe the market is the critical factor, not cost. While it is
> logical to conclude that reducing cost will increase the market, I
> believe this to be true only in established, if underdeveloped,
> markets. You can't reduce cost in the absense of a definable
market.
> First comes market, then comes cost reduction, then comes larger
> market, etc. Is this backwards? I know there is a great deal of
> debate among space advocates regarding the market vs. cost issue.

Cost is a driver of market. Sales price must exceed cost. You'll buy
a can of Coke for a $1, but very few will buy it for a $100. Hence
no market without prices.

Further, you can't have a definable market without price. You can
define consumer wants and desires independent of price but that
offers little help to the decisin maker. You can ask people if they
would like to buy a drug that extends their lives by twenty years.
Most people will say yes. Then tell them that it'll completely
eliminate their sex drive and that it'll cost $100,000 per year that
they take it and that to get the extra 20 years of life they'll need
to take the drug for at least 60 years. Hmm, you may not have a
market for your drug afterall!

>
> One other comment about the MULE concept in general: I am not
saying
> that the MULE is the end-all, be-all of space development. I just
> want to demonstrate that we are not completely helpless and there
are
> ways we can contribute to increasing the likelihood of space
> development. The MULE is one possibility - the only one I know of,
in
> fact.

I understand your point about MULE. I just happen to think it is
like SpaceHab, and is a one off business venture. Nothing wrong with
that. I don't see how it aids orbital infrastructure development.

As I've pointed out above, MULE has too many unknowns compared to
SPS, so I'm baffled how you can conclude that MULE is the only
possibility leading towards space development. That's a hell of an
unsupported statement to make :)

> > After that, will come the entrepeneurs and the small fry.
Further,
> > the serendipitous results of working in, creating for, and being
> > inspired by, an environment of cheap energy, cheap temperature
> > control, cheap vacuum and cheap access to variable gravity will
> > result in new technologies, new products, and new wealth.
>
> Boy, do I agree with that last sentence. I see space development
as
> an end, at least to some extent, to Earth-based limitations on
> economic growth. In space, once the infrastructure is in place to
> support industry, there will always be room and a need for more
and
> better services and products. The possibilities are endless.

Classic Chicken and Egg conundrum.

> > I'm curious on what basis you believe there would be lot's of
money
> > to be made and how much infrastructure is needed before money
can
> be
> > made, and who would pay to use that infrastructure?
>
> I could be wrong - do Earth-based power providers make money? What
> about the telecommunications industry? The companies that provide
> water, do they make any money from this service? These are Earth-
> based profit-making services - can the same not be applied to
space.
> There are differences, of course, but there is no reason space
> infrastructure itself cannot be profitable.
>

My point is that on Earth the infrastructure providers serve within
an economic marketplace and that marketplace doesn't exist in orbit.
Thus, no entity will invest in orbital infrastructure until they can
be reassured that they'll be servicing a merket.

My contention is that a critical mass is needed to jump start the
marketplace. It won't be developed piecemeal because the volume of
business can't justify the business decisions.

Once the critical mass is established, then incremental growth can
follow.

TangoMan

P.S. Did the explanation about skyhooks and rotating tethers clear
things up for you?

What did you conclude about tethers vis a vis rockets?

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
>
> > My logic in seeing the MULE concept as a "bootstrapping step"
> comes
> > from believing that an incremental buildup in infrastructure is
> more
> > likely than a huge consortium doing it all at once.
> >
> > Let's say a product was developed or invented whose cost-
effective
> > production is exclusive to the space environment.
>
> What you postulate involves a very big leap in the suspension of
> credibility department, but if this proposition is critical to your
> argument, then I'll go along with it to explore the remainder of
the
> argument.

Ok, I'm sorry. You're saying that my suggestion that a product can be
developed or invented in the microgravity environment of space lacks
credibility? Are you saying that it is unlikely such a product can be
developed? Surely you don't seriously believe that. You're just
playing devil's advocate, right?

> OK, a wonder product is developed, what is it? After all these
> decades of microgravity research I'm not left with a clue as to
what
> it could be. Care to comment?

Decades of microgravity research? That statement is incredibly
misleading. The fact is that much of the microgravity research to
date has been conducted aboard sounding rockets, parabolic flights,
and drop towers. And those modes generate only the microgravity
effect and only for a few moments. When I refer to microgravity
research in space I mean research in the space environment - as you
know, there's more to the space environment than just microgravity.
We can reproduce some of the characteristics of that environment on
Earth - hard vacuums, for example. But on-going microgravity research
(research in the space environment) wasn't to begin in earnest until
the ISS and because of politics and budget cuts much of our ability
to perform meaningful research has been significantly hampered. I
have heard different things from different people, but my
understanding is that the ISS was originally supposed to support 7
astronauts - the cuts in the ISS have reduced that number to 3. As I
recall, many of the international participants were, well, let's just
say disappointed in this. Specifically because it severely limited
the astronauts ability to perform microgravity research (with only
three astronauts on-board, much of their time would be spent
with "station keeping" activities). Question: Why would the
international participants be disappointed in that? I mean, hey,
there's no future in space-based R&D, right?

> Would this not
> > likely provide some impetus for change in the aerospace industry -

> > strengthen and enlarge the market for microgravity research,
>
> Let's say the wonder product is a pharmaceutical. I don't see how
> its successful development will act as an impetus to further the
> research in other diverse areas of product development. Even more
> tenuous would be the proposition that work on industrial refining
> and fabrication processes will be boosted.

The first space-based wonder drug can expand market for microgravity
research - you don't think it likely that this would at least get the
attention of other companies in the pharmaceutical industry not doing
research in space? And I didn't say that work on industrial refining
and fabrication processes would be boosted. But research in those
areas would likely be on-going and any advance in any number of
industries is likely to have a positive collateral effect on the
other industries.

> Quite frankly, I don't see the linkage, other than for similar
> products.
>
> drive an
> > appropriate policy and legal framework (soft infrastructure),
>
> What do you foresee here? I don't believe that there is currently
> any legal prohibition to launching orbiting laboratories or
> fabrication satellites.

No, there isn't. That's why I advocate the MULE approach as an early
step in the development of space (the first step, in fact) - because
nothing beyond the current system is required. But at some point we
will need both hard and soft infrastructure to continue to support
expanded commercial space efforts. The more successes R&D in space
can generate the more interest there will be in expanding those R&D
efforts and the more interest there will be in space-based commerce.
I am merely suggesting that this interest is likely to encourage
politicians and policy makers to draft the appropriate legal and
policy framework to support more industry in space.

> > contribute to the dream of cheaper access to space, etc?
>
> How would this work? There is already a marketplace for launch
> services. Couldn't launching payloads to a MULE or independent
> satellite facilities be accomodated within the existing technology?

I'm not saying we need cheaper access to space to do microgravity
research. However, as space-based R&D efforts continue and succeed,
it is only logical that more people (industries/companies) will want
to access the space environment. The larger the market for space
access, the cheaper the cost. Right? I know the chicken and egg
argument - I'm an egg advocate. I say there is little incentive for
the aerospace industry to provide cheaper access to space since the
current crop of vehicles satisfies the current market. But if you can
generate higher demand for access you can drive down the cost of
access. As cost drops, demand might increase. I mean, hey, if space
access was reduced right now by a factor of 10, wouldn't more
companies be doing "stuff" in space?

> In other
> > words, wouldn't such a discovery or invention likely contribute
> > significantly to reducing the common impediments to space
> development
> > currently hamstringing all efforts?
>
> Not necessarily. The first litmus test would be to compare the
> economic value generated, or likely to be generated, by the wonder
> product, against the economic costs of "reducing the common
> impediments to space development."

No, I disagree. You're assuming that the impetus for change is based
on the desire to produce the same product, aren't you? I'm saying
success will increase demand, demand drives down cost, reduced cost
equals increased activity.

> Sticking with the pharmaceutical
> example, if a marginally improved drug to treat depression is
> developed I can't see that it could cover the expenses associated
> with meeting your goal.

It wouldn't. But nor does it need to. The expenses you talk about
would be met because of the increased demand for access.

> I mean, it seems logical that
> > cracking the market will set in place a series of events that
> would
> > likely drive incremental growth in space development.
>
> I don't follow. Why does it seem logical? Just look to Earth for
> counterexamples. You can get gold from seawater, you can desalinate
> seawater to have fresh drinking water, you can extract heavy water
> from seawater, you can crack seawater to get liquid hydrogen and
> liquid oxygen. Other than some desalination plants, the other
> technologies aren't used. They're not used because they're not
> economic and substitutes exist. Thus, being able to successfully
> develop one product doesn't open the floodgates for all products.

Ok, not all products but I believe more products is not unreasonable
nor incredible. Again, success will increase demand, demand drives
down cost, reduced cost equals increased activity.

> > I believe this is possible - even more likely than any other
> concept
> > or scheme I have read or heard about.
>
> You need to expand on this statement some more for me to be able to
> understand what you mean.

Most "schemes" require new technology or vast sums of money or both.
I contend that the MULE is an affordable way to begin the process of
increasing the market - driving down cost - without requiring any
change in the current system - no new legislation or policy shift, no
new technology, not as expensive (remember, the cost of the MULE is
distributed across multiple companies because they share a
common "backplane" or infrastructure), etc.

> I'm inferring from your writings that the other schemes you refer
to
> are SPS.

That is one scheme, yes. But there are others - Mars base, lunar
base, HE-3 extraction, asteroid mining, etc.

> Let's compare: the technology of SPS is well understood, so
> too is the engineering. What still needs to be determined is cost
> effectiveness. By that I mean, can all of the necessary costs
> associated with constructing SPS be borne by the revenues generated
> from selling that power. Furthermore, can the power be sold into
the
> marketplace at a price competitive to substitute sources? That's
the
> big unknown.

I don't think it's all that unknown. Eventually the SPS would likely
pay for itself and provide a cost-effective product, but we're
talking about a 30-year or longer amortization. I don't see too many
capitalists lining up to fund SPS. I believe SPS is a great idea -
but only in the context of a plan for the systematic development of
space.

> Yet, you express confidence in the success of space research and/or
> manufacturing as being the driver to bring about an orbital
> infrastructure, but the unknowns with this vision are much more
> numerous. The SPS proposal is almost fleshed out completely,
whereas
> your propsal is wispy as last night's dream. You can't identify a
> product, a market, a competitor, a process, etc.

Wispy as last night's dream? That's good - I like that!

Possible products abound from wonder drugs to materials
manufacturing, nano R&D, etc. The market isn't well developed but to
suggest it is unidentifiable is simply false. Competitors? You
mention SpaceHab below. And as far as processes, come on. How 'bout
containerless processing?

> On what basis do you make your assessment? On the basis of existing
> research I have to strongly disagree with your belief. SPS is the
> most likely driver for future development.

I disagree based on the HUGE cost of SPS development. Once the
infrastructure is in place, yes, absolutely. But to go from the
current space regime to SPS is a much larger, much more incredible
leap in my estimation.

> I will though, reconsider
> my position when more substance is added to alternative proposals.

Well, I only got so much substance. As I have said before, I am still
early in my research - I am keeping an eye out for show-stoppers, but
so far . . .

At this point, I just want to convince YOU that my approach is
possible and CAN provide some of the impetus for further development
of near-Earth space and beyond.

> It seems to me that you're arguing from a position of faith and not
> evidence.

I believe there is a great deal of evidence supporting my contention
that there is a future in space-based R&D. And if success does in
fact increase demand, and if demand drives down cost, reduced cost
will likely result in increased activity in space. The more activity
in space, the more demand for cheaper access, more robust
infrastructure and support, etc.

> And once those impediments
> > begin to fall, isn't market growth and cost reductions a natural
> by-
> > product?
>
> Sure, as a best-case scenario. Surely, you've heard of cost
> overruns, dwindling markets, bankruptcy. The Apple preceded the PC;
> what happended there? The Betamax was superior to the VHS. HDTV
> signals are superior to NSTC singals yet people aren't swamping the
> stores buying their HDTV sets.
>
> Even if we accept your conclusion, it is not unique to MULE. It
> would apply just as much to other endeavors, such as SPS.

Yes, but if the MULE and SPS have an equal chance of reducing cost
and increasing market size, surely we would all agree the cheaper
solution is best. And the MULE would be considerably cheaper than SPS
and would likely pay for itself much quicker.

> Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
> > ventures once some profitability is demonstrated?
>
> No. To be absurd in my example, if I can't harvest copra
> successfully from an island in the middle of the Pacific, that
won't
> have any bearing on whether Intel builds a Fab plant there.

I agree, that is absurd. :) You're analogy doesn't hold up. We're
talking about exploiting an environment unique to space. An island in
the middle of the Pacific offers no significant advantage over most
any other Earth-based location - the space environment does.

> And as the market
> > grows and additional space-borne products are developed, the need
> for
> > an industrial infrastructure in space increases.
>
> You magically assume too much to reach your conclusion.

How so? How can a growing market for space-borne products and
industry not dictate over time a more robust infrastructure?

> > But people are already doing microgravity research. Granted, the
> > market isn't that well developed but there's no denying that a
> market
> > exists. It's a tough case to make, but not impossible. Surely
> these
> > companies currently paying for microgravity research would
> appreciate
> > a cheaper more effective way in which this research can be
> conducted?
>
> Yes, SpaceHab is such a company and their performace isn't burning
> up the stockmarket.

No, but their storage racks ride on the ISS - I spoke about that
problem above. They have to pay NASA to plug one of their racks into
the ISS meaning whoever does research in one of those racks has to
pay NASA AND SpaceHab, right?

> Yes, I'm sure that the companies would indeed
> appreciate cheaper methods, but that doesn't mean that MULE is
> cheaper or is even the answer. That needs to be demonstrated, and
> further, you need to demonstrate how your proposal serves the
market
> better than SpaceHab.

Again, the cost of doing research on the MULE is less for the
individual company because that cost is shared among many companies.

> > And if the cost of microgravity research can be brought down to a
> > more manageable level, the market grows even larger.
>
> No, to start, only the potential market grows. Then you have to
> still convince decisionmakers to conduct microgravity research
> rather than terrestrial research. They can get more bang for their
> buck on Earth, so is the microgravity environment so necessary that
> they're willing to pay so much more to have access to it?

Some people clearly think so - otherwise, SpaceHab would've gone out
of business by now. Even at the current cost of doing such research
(which is high) there IS a small market. Lower that cost and I am
willing to bet that market will grow. Have success doing such
research and that market will grow even larger.

> The
> > market isn't strong enough at the current costs. To strengthen
the
> > weak market for microgravity research, cost has to be reduced. I
> > can't say for sure the MULE will be a cheaper method, but logic
> and
> > my limited sense of these matters suggest it is at least likely
to.
>
> You really need to expound more on your logic because I'm not
> following your train of thought on this matter. All I can conclude
> is that MULE becomes a one-off business model that flies or crashes
> on its own merits but doesn't add to the infrastructuralization of
> orbit.

All of this is predicated on the concept of distributed debt burden -
meaning the cost of the research is shared, thus reducing the cost to
individual companies wanting to do such research. If the MULE cannot
significantly reduce the cost (undercut the handful of competitors
that are out there and expand the market), then it is, indeed,
untennable and should be dropped from further discussion. My
suspicions, however, are that by having the R&D modules share the
same extensible infrastructure (this is how the cost to one is
distributed across many) you can produce significant savings to the
invidual company doing the research.

> > One other comment about the MULE concept in general: I am not
> saying
> > that the MULE is the end-all, be-all of space development. I just
> > want to demonstrate that we are not completely helpless and there
> are
> > ways we can contribute to increasing the likelihood of space
> > development. The MULE is one possibility - the only one I know
of,
> in
> > fact.
>
> I understand your point about MULE. I just happen to think it is
> like SpaceHab, and is a one off business venture. Nothing wrong
with
> that. I don't see how it aids orbital infrastructure development.

Have I been able to make that argument any better in this email? You
don't think that success increases demand and higher demand lowers
the cost?

> As I've pointed out above, MULE has too many unknowns compared to
> SPS, so I'm baffled how you can conclude that MULE is the only
> possibility leading towards space development. That's a hell of an
> unsupported statement to make :)

Ok, maybe not the only possibility. How about the only reasonably
affordable possibility? How 'bout the only possibility that doesn't
require tax-payer financing? How 'bout the only possibility that
requires no new technologies? Etc, etc.

> > > I'm curious on what basis you believe there would be lot's of
> money
> > > to be made and how much infrastructure is needed before money
> can
> > be
> > > made, and who would pay to use that infrastructure?
> >
> > I could be wrong - do Earth-based power providers make money?
What
> > about the telecommunications industry? The companies that provide
> > water, do they make any money from this service? These are Earth-
> > based profit-making services - can the same not be applied to
> space.
> > There are differences, of course, but there is no reason space
> > infrastructure itself cannot be profitable.
> >
> My point is that on Earth the infrastructure providers serve within
> an economic marketplace and that marketplace doesn't exist in
orbit.

I'm not advocating the development of that infrastructure prior to
the development of the market. I'm saying let's grow the
infrastructure parallel to (and perhaps slightly behind) the market.

> Thus, no entity will invest in orbital infrastructure until they
can
> be reassured that they'll be servicing a merket.

Exactly! :)

> My contention is that a critical mass is needed to jump start the
> marketplace. It won't be developed piecemeal because the volume of
> business can't justify the business decisions.

Then how can you do it all at once given the same volume of business?

> Once the critical mass is established, then incremental growth can
> follow.

I believe you can reach that critical mass incrementally while
minimizing government/tax-payer subsidies.

> TangoMan
>
> P.S. Did the explanation about skyhooks and rotating tethers clear
> things up for you?

Yes, thank you. It was very informative. I'm still devouring the
resources you listed.

> What did you conclude about tethers vis a vis rockets?

As far as Earth-to-orbit transport, I dont find tethers/skyhooks
viable at this time. As far as their in-space application (where
tensile strength is less of a concern) - great potential for mass-
transport of people, cargo, etc. That is my initial conclusion. Let
me follow-up more with those resources you provided.

Jack

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Zelnio wrote:
Jack,

There was substantial effort in the 1980s to
explore commercializing microgravity research. This
is well documented in an excellent book by Joan Lisa
Bromberg called "NASA and the Space Industry". I
recommend this book to anyone looking at plans to
develop in space.

Unfortunately I don't have the book in front of me
as its in my library at home but in essence the
government pushed to privatize micrograv research and
a company was formed to do this. Just as they were
getting underway the challeneger accident occured and
the carpet was pulled out under the company and they
were dissolved. I believe the name of the project was
the Industrial Space Facility and it was a project
backed heavily by McDonnell-Douglas with research
partners with 3m. Astronautix has put together a good
synapses of this debacle at:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/indility.htm.

Currently to my knowledge, there has been only one
semi-successful microgravity commercial product. That
was Japanese Hemoglobin replacements. There was also
some talk a year or so back on a pure optical fiber
cable called Zblan and on an extremely lightweight but
strong structural aerogel. As for medicines, the only
advantages microgravity has identified use for is in
protein formation and crystal growth. Neither of
these have yet to pan out though.

As for my 2c on the MULE, I have to agree with
Tango in that we are just not ready for private
industry in this sector. All the funding is
government based and no private companies are willing
to take this risk right now and back a private
initiative. Regardless of the merits of the
engineering details, the demand is not there.
Investment money will not come without a clear demand.
Until then its a nice solution just looking for the
right problem to come around.

Ryan Z

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 02:45 PM, jdr7181 wrote:

> Ok, I'm sorry. You're saying that my suggestion that a product can be
> developed or invented in the microgravity environment of space lacks
> credibility? Are you saying that it is unlikely such a product can be
> developed? Surely you don't seriously believe that. You're just
> playing devil's advocate, right?

Actually, history suggests that it's unlikely, although always
possible. Often, when we do find something in an orbital laboratory,
Earth bound laboratories quickly figure out a way to make the same
thing in a gravity environment. That's why the only economic product
from space is information (comm. sats and Earth observing). Building a
huge scenario around a product that doesn't exist, we don't know how to
make, and assuming orbit will have a decisive advantage seems like
building on sand.

What we need is MUCH better transportation to orbit. Everything else
is building castles in the air.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 02:45 PM, jdr7181 wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'm sorry. You're saying that my suggestion that a product
can be
> > developed or invented in the microgravity environment of space
lacks
> > credibility? Are you saying that it is unlikely such a product
can be
> > developed? Surely you don't seriously believe that. You're just
> > playing devil's advocate, right?
>
> Actually, history suggests that it's unlikely, although always
> possible. Often, when we do find something in an orbital
laboratory,
> Earth bound laboratories quickly figure out a way to make the same
> thing in a gravity environment.

Yes, but the processes you speak of relied first on space-based
research before we could figure out how do it on Earth. There's value
in that, surely. Not enough to bootstrap space industry, granted, but
value nonetheless. Perhaps enough value to expand research? Possible,
right? The more research conducted the more likely we are to invent
or discover some product whose cost effective production is exclusive
to the space environment.

But not all potential products or processes developed in space can be
duplicated in an Earth-based factory or lab. For example:

[Excerpted from a paper by Dr. Richard Crews]

The Center for Macromolecular Crystallography (CMC) located at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham has used the low-gravity
environment of space to grow protein crystals for use in drug
design. The CMC has attempted to crystallize hundreds of proteins in
space, each with a potential product. One product that is working
toward market readiness is a treatment for influenza. Another
product resulting from improved X-ray diffraction analysis of
crystals grown in microgravity is an inhibitor to Factor D. Factor D
is a naturally occuring protein that causes problems for heart attack
and stroke victims, and for heart surgery patients.
[http://microgravity.nasa.gov/pegBiot.html]

The Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center in Houston, Texas is developing new
techniques to use the ultra-vacuum of space for processing ultra-
pure, thin-film materials for improving electronics and computers.
In space they have used a vacuum environment that is up to 10,000
times more pure than the best vacuum chambers on Earth.
[http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm]

> That's why the only economic product
> from space is information (comm. sats and Earth observing).
Building a
> huge scenario around a product that doesn't exist, we don't know
how to
> make, and assuming orbit will have a decisive advantage seems like
> building on sand.
>
> What we need is MUCH better transportation to orbit. Everything
else
> is building castles in the air.

Why don't we have better transportation to orbit? It seems there is
little incentive in the aerospace industry or the government to
develop new transportation systems as long as the existing crop of
launch vehicles satisfy the current market demand. Another problem is
it would appear the comm satellite industry has peeked, at least for
the moment. With the reduced demand for launch services, how on Earth
can we get "MUCH better transportation to orbit?"

Jack

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 04:29 PM, jdr7181 wrote:

> Why don't we have better transportation to orbit?

For an excellent discussion of this point, see
http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm. To tell the truth, I don't
agree with his conclusion, but the discussion is absolutely first class.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 04:29 PM, jdr7181 wrote:

> how on Earth
> can we get "MUCH better transportation to orbit?"

LOTS of government money for:
- Materials and propulsion R&D
- Test facilities
- Guaranteed purchase of privately developed launch services for the
first 10 launches or so. This harnesses private industry to do the
work efficiently, and government money to provide at least some profit.
Bonus for the government: we don't pay a dime until the launch vehicle
actually works.

>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

jdr7181 wrote:

>how on Earth can we get "MUCH better transportation to orbit?"
>
Wait.

As I understand it; the cost of laser launch will soon (about 4-5 years)
cross the cost of conventional launch systems; due to semiconductor
laser costs coming down at about 30% per year. When this point occurs,
access to space should greatly improve.

Laser launch costs as low as $100/kg seem to be possible; with
comparatively simple (i.e. cheap) launch vehicles. Initial costs are
more likely to be nearer $500/kg for the first few years.

>Jack
>
--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 12:42 PM, ian.woollard wrote:

> jdr7181 wrote:
>
>> how on Earth can we get "MUCH better transportation to orbit?"
>>
>>
> Wait.
>
> As I understand it; the cost of laser launch will soon (about 4-5
> years)
> cross the cost of conventional launch systems; due to semiconductor
> laser costs coming down at about 30% per year. When this point occurs,
> access to space should greatly improve.
>
> Laser launch costs as low as $100/kg seem to be possible; with
> comparatively simple (i.e. cheap) launch vehicles. Initial costs are
> more likely to be nearer $500/kg for the first few years.

Where does this information come from? The only laser launch stuff
I've seen is a very small payload (about the size of a pack of
cigarettes) rapidly accelerated but definitely suborbital.

The biggest problem I see with laser launch in the long term is that
the laser must stay pointed at the reaction mass. If it gets off a few
meters (at a range of 10s or 100s of kilometers) then you will punch a
hole in the spacecraft -- probably not a good idea. Since the vehicle
is still subject to aerodynamic forces in the first part of flight,
it's trajectory cannot be precisely preset. Thus, the laser must track
the vehicle. This is certainly not impossible, but may present very
tough practical challenges.
>
>> Jack
>>
>>
> --
> -Ian
>
> Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
> "War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution"
> - Private Eye
> "War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
> "Getting reelected" - G. Bush
>
> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty
> Dollars for Trying!
>

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

Al Globus wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 12:42 PM, ian.woollard wrote:
>
>>jdr7181 wrote:
>>
>>>how on Earth can we get "MUCH better transportation to orbit?"
>>>
>>Wait.
>>
>>As I understand it; the cost of laser launch will soon (about 4-5
>>years)
>>cross the cost of conventional launch systems; due to semiconductor
>>laser costs coming down at about 30% per year. When this point occurs,
>>access to space should greatly improve.
>>
>>Laser launch costs as low as $100/kg seem to be possible; with
>>comparatively simple (i.e. cheap) launch vehicles. Initial costs are
>>more likely to be nearer $500/kg for the first few years.
>>
>>
>Where does this information come from?
>
Dr. Jordin Kare (team leader of laser group at LLNL from 1986-1991)

> The only laser launch stuff
>I've seen is a very small payload (about the size of a pack of
>cigarettes) rapidly accelerated but definitely sub orbital.
>
That's probably Leik Myrabo's lightcraft concept. That particular idea
seems to be limited because it relies on pulsed lasers- pulsed lasers
are extremely expensive and show little sign of getting much cheaper.

Semiconductor lasers are improving rapidly, but give continuous light,
rather than pulsed. It looks like using them with a heat exchanger based
vehicle would work well; at a comparatively low temperature (1000C with
hydrogen gives 600 seconds). Due to the weight of the hydrogen tankage,
it's not an SSTO solution, but it provides for a very simple system,
just one propellent, and no combustion, so it is likely to be inexpensive.

>The biggest problem I see with laser launch in the long term is that
>the laser must stay pointed at the reaction mass. If it gets off a few
>meters (at a range of 10s or 100s of kilometers) then you will punch a
>hole in the spacecraft -- probably not a good idea.
>
Yes. The skin of the spacecraft should be reflective I think.

But the pointing issue may not be all or nothing; I doubt that all of
the light would miss the heat exchanger and hit the vehicle
simultaneously. The lasers are likely to be a distributed/ganged
arrangement, and so are unlikely to miss at the same time, and if they
do start to do this, you can turn the errant lasers off within a few
milliseconds. But you don't want to miss much anyway because it reduces
the vehicle efficiency.

> Since the vehicle
>is still subject to aerodynamic forces in the first part of flight,
>it's trajectory cannot be precisely preset.
>
The vehicle would have a great deal of momentum, so will move fairly
predictably. The speed of light delay is about 1-3 milliseconds, so it's
not that bad from a sensor point of view. There are atmospheric issues,
but you can get a feel for how bad they are by examining film footage of
the space shuttle liftoff- (though the trajectory would be somewhat
different for laser launch- it's a somewhat higher trajectory, so
slightly less atmospheric issues- the issues there are very similar
resolution to the 'seeing' issue that astronomers face in fact).

> Thus, the laser must track
>the vehicle. This is certainly not impossible, but may present very
>tough practical challenges.
>
However it's almost certainly soluble. And any solution stays on the
ground, and is reusable.

>Al Globus
>CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 04:37 PM, ian.woollard wrote:

>>> As I understand it; the cost of laser launch will soon (about 4-5
>>> years)
>>> cross the cost of conventional launch systems; due to semiconductor
>>> laser costs coming down at about 30% per year. When this point
>>> occurs,
>>> access to space should greatly improve.
>>>
>>> Laser launch costs as low as $100/kg seem to be possible; with
>>> comparatively simple (i.e. cheap) launch vehicles. Initial costs are
>>> more likely to be nearer $500/kg for the first few years.
>>>
>>>
>> Where does this information come from?
>>
> Dr. Jordin Kare (team leader of laser group at LLNL from 1986-1991)
>

This is pretty interesting, do you have any good references (papers or
web sites)?

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

Al Globus wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 04:37 PM, ian.woollard wrote:
>
>>>>As I understand it; the cost of laser launch will soon (about 4-5
>>>>years)
>>>>cross the cost of conventional launch systems; due to semiconductor
>>>>laser costs coming down at about 30% per year. When this point
>>>>occurs,
>>>>access to space should greatly improve.
>>>>
>>>>Laser launch costs as low as $100/kg seem to be possible; with
>>>>comparatively simple (i.e. cheap) launch vehicles. Initial costs are
>>>>more likely to be nearer $500/kg for the first few years.
>>>>
>>>Where does this information come from?
>>>
>>Dr. Jordin Kare (team leader of laser group at LLNL from 1986-1991)
>>
>This is pretty interesting, do you have any good references (papers or
>web sites)?
>
I gleaned most of what I know from Space Access 2002. There's not much
out there on the web; most laser launch stuff I've found is on Leik
Myrabo's system.

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/JordinKareBiblio.html for Jordin's
bibliography; actually I'm trying to get hold of soft (or hard) copies
of any of this stuff; so if you find some, please let me know.

I understand that Jordin will be at Space Access 2003 in Phoenix in April.

>Al Globus
>CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 04:29 PM, jdr7181 wrote:
>
> > Why don't we have better transportation to orbit?
>
> For an excellent discussion of this point, see
> http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm. To tell the truth, I
don't
> agree with his conclusion, but the discussion is absolutely first
class.

I am familiar with that work. I like his take on the lack of "intact
abort capability" - I find it compelling. I, too, think it is an
excellent discussion on launch costs and some of the myths associated
with them.

Jack

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
> --- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
> > --- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
> >
> > > My logic in seeing the MULE concept as a "bootstrapping step"
> > comes
> > > from believing that an incremental buildup in infrastructure
is
> > more
> > > likely than a huge consortium doing it all at once.
> > >
> > > Let's say a product was developed or invented whose cost-
> effective
> > > production is exclusive to the space environment.
> >
> > What you postulate involves a very big leap in the suspension of
> > credibility department, but if this proposition is critical to
your
> > argument, then I'll go along with it to explore the remainder of
> the
> > argument.
>
> Ok, I'm sorry. You're saying that my suggestion that a product can
be
> developed or invented in the microgravity environment of space
lacks
> credibility? Are you saying that it is unlikely such a product can
be
> developed? Surely you don't seriously believe that. You're just
> playing devil's advocate, right?

No, I'm wasn't playing devil's advocate, but I was suspending my
disbelief and was, and still am, willing to accept your proposition
that a product is developed in space and its cost effective
production is exclusive to the space environment. I have no doubt
that new discoveries will take place in orbit, but their production
only in orbit is where my skepticism is centered.

Just to be clear, I have no doubt that when whole bodies of science,
technology and engineering develop that completely incorporate
temperature controls in space, cheap energy, variable gravity, and
variable vacuum AND when scientists and engineers, who are trained
to operate within these new environments, to think about them daily,
and know them as intimately as their terrestrial associates know
gravity, atmospheric presence, atmospheric pressure, then and only
then, when thousands of people are working in concert, publishing in
journals dedictated to orbital technology, will unique products that
cannot be duplicated on Earth be devised. That's a hell of a
sentence. Basically, when there is an orbital society with a
critical mass of scientific talent.

> Question: Why would the
> international participants be disappointed in that? I mean, hey,
> there's no future in space-based R&D, right?

They might be disappointed because the partners in ISS have
invested billions, they have researchers who have grants to conduct
experiments and all of that money and time is sitting idle.

But that said, the fact that there is research, or not, on ISS, and
the value inherent in that research doesn't buttress your contention
that a product will be developed only in orbit and thereafter
manufactured only in orbit.

> The first space-based wonder drug can expand market for
microgravity
> research - you don't think it likely that this would at least get
the
> attention of other companies in the pharmaceutical industry not
doing
> research in space?

Here's what I would do if I was in charge of a pharmaceutical
corporation. I would direct my researchers to find a way to
duplicate the effect of the new drug with a terrestrial process in
the hopes that, even if I have to spend more on research (unlikely
because I have no rocket launches to fund) I should be able to
manufacture the drug for less, thus undercutting my competitor.

If I have no research that can be done in orbit, and my competitor
discovers something new, I won't all of a sudden find ways to do my
research in orbit. One doesn't lead to the other.

Also, I'd be wary of basing my argument on the fact that my product
could only be manufactured in orbit without proving it can't be done
on Earth. Proving a negative is difficult.

> And I didn't say that work on industrial refining
> and fabrication processes would be boosted. But research in those
> areas would likely be on-going and any advance in any number of
> industries is likely to have a positive collateral effect on the
> other industries.

Too general a statement to support or refute. Any advance? Any
number of industries? Have a positive collateral effect on the
other industries? You say yes, I say no.

> I'm not saying we need cheaper access to space to do microgravity
> research. However, as space-based R&D efforts continue and
succeed,

You're presupposing success, and building your argument on that
assumption. Space ventures do fail.

> it is only logical that more people (industries/companies) will
want
> to access the space environment.

For me to accept your above conclusion, you can't just say it's
logical, you have to build the case through logic and let the
argument withstand attempts at invalidation.

Further, want and willing to pay are different. I want to go to
space but I'm not willing to pay the price. The launch companies
thought that many would be willing to pay to launch based on the
massive satellite networks that were planned. Today, many fewer
buyers are willing to pay despite the continued success of
communication satellite operators.

>
> > In other
> > > words, wouldn't such a discovery or invention likely
contribute
> > > significantly to reducing the common impediments to space
> > development
> > > currently hamstringing all efforts?
> >
> > Not necessarily. The first litmus test would be to compare the
> > economic value generated, or likely to be generated, by the
wonder
> > product, against the economic costs of "reducing the common
> > impediments to space development."
>
> No, I disagree. You're assuming that the impetus for change is
based
> on the desire to produce the same product, aren't you? I'm saying
> success will increase demand, demand drives down cost, reduced
cost
> equals increased activity.

I'd really like for you to more fully detail your thinking here. The
way I read the above, you're saying that if I, in my Earth lab, find
a way to, let's say incapsulate asbestos and thus reduce its risk to
people, that that will spur research into how to remove the pulp
from orange juice.

Why would my limited success in the MULE experiment drive others to
demand more launch services? I can see how I'd be demanding more
launch services so as to produce my product, but I fail to see your
logical linkage to other R&D efforts.

> >
> > I don't follow. Why does it seem logical? Just look to Earth for
> > counterexamples. You can get gold from seawater, you can
desalinate
> > seawater to have fresh drinking water, you can extract heavy
water
> > from seawater, you can crack seawater to get liquid hydrogen and
> > liquid oxygen. Other than some desalination plants, the other
> > technologies aren't used. They're not used because they're not
> > economic and substitutes exist. Thus, being able to successfully
> > develop one product doesn't open the floodgates for all products.
>
> Ok, not all products but I believe more products is not
unreasonable
> nor incredible. Again, success will increase demand, demand drives
> down cost, reduced cost equals increased activity.

:) It seems to me that you're employing the reverse-slippery-slope
argument. You state your proposition broadly, then when you
encounter a refutation, you scale it back a bit and declare it
reasonable. Then another wise-acre comes along and knocks it back a
bit, and so on.

Rather than take this defensive position, why not take a strong
offensive and show why things will turn out as you argue. Make the
case so compelling that no one can refute it.

As for your above statement, I'll be the wiseacre again, and say
that the success of one product doesn't necessarily lead to others.
See my above comments for more detail.

>
> > > I believe this is possible - even more likely than any other
> > concept
> > > or scheme I have read or heard about.
> >
> > You need to expand on this statement some more for me to be able
to
> > understand what you mean.
>
> Most "schemes" require new technology or vast sums of money or
both.
> I contend that the MULE is an affordable way to begin the process
of
> increasing the market - driving down cost - without requiring any
> change in the current system - no new legislation or policy shift,
no
> new technology, not as expensive (remember, the cost of the MULE
is
> distributed across multiple companies because they share a
> common "backplane" or infrastructure), etc.

So, you're arguing incrementalism will lead to your defined success.
Thus, Spacehab, while expensive, should be bursting with business,
because the alternative is dedicated rocket launched capsules. To
the best of my knowledge (I'm willing to stand corrected) SpaceHab
isn't bursting with business.

Further, my above comments apply here as well. Also, how does
launching a payload to the MULE help lay down infrastructure? For
that matter, you can launch bricks into orbit and thus help the
launch industry. It's kind of the same argument as NASA spending in
congressional districts. Any time you spend money for anything, it
helps the economy. There's nothing special about NASA spending.

> I don't think it's all that unknown. Eventually the SPS would
likely
> pay for itself and provide a cost-effective product, but we're
> talking about a 30-year or longer amortization. I don't see too
many
> capitalists lining up to fund SPS. I believe SPS is a great idea -
> but only in the context of a plan for the systematic development
of
> space.

The capitalists aren't lining up to fund SPS because there are
alternatives for their investment dollars which can earn better
rewards. That said, they aren't lining up to fund MULE for the same
reason.

Moreover, wasn't this thread predicated on laying down
infrastructure in orbit, so as you note above, SPS plays a part in
the systematic development of space, but how does MULE do the same?

As I see it MULE is a stand-alone project.

> > On what basis do you make your assessment? On the basis of
existing
> > research I have to strongly disagree with your belief. SPS is
the
> > most likely driver for future development.
>
> I disagree based on the HUGE cost of SPS development. Once the
> infrastructure is in place, yes, absolutely. But to go from the
> current space regime to SPS is a much larger, much more incredible
> leap in my estimation.

Yes, but we're writing about development of orbital infrastructure.
SPS is the rationale for the development, but MULE is just a stand-
alone platform that isn't a driver for development. The HUGE cost
goes hand in hand with development of infrastructure.

Just examine the MULE concept in another way. If you'll permit me,
let's say some manufacturing process needs 100 kg of methane, 400 kg
of propane, 700 kg of ammonia, etc. Do you contend that for that
mass of material, you're going to go to the asteroids, or are you
just going to launch material from earth? I'd say earth launch, and
that doesn't help lay down the infrastructure.

> Yes, but if the MULE and SPS have an equal chance of reducing cost
> and increasing market size, surely we would all agree the cheaper
> solution is best. And the MULE would be considerably cheaper than
SPS
> and would likely pay for itself much quicker.

What are we debating? Reducing the cost of what? Increasing market
size for what?

This started on how best to lay down infrastructure in orbit. Are
you saying that a stand-alone MULE platform is going to do that
compared to the needs of SPS development. I don't see that at all.

If you're writing about lowering launch cost, then I would say the
volume of launches for SPS development, and the size of the
worldwide electricity market, easily trump the launch requirements
to construct and operate a MULE platfrom and the market for the
product that it manufactures.

Pay for itself quicker? Relevance to developing orbital
infrastructure? How does paying for itself quicker have any
relevance to reducing cost and increasing market size?

>
> > Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
> > > ventures once some profitability is demonstrated?
> >
> > No. To be absurd in my example, if I can't harvest copra
> > successfully from an island in the middle of the Pacific, that
> won't
> > have any bearing on whether Intel builds a Fab plant there.
>
> I agree, that is absurd. :) You're analogy doesn't hold up. We're
> talking about exploiting an environment unique to space. An island
in
> the middle of the Pacific offers no significant advantage over
most
> any other Earth-based location - the space environment does.

Au contraire, while absurd the analogy is correct. If you're making
your wonder drug in orbit, that has absolutely no bearing on my
decisions as a sausage factory owner. The unique space environment
offers me no advantage, hmm, or does it? :)

Seriously, just because you can exploit space profitably has no
bearing on whether others can.

>
> > And as the market
> > > grows and additional space-borne products are developed, the
need
> > for
> > > an industrial infrastructure in space increases.
> >
> > You magically assume too much to reach your conclusion.
>
> How so? How can a growing market for space-borne products and
> industry not dictate over time a more robust infrastructure?

You're taking for granted that there is a growing market for space-
borne products. There isn't.

>
> > Yes, SpaceHab is such a company and their performace isn't
burning
> > up the stockmarket.
>
> No, but their storage racks ride on the ISS - I spoke about that
> problem above. They have to pay NASA to plug one of their racks
into
> the ISS meaning whoever does research in one of those racks has to
> pay NASA AND SpaceHab, right?
>
> > Yes, I'm sure that the companies would indeed
> > appreciate cheaper methods, but that doesn't mean that MULE is
> > cheaper or is even the answer. That needs to be demonstrated,
and
> > further, you need to demonstrate how your proposal serves the
> market
> > better than SpaceHab.
>
> Again, the cost of doing research on the MULE is less for the
> individual company because that cost is shared among many
companies.

But that's how SpaceHab works. Why is MULE cheaper? You're just
assuming it is, show me why MULE can deliver a service cheaper than
SpaceHab, and I'll come on side with you.

> > I understand your point about MULE. I just happen to think it is
> > like SpaceHab, and is a one off business venture. Nothing wrong
> with
> > that. I don't see how it aids orbital infrastructure development.
>
> Have I been able to make that argument any better in this email?
You
> don't think that success increases demand and higher demand lowers
> the cost?

Success for your product doesn't open the floodgates for other
products. If your success leads SeaLaunch (for example) to triple
its launches, I'd doubt that if they're already the low cost
provider, that they'd pass on the savings from amortizing their
fixed cost over a larger number of launches to you. Saving 2% on
your future launches isn't going to entice you to launch more and
there are no other low cost competitors forcing SeaLaunch to meet
their lower costs. So, wouldn't you agree that this type of example
pokes a whole in your above logic chain?

>
> > As I've pointed out above, MULE has too many unknowns compared
to
> > SPS, so I'm baffled how you can conclude that MULE is the only
> > possibility leading towards space development. That's a hell of
an
> > unsupported statement to make :)
>
> Ok, maybe not the only possibility. How about the only reasonably
> affordable possibility? How 'bout the only possibility that
doesn't
> require tax-payer financing? How 'bout the only possibility that
> requires no new technologies? Etc, etc.

Reasonably affordable possibility of what? Building orbital
infrastructure that can be used by all, or as a space project. If
its the former, MULE doesn't serve that purpose, if it's the latter
then why not just launch another weather satellite. They're cheap.

We're still wrting about orbital infrastructure development, right?
When did taxpayer funding enter the criteria, and why presume that
SPS is taxpayer funded. Further, the technology of SPS has been
pretty much nailed down for decades. Etc, etc.

> > My point is that on Earth the infrastructure providers serve
within
> > an economic marketplace and that marketplace doesn't exist in
> orbit.
>
> I'm not advocating the development of that infrastructure prior to
> the development of the market. I'm saying let's grow the
> infrastructure parallel to (and perhaps slightly behind) the
market.

My point is that for an orbital economy to develop will require an
orbital infrastructure.

If I plunk you down in the desert, point out all that sand, and tell
you make a factory to make glass. Good luck using just your hands
and no other infrastructure.

I'm not presuming that a market can develop without infrastructure.
How sure are you that it can? Would you share some examples with us?

>
> > Thus, no entity will invest in orbital infrastructure until they
> can
> > be reassured that they'll be servicing a merket.
>
> Exactly! :)
>
> > My contention is that a critical mass is needed to jump start
the
> > marketplace. It won't be developed piecemeal because the volume
of
> > business can't justify the business decisions.
>
> Then how can you do it all at once given the same volume of
business?

What do you mean "same volume of business?" No infrstructure = No
SPS. Infrastructure = SPS = large volume of business.

>
> > Once the critical mass is established, then incremental growth
can
> > follow.
>
> I believe you can reach that critical mass incrementally while
> minimizing government/tax-payer subsidies.

Show me how.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ian.woollard"
wrote:
> Al Globus wrote:
> > Thus, the laser must track
> >the vehicle. This is certainly not impossible, but may present
very
> >tough practical challenges.
> >
> However it's almost certainly soluble. And any solution stays on
the
> ground, and is reusable.
>

Actually, consider it not only soluble but solved. Take a look at
the picture of the shuttle Columbia:

&.src=gr&.dnm=from+Starfire+Optical+Range.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%
26.

(or just go to the Photos section on the spacesettlers yahoogroup
website and click on the Columbia folder)

The photo was not taken as part of an official experiment, just a
few guys on their time off who took a small unused telescope and
hooked it up to a computer.

An image like this one has adequate resolution for pattern-
recognition software, and is a relatively easy computational task.
Hooking up a laser to the system is a simple copy of the process
which controls the telescope.

ed

You should consider the possibility that, having done something once
successfully, something may go wrong. That said, a solution proposed
earlier of having many lasers and pointing systems, any one of which
won't do any damage to a reflective surface, should work just fine.

Somewhere I saw mention of an effect called 'blooming' which distorts
the atmosphere in the neighborhood where the laser impacts the reaction
mass. This was considered a serious problem but I don't understand it.
Anyone?

On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 09:22 AM, Ed Minchau wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ian.woollard"
> wrote:
>> Al Globus wrote:
>>> Thus, the laser must track
>>> the vehicle. This is certainly not impossible, but may present
> very
>>> tough practical challenges.
>>>
>> However it's almost certainly soluble. And any solution stays on
> the
>> ground, and is reusable.
>>
>
> Actually, consider it not only soluble but solved. Take a look at
> the picture of the shuttle Columbia:
>
> &.src=gr&.dnm=from+Starfire+Optical+Range.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%
> 26.
>
> (or just go to the Photos section on the spacesettlers yahoogroup
> website and click on the Columbia folder)
>
> The photo was not taken as part of an official experiment, just a
> few guys on their time off who took a small unused telescope and
> hooked it up to a computer.
>
> An image like this one has adequate resolution for pattern-
> recognition software, and is a relatively easy computational task.
> Hooking up a laser to the system is a simple copy of the process
> which controls the telescope.
>
> ed
>
> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
>

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

Al Globus wrote:

>You should consider the possibility that, having done something once
>successfully, something may go wrong. That said, a solution proposed
>earlier of having many lasers and pointing systems, any one of which
>won't do any damage to a reflective surface, should work just fine.
>
>Somewhere I saw mention of an effect called 'blooming' which distorts
>the atmosphere in the neighborhood where the laser impacts the reaction
>mass. This was considered a serious problem but I don't understand it.
>
The air isn't perfectly transparent, so the laser thermally heats the
air; and then the air's refractive index changes (exactly the same
principle as you get with mirages) and so the light refracts and scatters.

It's probably actually worst near the lasers, because a tiny angle
distortion of the beam there means portions of your beam can miss the
vehicle entirely.

The issue can be improved by reducing the intensity of the laser; by
having a larger diameter primary lenses on the ground and by having
distributed lasers which are spaced apart so that the beams don't
intersect much.

You do get a similar effect at the vehicle end, however the air has less
time to heat because the vehicle is moving so blinking fast; so it is
'air cooled' whilst in the atmosphere; also whilst you're in the
atmosphere you're closer to the launch site so the distance is less and
accuracy is improved.

Heat exchanger vehicles are better off in this respect than lightcraft-
the heat exchanger may well be more than a meter across- it's just a
bigger target all around.

Still, that's the handwaving explanation, about why it isn't necessarily
a problem. But AFAIK it hasn't been fully analysed numerically; and it
interacts with the trajectory and laser siteing decisions.

> Anyone?
>
>On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 09:22 AM, Ed Minchau wrote:
>
>>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ian.woollard"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Al Globus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thus, the laser must track
>>>>the vehicle. This is certainly not impossible, but may present
>>>>
>>>>
>>very
>>
>>
>>>>tough practical challenges.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>However it's almost certainly soluble. And any solution stays on
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>ground, and is reusable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, consider it not only soluble but solved. Take a look at
>>the picture of the shuttle Columbia:
>>
>>&.src=gr&.dnm=from+Starfire+Optical+Range.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%
>>26.
>>
>>(or just go to the Photos section on the spacesettlers yahoogroup
>>website and click on the Columbia folder)
>>
>>The photo was not taken as part of an official experiment, just a
>>few guys on their time off who took a small unused telescope and
>>hooked it up to a computer.
>>
>>An image like this one has adequate resolution for pattern-
>>recognition software, and is a relatively easy computational task.
>>Hooking up a laser to the system is a simple copy of the process
>>which controls the telescope.
>>
>>ed
>>
>>
>>Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
>>~->
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---------------------
>Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
>suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
>http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.
>
>Al Globus
>CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
>Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
>position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>

--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

Could a laser beam down from GEO to a laser-driven launcher? Could this
be another app for SPSs ? There's less atmosphere above 20,000 feet
than there is under it, and a whole lot less water vapor above 20,000 feet
than under it. Perhaps such a launcher could be towed or dropped from a
conventional airplane at above 20,000 feet (maybe considerably higher) and
then get its laser boost from a GEO SPS.

Not that anyone has the cash to invest in such a scheme, but it's nice to
dream...

Ron
****

"ian.woollard"
03/19/03 03:11 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Fwd: Re: Robber Barons in Space

Al Globus wrote:

>You should consider the possibility that, having done something once
>successfully, something may go wrong. That said, a solution proposed
>earlier of having many lasers and pointing systems, any one of which
>won't do any damage to a reflective surface, should work just fine.
>
>Somewhere I saw mention of an effect called 'blooming' which distorts
>the atmosphere in the neighborhood where the laser impacts the reaction
>mass. This was considered a serious problem but I don't understand it.
>
The air isn't perfectly transparent, so the laser thermally heats the
air; and then the air's refractive index changes (exactly the same
principle as you get with mirages) and so the light refracts and scatters.

It's probably actually worst near the lasers, because a tiny angle
distortion of the beam there means portions of your beam can miss the
vehicle entirely.

The issue can be improved by reducing the intensity of the laser; by
having a larger diameter primary lenses on the ground and by having
distributed lasers which are spaced apart so that the beams don't
intersect much.

You do get a similar effect at the vehicle end, however the air has less
time to heat because the vehicle is moving so blinking fast; so it is
'air cooled' whilst in the atmosphere; also whilst you're in the
atmosphere you're closer to the launch site so the distance is less and
accuracy is improved.

Heat exchanger vehicles are better off in this respect than lightcraft-
the heat exchanger may well be more than a meter across- it's just a
bigger target all around.

Still, that's the handwaving explanation, about why it isn't necessarily
a problem. But AFAIK it hasn't been fully analysed numerically; and it
interacts with the trajectory and laser siteing decisions.

> Anyone?
>
>On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 09:22 AM, Ed Minchau wrote:
>
>>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ian.woollard"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Al Globus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thus, the laser must track
>>>>the vehicle. This is certainly not impossible, but may present
>>>>
>>>>
>>very
>>
>>
>>>>tough practical challenges.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>However it's almost certainly soluble. And any solution stays on
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>ground, and is reusable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, consider it not only soluble but solved. Take a look at
>>the picture of the shuttle Columbia:
>>
>>&.src=gr&.dnm=from+Starfire+Optical+Range.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%
>>26.
>>
>>(or just go to the Photos section on the spacesettlers yahoogroup
>>website and click on the Columbia folder)
>>
>>The photo was not taken as part of an official experiment, just a
>>few guys on their time off who took a small unused telescope and
>>hooked it up to a computer.
>>
>>An image like this one has adequate resolution for pattern-
>>recognition software, and is a relatively easy computational task.
>>Hooking up a laser to the system is a simple copy of the process
>>which controls the telescope.
>>
>>ed
>>
>>
>>Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
>>~->
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---------------------
>Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
>suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
>http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.
>
>Al Globus
>CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
>Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
>position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>

--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" -
Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

> Could a laser beam down from GEO to a laser-driven launcher? Could this
> be another app for SPSs ? There's less atmosphere above 20,000 feet
> than there is under it, and a whole lot less water vapor above 20,000 feet

> than under it. Perhaps such a launcher could be towed or dropped from a
> conventional airplane at above 20,000 feet (maybe considerably higher) and

> then get its laser boost from a GEO SPS.

For that matter, it's been proposed that passenger airplanes be propelled by
an SPS laser. O'Neill wrote a bit about this in "2081: A Hopeful View of
the Human Future".

Regards,

Mike Combs

rmenich@... wrote:

>Could a laser beam down from GEO to a laser-driven launcher?
>
Such a laser is a weapon.

>Ron
>****
>
--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

Ron, Ian & others,

Its been a while since Ive posted anything here but I have been following everything that passes. Here is a link that you may want to have a look at, http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/stuffworks/2001-02-16-light-propel.htm , it talks about the Lightcraft and a microwave powered craft that uses power beamed from GEO. Nothing new here but it does give a very basic idea of what could be done. In principal there is nothing to stop you from using a regular jet to take your spaceship up to a high point and then letting a ground based laser pushing it up to orbit or using the orbital power source to do the same thing, certainly the orbital power source would have less air to go through.

Ian is right when he points out that such a system could be used as a weapon but then if you think about it, any group that is working in orbit and has the ability to perform real work in space is in a position to wreak havoc. The US airforce is working on ways to protect its space based resources and destroy the resources of others. This is just what can be done now, if you had a real capability to build in space and use the resources available to you there could pretty much destroy any city or even country, you wanted to. Consider the effect of dropping even one large rock or for a more localised kill, a swarm of kinetic spears (imagine 100,000 to 1,000,000 or more, 1,000 Kg steel spears coated in an ablative) all falling in the CBD of [insert your city of choice] or any of a large number of space based weapons. The flip side of course is that unless somebody comes up with some strange and unexpected way to get cheap access to space that nobody else has any chance of r!
eproducing, then anybody who points their laser/giant rock/kinetic spear/death ray/ultra-hyper-superdooper mega secret weapon at the guy next door is apt to find that the guy next door is using his laser/giant rock/kinetic spear/death ray/ultra-hyper-superdooper mega secret weapon on his cities/colonies/mines etc. Weapons have a way of cancelling each other out but that doesnt mean that the problem of space based weapons shouldnt be considered and if you have an affinity for conspiracy theories, then the worry of all those orbital colonies filled with independence minded souls armed with space based super weapons could be the reason why the governments of the world are suppressing the secret of cheap space flight. ;-)

Darren

>>> rmenich@... 20/03/2003 07:19:20 >>>
Could a laser beam down from GEO to a laser-driven launcher? Could this
be another app for SPSs ? There's less atmosphere above 20,000 feet
than there is under it, and a whole lot less water vapor above 20,000 feet
than under it. Perhaps such a launcher could be towed or dropped from a
conventional airplane at above 20,000 feet (maybe considerably higher) and
then get its laser boost from a GEO SPS.

Not that anyone has the cash to invest in such a scheme, but it's nice to
dream...

Ron
****

rmenich@... wrote:

>Could a laser beam down from GEO to a laser-driven launcher?
>
Such a laser is a weapon.

>Ron
>****
>
--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush

darren@... wrote:

>Ian is right when he points out that such a system could be used as a weapon but then if you think about it, any group that is working in orbit and has the ability to perform real work in space is in a position to wreak havoc.
>
Not to anything like the same degree though; an orbital laser could set
fire to an entire city with meter accurate strikes. Even reflecting the
beam off of a building for a few seconds could blind people for up to a
kilometer. It's an awesome weapon. Vulnerable to destruction from the
ground, certainly, but 'good' whilst it lasts.

A laser system on the ground, on the other hand, is much more indirect,
less aggressive- it behaves more like a fixed location ICBM system; and
they are well understood.

>Darren
>
--
-Ian

Motto: "You're Not Authorized to Know Our Motto."
"War is never right, unless of course there is a second UN resolution" - Private Eye
"War, huh? What is it good for?" - Frankie goes to Hollywood
"Getting reelected" - G. Bush