On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 04:04 PM, Ryan Z wrote:

> As for Russian launchers, yes they are cheaper then
> American counterparts.

Remember that much of the expense of launch is paying for first-class
engineers and technicians and their support staff (including
management). Such folk are far cheaper in today's Russia than in the US
or Europe.

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.

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 09:55 PM, Serkan ANILIR wrote:

> Would the big
> petroleum companies allow scientists and engineers to develop new
> systems for regenerative energy sources in the coming ten years?

Many of the big oil companies are investing in wind, and sometimes
solar. Wind power is, today, the fastest growing energy source on the
planet. Apparently, in the last few years wind power costs have become
lower than some fossil fuels.

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.

From: Al Globus [mailto:aglobus@...]

> Many of the big oil companies are investing in wind, and sometimes
> solar. Wind power is, today, the fastest growing energy source on the
> planet. Apparently, in the last few years wind power costs have become
> lower than some fossil fuels.

Is that right? As I recall, maintenance was the real killer with wind
power. Have there been innovations leading to improvements in this area?

Might this have a negative affect on SPS? Or is wind power still too
geography-bound?

Regards,

Mike Combs

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 07:22 PM, Arthur P. Smith wrote:

> Communications satellites
> have also been getting larger at an accelerating pace. Within the next
> 15
> years we'll be regularly putting things in space that can not be
> launched
> in one piece, but (like ISS) will need in-orbit assembly

Actually, industry is beginning to pull back from the larger-and-larger
comm satellites.

The only project I've heard of (and I do read Space News every week)
that needs in-orbit construction is the *follow-on* to the next space
telescope. It is extremely unlikely to launch in the next 15 years.

ISS construction has, of course, been unbelievably expensive and the
ISS is far less roomy (although much better powered) than SkyLab --
which the Saturn V put up in one launch.

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.

Arthur P. Smith wrote,

"
Communications satellites
have also been getting larger at an accelerating pace. Within the next 15
years we'll be regularly putting things in space that can not be launched
in one piece, but (like ISS) will need in-orbit assembly
"

It might be a whole lot cheaper and less risky just to build bigger
rockets, and integrate the larger commsats on the ground.

Ron
******

"Arthur P. Smith"
05/18/03 10:22 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: "Smells Like Teen Spirit"

On Sat, 17 May 2003, victoriatangoman wrote:

> I do have serious doubt about your 2020 prediction. Investment
> dollars flow to projects that have the greatest return. There are
> more projects available than capital to fund them, so there is a
> rationing of investment. I see no investment proposals, nor
> technologies, on the horizon, nor a gleam in the eye of a budding
> engineer, nor speculative business plans that past first muster,
> which lead me to share your conclusion that 2020 is a viable date.

(1) The companies are out there. TransOrbital is flying
the first commercial mission to the Moon later
this year. If they're successful with that (and they sound very
positive about it right now, in contrast to some earlier reports I'd
heard from the same people) they plan follow-on missions of increasing
scope - the next one (scheduled for 2005) would be a lander with sample
analysis, etc. LunaCorp seems well on their way to something similar next
year with a bit more on the government sponsorship side, though they're
not
as far ahead on permits etc. as far as I can tell. This is one
route, and far more than a "gleam in the eye" at this point. The business
plans are evolving; if these companies crash and burn like Beal and Rotary
Rocket, I fully expect followers who will have learned from their mistakes
and try again, perhaps with more modest plans. No, they're not at the
billion dollar level yet, but they are working with 10's of millions
right now, and to get there in 17 years takes only a modest 30%/year :-)

(2) One major market: large-scale space structures. For example, the
recent space.com article on future space telescopes. Communications
satellites
have also been getting larger at an accelerating pace. Within the next 15
years we'll be regularly putting things in space that can not be launched
in one piece, but (like ISS) will need in-orbit assembly - that also
provides
opportunities for in-orbit re-fueling, and supply of bulk or lightly
processed materials that could be manufactured and brought to LEO (or
wherever the assembly point is) from the Moon more cheaply than from
Earth.

(3) The greatest return on investments comes from creating and improving
economic "loops", where part of the output of the economic process
provides most of the input required for the next iteration;
the development of agriculture, utilization of metals, industrialization,
electricity, computers and the internet all provided new opportunities for
a variety of economic feedback loops. Development of space resources
provides us a similar loop, completely new, and in the long run the
returns
will be astronomical! Now we just need to convince those investors...

Arthur

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur P. Smith"
wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2003, victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> > I do have serious doubt about your 2020 prediction. Investment
> > dollars flow to projects that have the greatest return. There are
> > more projects available than capital to fund them, so there is a
> > rationing of investment. I see no investment proposals, nor
> > technologies, on the horizon, nor a gleam in the eye of a budding
> > engineer, nor speculative business plans that past first muster,
> > which lead me to share your conclusion that 2020 is a viable
date.
>
> (1) The companies are out there. TransOrbital is flying
> the first commercial mission to the Moon later
> this year. If they're successful with that (and they sound very
> positive about it right now, in contrast to some earlier reports
I'd
> heard from the same people) they plan follow-on missions of
increasing
> scope - the next one (scheduled for 2005) would be a lander with
sample
> analysis, etc.

True enough. I guess if your definition of "exploit space resources"
encompasses sample analysis then there is activity as you predicted.

I took exploit to mean the gathering, refining and utilization of
space resources.

I don't see TransOrbital nor LunaCorp meeting those conditions. I
still don't see even the gleam in the eye of future projects.

LunaCorp seems well on their way to something similar next
> year with a bit more on the government sponsorship side, though
they're not
> as far ahead on permits etc. as far as I can tell. This is one
> route, and far more than a "gleam in the eye" at this point. The
business
> plans are evolving; if these companies crash and burn like Beal
and Rotary
> Rocket, I fully expect followers who will have learned from their
mistakes
> and try again, perhaps with more modest plans.

Or more ambitious plans. Past failure can be a powerful management
motivator.

No, they're not at the
> billion dollar level yet, but they are working with 10's of
millions
> right now, and to get there in 17 years takes only a modest
30%/year :-)

To get 30% per annum investment growth will require that the market
grow at an even larger rate. Is that happening?

>
> (2) One major market: large-scale space structures. For example,
the
> recent space.com article on future space telescopes.
Communications satellites
> have also been getting larger at an accelerating pace. Within the
next 15
> years we'll be regularly putting things in space that can not be
launched
> in one piece, but (like ISS) will need in-orbit assembly - that
also provides
> opportunities for in-orbit re-fueling, and supply of bulk or
lightly
> processed materials that could be manufactured and brought to LEO
(or
> wherever the assembly point is) from the Moon more cheaply than
from Earth.

Part of your analysis is right on the money; market demand preceeds
infrastructure.

Will it really be the case that orbitaly produced meterials will be
cheaper than Earth-launched materials?

I don't believe that the volume of material that'll be needed in the
next 17 years will warrant the investment in infrastructure required
to provide that material. Even if that infrastructure was in place,
the low volumes would drive the amortization cost too high. In the
end, the calculus will probably be to continue as we are now, pay
dearly on Earth for extreme engineering for light weight components
and launch from Earth.

As for orbital assembly, yes, I agree that more and more of that
will probably occur but don't share your reasoning that that will be
the impetus for orbital infrastructure.

>
> (3) The greatest return on investments comes from creating and
improving
> economic "loops", where part of the output of the economic process
> provides most of the input required for the next iteration;
> the development of agriculture, utilization of metals,
industrialization,
> electricity, computers and the internet all provided new
opportunities for
> a variety of economic feedback loops. Development of space
resources
> provides us a similar loop, completely new, and in the long run
the returns
> will be astronomical! Now we just need to convince those
investors...
>
> Arthur

You need a market and products first. If you could provide these two
criteria then I might go along with your 17 year projection.

If you could convince Congress that they should tax pollution caused
by oil, gas, coal etc, then that would spur cleaner energy
solutions, and bring SPS closer to fruition.

SPS becomes a project that can amortize the enormous infrastructure
requirements of orbital processing.

If Sony, GE, etc could together come forward with products that can
only come from orbit and were willing to act in concert to share the
infrastructure costs then we would be a step closer.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. I'm not even seeing the
gleam in the eye yet. 17 years is really a short time in which to
birth a revolution. Think back to 1986 and see how many monumental
shifts in society there have been. Where are the flying cars, food
as pills, cure for cancer, long life, fusion power, and the High
Frontier as O'Neill and Heppenheimer predicted.

I just don't see it.

TangoMan

On Mon, 19 May 2003, victoriatangoman wrote:

> Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. I'm not even seeing the
> gleam in the eye yet. 17 years is really a short time in which to
> birth a revolution. Think back to 1986 and see how many monumental
> shifts in society there have been. Where are the flying cars, food
> as pills, cure for cancer, long life, fusion power, and the High
> Frontier as O'Neill and Heppenheimer predicted.

Not much of that, but I can think of at least half a dozen ways in which
todays world is completely different from that of 1986 - three of which
involve space (satellites). Your list, if you think about it, would probably
overlap mine only on a few of the items. 17 years is actually quite a long
time in the world - except in aerospace...

Arthur

Al Globus wrote:

>On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 07:22 PM, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
>
>>Communications satellites
>>have also been getting larger at an accelerating pace. Within the next
>>15
>>years we'll be regularly putting things in space that can not be
>>launched
>>in one piece, but (like ISS) will need in-orbit assembly
>>
>>
>
>Actually, industry is beginning to pull back from the larger-and-larger
>comm satellites.
>
There was a recent AIAA study on comm sat size trends that showed things
still accelerating upwards. Hard to know what "beginning to pull back"
means without seeing it in the graphs. Sorry I can't find the link just now.

>The only project I've heard of (and I do read Space News every week)
>that needs in-orbit construction is the *follow-on* to the next space
>telescope. It is extremely unlikely to launch in the next 15 years.
>
There's far from just one space telescope up there now, even though
Hubble gets all the press. Astronomers study the whole spectrum, and
whatever the wavelength, the larger the telescope the better. There are
quite a few proposals for orbiting telescopes (or other sorts of
detectors, like gravitational wave) that will be made up of several
pieces that can be separated and get better resolution through
interferometry - now whether you count joining separate pieces together
via communication links rather than physical structures as
"construction" I don't know, but to me it's a step in that direction,
and logically more steps of that sort will follow.

There are also the proposals for large radio telescopes on the Moon, but
that's a bit of a separate problem.

Arthur