I have a question:

If you were to define the (physical) elements that needed to be in place
before full-blown space industries could be developed, what would those
elements be?

Marshall Savage, in The Millennial Project, describes these elements as the
Earth-Moon Network. Between Bifrost (launch system) and Asgard (space
colony) are four steps:

1. A space station in LEO (named Valhalla).
2. A space station positioned above the Moon at L2 (named Camelot).
3. A lunar station on the Moon (named Landsberg).
4. A station on one of the near-earth asteroids.

To be accurate, according to Marshall's plan, construction on Asgard would
actually begin after the lunar base (#3 above) and before the station on
near-earth asteroid (#4 above). Asgard would be built from materials mined
by the lunar base and eventually the asteroid station.

The idea is to provide the necessary "transportation, communications, and
mining infrastructure needed to construct and support" very large space
colonies. Valhalla and Camelot are used to "develop the systems needed to
live successfully in space for the rest of time." Landsberg and the
asteroid mining station (Marshall suggests Eros) provide construction
materials and the necessary volatiles.

Would these four elements provide the necessary physical infrastructure to
fuel the development of space industries? Are "space colonies" necessary
for space industries to grow? Does automation and robotics eliminate the
need for large human populations in the development of space industries and
therefore eliminate the need for large colonies that would presumably
support the population? Do we need two stations (in LEO and L2) or can one
in, say, GEO, accomplish the same thing? With the discovery of frozen ice
on the Moon, do we need a station on an asteroid?

You get the idea, right?

Jack

Despite many responses to this post, very few if any of you actually answered the question(s). While this is quite disappointing, it is not at all surprising.

I did not ask what we need to mine asteroids. I asked what is needed for space industry to develop, generally speaking. I agree that asteroids are a resource worth exploiting, but I already knew that.

I hope those of you who responded without answering the question(s) posed will reconsider and repost an appropriate response. Think holistically. Let me put it to you like this:

Would a space station in orbit around the Earth (let's say LEO) make an asteroid mining project more feasible? More practical? Less expensive, for example? I strongly believe that an appropriate industrial infrastructure in space would go a long way to facilitating such projects. But potential industries in space are not limited to asteroid mining. What shape should this infrastructure take to support full-scale, space-based industries? What, in your opinions, should the physical elements of this infrastructure be? Are the four elements I enumerated below sufficient? Should they be in a different (chronological) order? Is there a better or different location for a station not listed below? Etc.

Your input is much appreciated.

Jack

I have a question:

If you were to define the (physical) elements that needed to be in place
before full-blown space industries could be developed, what would those
elements be?

Marshall Savage, in The Millennial Project, describes these elements as the
Earth-Moon Network. Between Bifrost (launch system) and Asgard (space
colony) are four steps:

1. A space station in LEO (named Valhalla).
2. A space station positioned above the Moon at L2 (named Camelot).
3. A lunar station on the Moon (named Landsberg).
4. A station on one of the near-earth asteroids.

To be accurate, according to Marshall's plan, construction on Asgard would
actually begin after the lunar base (#3 above) and before the station on
near-earth asteroid (#4 above). Asgard would be built from materials mined
by the lunar base and eventually the asteroid station.

The idea is to provide the necessary "transportation, communications, and
mining infrastructure needed to construct and support" very large space
colonies. Valhalla and Camelot are used to "develop the systems needed to
live successfully in space for the rest of time." Landsberg and the
asteroid mining station (Marshall suggests Eros) provide construction
materials and the necessary volatiles.

Would these four elements provide the necessary physical infrastructure to
fuel the development of space industries? Are "space colonies" necessary
for space industries to grow? Does automation and robotics eliminate the
need for large human populations in the development of space industries and
therefore eliminate the need for large colonies that would presumably
support the population? Do we need two stations (in LEO and L2) or can one
in, say, GEO, accomplish the same thing? With the discovery of frozen ice
on the Moon, do we need a station on an asteroid?

You get the idea, right?

Jack

spacesettlers-unsubscribe@...

Jack, I am still not sure I understand your question.

Regarding relevance to asteroid prospecting:

>> 1. A space station in LEO (named Valhalla).
>

Not needed.

>>
>> 2. A space station positioned above the Moon at L2 (named Camelot).
>

Wrong L point.

Earth-Moon L2 point is useful for power beaming to Moon, but not much
else, it is unstable.

For stations, better to use the stable L-4 and/or L-5 orbits.
However putting a NEO into a lunar synchronous orbit would take quite a
bit of energy, and would involve complicated timing to coincide with
suitable injection windows. A better location would be the Earth-Sun
L2 halo point described below.

>>
>> 3. A lunar station on the Moon (named Landsberg).
>

Not needed for asteroid processing.

>>
>> 4. A station on one of the near-earth asteroids.
>>

Not generally useful, but useful for the one specific asteroid it is
located nearby.

======

A very strategicaly important location is the Earth-Sun halo point,
between the Sun and the Earth. This would be a good place for an
asteroid processing station. No special injecting windows are
required, unlike lunar synchronous orbits.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

My post has nothing to do with asteroid prospecting specifically, but potential industries in space generally and the infrastructure needed to support these industries.

Jack, I am still not sure I understand your question.

Regarding relevance to asteroid prospecting:

>> 1. A space station in LEO (named Valhalla).
>

Not needed.
We don't need a space station in LEO at all? Ever? Why not? Would it not be useful for other industries in space?

>>
>> 2. A space station positioned above the Moon at L2 (named Camelot).
>

Wrong L point.

Earth-Moon L2 point is useful for power beaming to Moon, but not much
else, it is unstable.

For stations, better to use the stable L-4 and/or L-5 orbits.
However putting a NEO into a lunar synchronous orbit would take quite a
bit of energy, and would involve complicated timing to coincide with
suitable injection windows. A better location would be the Earth-Sun
L2 halo point described below.
Again, NEO prospecting is merely one potential industry in space. I am speaking much more generally. What physical elements are needed in space to provide the necessary infrastructure to support large-scale industries in space? Not just asteroid mining, though certainly not excluding it either.

>>
>> 3. A lunar station on the Moon (named Landsberg).
>

Not needed for asteroid processing.
But is it usefull/needed for other industries in space?

>>
>> 4. A station on one of the near-earth asteroids.
>>

Not generally useful, but useful for the one specific asteroid it is
located nearby.

======

A very strategicaly important location is the Earth-Sun halo point,
between the Sun and the Earth. This would be a good place for an
asteroid processing station. No special injecting windows are
required, unlike lunar synchronous orbits.
Interesting orbit suggestion. I'll have to read some more about this one.

Jack

> [...]
> Would a space station in orbit around the Earth (let's say LEO) make an
> asteroid mining project more feasible? More practical? Less expensive, for
> example? I strongly believe that an appropriate industrial infrastructure
> in space would go a long way to facilitating such projects. But potential
> industries in space are not limited to asteroid mining. What shape should
> this infrastructure take to support full-scale, space-based industries?
> What, in your opinions, should the physical elements of this infrastructure
> be? Are the four elements I enumerated below sufficient? Should they be in
> a different (chronological) order? Is there a better or different location
> for a station not listed below? Etc.
> [...]

The mix of full-scale space-based industries will probably look a
lot like the mix of Earth-based industries, with a few modifications for
the environment. So the best place to start is to look at what
the distribution of industries is by type in the US - the US Census
publishes a lot of statistics on this at:

http://www.census.gov/mcd/

and the 1997 economic census:

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html

There's a NAICS classification scheme to separate industries into
logical groups; similar groupings would likely apply in space.
For the 1997 data here are some high-level numbers:

Manufacturing by Subsector
Includes only establishments with payroll.

NAICS Description Estab- Value of Annual payroll Paid
lishments Shipments ($1,000) ($1,000) employees
31-33 Manufacturing 363,753 3,842,061,405 572,101,070 16,888,016
311 Food mfg 26,361 423,978,723 38,532,086 1,471,050
312 Beverage & 2,729 97,124,576 6,746,774 175,996
tobacco product mfg
313 Textile mills 4,706 58,804,269 10,099,969 393,914
314 Textile product 7,906 31,107,992 5,120,015 236,170
mills
315 Apparel mfg 17,065 68,428,564 12,748,228 719,269
316 Leather & allied 1,870 10,899,471 1,835,675 84,822
product mfg
321 Wood product mfg 17,411 89,211,563 14,401,357 574,426
322 Paper mfg 5,896 150,635,435 22,271,191 576,920
323 Printing & related 42,916 97,944,985 26,109,332 838,240
support activities
324 Petroleum & coal 2,155 176,217,259 5,554,842 107,878
products mfg
325 Chemical mfg 13,513 419,617,444 39,887,185 884,321
326 Plastics & rubber 16,876 160,317,732 30,028,561 1,029,976
products mfg
327 Nonmetallic mineral 16,385 87,010,210 16,271,427 504,443
product mfg
331 Primary metal mfg 5,095 170,188,704 24,069,436 611,714
332 Fabricated metal 62,501 243,254,492 57,040,954 1,774,874
product mfg
333 Machinery mfg 30,665 270,357,157 53,059,543 1,421,820
334 Computer & elect- 17,465 438,209,195 72,717,428 1,698,529
ronic product mfg
335 Electrical equip- 6,946 111,809,707 18,978,904 594,914
ment, appliance, &
component mfg
336 Transportation 12,980 571,979,634 79,649,337 1,848,558
equipment mfg
337 Furniture & 20,758 63,939,540 14,977,736 604,845
related product mfg
339 Miscellaneous mfg 31,554 101,024,753 22,001,090 735,337

You can sort that by value of shipments (Transportation, Computer &
electronics, food, chemicals, machinery, fab. metal, etc.) or by
payroll (Transportation, Computer & electronics, fab. metal, machinery,
chemicals, food, etc.) to get a rough idea of the most important
manufacturing industries to our sort of economy.

At a higher level we can compare the totals for manufacturing with
some numbers for the original extraction and services industries:
NAICS Description Estab- Value of Annual payroll Paid
lishments Shipments ($1,000) ($1,000) employees
11 Agriculture, ?
forestry, fisheries
21 mining 25,000 173,985,314 20,798,257 509,006
22 utilities 15,513 411,713,327 36,594,684 702,703
23 construction 656,434 858,581,046 174,184,604 5,664,840
31-33 mfg 363,753 3,842,061,405 572,101,070 16,888,016
42 wholesale trade 453,470 4,059,657,778 214,915,405 5,796,557
44-45 retail trade 1,118,447 2,460,886,012 237,195,503 13,991,103
48-49 transportation 178,025 318,245,044 82,346,182 2,920,777
and warehousing
51 information 114,475 623,213,854 129,481,577 3,066,167
52 finance 395,203 2,197,771,283 264,551,401 5,835,214
53 real estate, 288,273 240,917,556 41,590,766 1,702,420
rentals, leasing
54 prof. services 621,129 595,250,649 231,398,791 5,361,210
55 management 47,319 92,473,059 154,177,673 2,617,527
56 travel, security, 276,393 295,936,350 137,336,983 7,347,366
waste, other
administrative services
61 education 40,936 20,439,028 6,364,527 321,073
62 health care 194,420 551,540,258 378,205,694 13,561,579
71 Arts and recreation 99,099 104,715,028 32,787,273 1,587,660
72 hotels and rests. 545,068 350,399,194 97,007,396 9,451,226
81 other services 519,715 265,897,685 65,520,112 3,256,178
92 public administration ?

For the most part services will follow people; since they
make up such a large component of the economy, any
assumptions about a space economy need to first address
realistically how many people we expect up there.
Thousands? Millions? Billions? Some of them will be
there because of opportunities in industry, manufacturing,
or scientific laboratories, etc, but I suspect in the
near future most of the people in space will be there NOT for
their jobs, but just because they want to be. Tourists,
retirees, telecommuters, libertarian refugees etc.
If this number is substantial then a good portion of space
industry will be devoted to the services these people living
in space need: general manufacturing, health care, wholesale and
retail trade, finance and insurance, professional services,
construction, information, etc.

The difference between Earth and space industry will primarily
be the cost of mass transport (anything really heavy must be
manufactured in space, not transported up from Earth) and the cost
of labor (much higher in space than on Earth), so anything
light and labor-intensive will be made on Earth and transported
to space (most of the computer and electronics industry, financial
services, etc.) and anything heavy and capable of a high degree of
automation (mining, heavy manufacturing) will be done in space.
Heavy-mass/high-labor and light-mass/light-labor products will
probably be distributed about the same as they are now.

The transportation and energy businesses, in particular,
being on the heavy-mass/light-labor side, will definitely be heavily
weighted in space industry. All those people out there will want
to get around; more importantly they will want a steady and reliable
supply of all the amenities of life. Whether the actual material
comes from the Moon or asteroids, you're going to need a lot of
"trucking" capacity to get it to where it's needed. A more
detailed look at the distribution of industries will no doubt
inspire more concrete estimates of what to expect for a mature space
industry.

The particular sequence of projects Jack mentions are somewhat
irrelevant - we don't want just 1 or two "establishments",
but thousands. I do agree that it will be in Earth-Moon space
that space industry really gets going (as opposed to those who
somehow think we'll be able to create a complex self-sustaining
civilization on Mars with less than 10 settlers...)
The logical first steps are "hotels" for tourists
to stay, and for retirees to retire to, probably in LEO at first.
Industry and manufacturing will naturally follow the people.
Of course we need "Cheap Access To Space" first...

Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

> My post has nothing to do with asteroid prospecting specifically, but
> potential industries in space generally and the infrastructure needed
> to support these industries.
>

It is not possible to answer this question. It is along the lines of
"how long is a piece of string".

The answer is, it depends.

>
>> Jack, I am still not sure I understand your question.
>>
>> Regarding relevance to asteroid prospecting:
>>
>> >> 1. A space station in LEO (named Valhalla).
>> >
>>
>> Not needed.
>
> We don't need a space station in LEO at all? Ever? Why not? Would it
> not be useful for other industries in space?
>

I said a LEO station is not necessary for asteroid mining. That is all
I said.

As for a usefulness of a LEO space station for other purpose. Well, it
depends on your purpose.

Some people say it is already already useful and remains useful today (
ISS, Mir, Salyut, Skylab ).

Other people say it will never be useful.

It depends on the quality of your crystal ball and/or how you define
"useful".

What is your definition of "useful" ?

My defintion is financially "profitable" (which is not self
sufficient). That means I think of it as a business, which means we
need a business plan.

So what is your business plan ? How do you propose to raise capital ?
How do you propose to make money ? What are your markets ? Once you
have addressed these questions, then the type of infrastructure you need
can be evaluated and will then become apparent.

>
>> >>
>> >> 2. A space station positioned above the Moon at L2 (named
>> Camelot).
>> >
>>
>> Wrong L point.
>>
>> Earth-Moon L2 point is useful for power beaming to Moon, but not
>> much
>> else, it is unstable.
>>
>> For stations, better to use the stable L-4 and/or L-5 orbits.
>> However putting a NEO into a lunar synchronous orbit would take
>> quite a
>> bit of energy, and would involve complicated timing to coincide with
>>
>> suitable injection windows. A better location would be the
>> Earth-Sun
>> L2 halo point described below.
>
> Again, NEO prospecting is merely one potential industry in space. I am
> speaking much more generally. What physical elements are needed in
> space to provide the necessary infrastructure to support large-scale
> industries in space? Not just asteroid mining, though certainly not
> excluding it either.
>

Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ? It assumes that the big
market is energy for Earth, then the infrastructue is designed to
service that market.

>
>> >>
>> >> 3. A lunar station on the Moon (named Landsberg).
>> >
>>
>> Not needed for asteroid processing.
>
> But is it usefull/needed for other industries in space?
>

Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ?

Agreed, the question is all wrong. A company decides to build a widget
and then creates a factory to build widgets. They don't build a
factory and then decide that it would be a good factory to build
widgets in.

Development follows need.

Mitchell James

> My post has nothing to do with asteroid prospecting specifically, but
> potential industries in space generally and the infrastructure needed
> to support these industries.
>

It is not possible to answer this question. It is along the lines of
"how long is a piece of string".
I disagree, but I do understand the point you are making.

As for a usefulness of a LEO space station for other purpose. Well, it
depends on your purpose.

Some people say it is already already useful and remains useful today (
ISS, Mir, Salyut, Skylab ).

Other people say it will never be useful.
I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent argument AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious.

It depends on the quality of your crystal ball and/or how you define
"useful".

What is your definition of "useful" ?
Useful: Being of use or service.

In this context, can a LEO space station support industry in space? Should it?

My defintion is financially "profitable" (which is not self
sufficient). That means I think of it as a business, which means we
need a business plan.
Of course. Agree completely.

So what is your business plan?
Don't have one.

How do you propose to raise capital?
I don't.

How do you propose to make money?
The ability to make money in space is a foregone conclusion. It CAN be immensely profitable.

What are your markets?
Don't have any.

Once you
have addressed these questions, then the type of infrastructure you need
can be evaluated and will then become apparent.
I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many Earth-based business would we have today if every one of them had to provide their own infrastructure (transportation network, communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The fact is they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is already in place. They share that infrastructure with all the other businesses and residents of the "neighborhood". And it was never about deciding what business they wanted to go into before deciding on what infrastructure was needed. What I am trying to glean from this community is the infrastructure that would be required in space to support businesses in space.

As it exists right now, yes, all the infrastructure for every mission (or "space business') has to be brought up as payload. This, to me, is the most fundamental problem. The only way to resolve that, it seems to me, would be to provide some of the basic infrastructure necessary so companies wanting to do business/research in space could better afford to do so. Am I being any clearer?

Take the MUOL concept I spoke of in the past: Place a backplane in orbit that provides the infrastructure needed to support some basic product research and development (the power, comms, etc.). Lease out space on the backplane for companies interested in doing research. They design and deploy a module and plug it into "our" backplane. How much money does the company save by not having to provide it's own power and communications subsystems? How much time and money is saved by not having to worry about orbit allocation? How many millions of dollars are saved by "sharing" the infrastructure of their "neighbors"?

> Again, NEO prospecting is merely one potential industry in space. I am
> speaking much more generally. What physical elements are needed in
> space to provide the necessary infrastructure to support large-scale
> industries in space? Not just asteroid mining, though certainly not
> excluding it either.
>

Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ? It assumes that the big
market is energy for Earth, then the infrastructue is designed to
service that market.
Quite familiar with it, but I don't believe it to be practical. It would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy market from the OPEC nations. I don't see that happening in the near future. Solar Power Satellites are an excellent idea and one that has my whole-hearted support. But I don't see it as realistic in the next 50 or so years.

> But is it usefull/needed for other industries in space?
>

Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ?
:) Yep :)

Jack

Agreed, the question is all wrong. A company decides to build a widget
and then creates a factory to build widgets. They don't build a
factory and then decide that it would be a good factory to build
widgets in.

Development follows need.

Mitchell James
I agree with you, but you are misunderstanding me. I am not asking what kind of factory we want to build. You wouldn't build the factory and then ask what kind of infrastructure do we need either, would you? Regardless of what product is manufactured or what kind of factory you build, EVERYTHING you do in space will have some requirements in common.

Power Needs
Communication
Protection from space hazards

There may be more, but surely we can all agree that every factory in space will require power, communications capabilities, and some protection from space hazards (solar radiation, meteorites, etc.). Right?

Again, I am not asking about the kind of factory we should build, but the kind of infrastructure we would need to support factories and where and why?

Jack

> I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion
> that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many
> Earth-based business would we have today if every one of them had to
> provide their own infrastructure (transportation network,
> communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The fact is
> they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is already

On the contrary, they did and do. Governments do not put services into
place where there is not solid demand by tax paying business and
individuals. At least anywhere where supply and demand are in
operation.

Trying to leapfrog the build up process will only work if you have
PERFECT foresight. And that sure doesn't discribe any organization that
I know of.

Mitchell James

>
> I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO
> space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent argument
> AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious.
>

The case against a space station is that so far no space station has
created a revenue stream which amortized its development. So in the
case of simple commercial criteria, nobody has built a profitable space
station.

The reasons for space stations which have been launched so far have been
many and various, but the profit motive was not the reason.

>> It depends on the quality of your crystal ball and/or how you define
>>
>> "useful".
>>
>> What is your definition of "useful" ?
>
> Useful: Being of use or service.
>

??? I have no idea what you mean.

>
>> So what is your business plan?
>
> Don't have one.
>

Well, that kinda stifles the dicussion.

>
>> How do you propose to raise capital?
>
> I don't.
>

Oh.

>
>> How do you propose to make money?
>
> The ability to make money in space is a foregone conclusion. It CAN be
> immensely profitable.
>
>> What are your markets?
>
> Don't have any.
>

?? You lost me.

>
>> Once you
>> have addressed these questions, then the type of infrastructure you
>> need
>> can be evaluated and will then become apparent.
>
> I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion
> that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many
> Earth-based business would we have today if every

No it does not mean that at all. There are many costly businesses
right here on Earth. There are many industries on Earth which involve
enormous amounts of capital, far greater than the cost of building a
space station, or various other pieces of space infrastrcture.

You have completely missed the point. High cost business can be and
is highly profitable.

My favorite is the petroleum industry. The cost of drilling thousands
of feet below the ocean floor is enormous. Oil platforms cost
billions of dollars. Drilling bases in the middle of the Sahara desert
are very expensive to build and operate. The cost of the Endicdott
platforms in the Beafort sea is tens of billions of dollars.

The issue is profits and markets. The petroleum industry amortizes
its huge infrastructure cost by selling oil at a profit.

> one of them had to provide their own infrastructure (transportation
> network, communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The
> fact is they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is
> already in place. They share that infrastructure with all the other
> businesses and residents of the "neighborhood". And it was never about
> deciding what business they wanted to go into before deciding on what
> infrastructure was needed. What I am trying to glean from this
> community is the infrastructure that would be required in space to
> support businesses in space.
>

Nonsense. In the 1950 and 1960's oil companies spent billions and
billions of dollars creating infrastructure in the artcic wilderness, in
the deserts or Arabia and in the violent North Sea. In all these areas
infrastructure was non existent. They built fleets of ships, bought
fleets of aircraft, trucks, they built roads, they built airports, and
they built cities in the middle of nowhere. And the food was, and in
many cases still is, flown in. Much of the water is trucked in, or
drilled from wells thousands of feet below ground at a huge cost.

But despite all of these costs, the industry is extremely profitable.

>
> As it exists right now, yes, all the infrastructure for every mission
> (or "space business') has to be brought up as payload. This, to me, is
> the most fundamental problem. The only way to resolve that, it seems
> to me, would be to provide some of the basic infrastructure necessary
> so companies wanting to do business/research in space could better
> afford to do so. Am I being any clearer?
>

When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for the
colonies to be more or less profitable.

Some of it was financed by speculative private capital and some of it by
governments with a bit of moeny to spare. Much of it was fueled by
international competition between rival superpowers (Spanish,
Portuguese, French, British, Russian) who wanted to make sure that
their adversaries did not by chance stumble on some militray or economic
resource which put them at a severe disadvantage.

So they felt compelled to invest in exploration as a matter of their
respective national security.

By analogy, space industries could grow over decades and centuries, and
could ride on the shirt tails of military expansion.

That is one possible scenario. But it sure would take a long time,
generations perhaps.

>
> Take the MUOL concept I spoke of in the past: Place a backplane in
> orbit that provides the infrastructure needed to support some basic
> product research and development (the power, comms, etc.). Lease out
> space on the backplane for companies interested in doing research.
> They design and deploy a module and plug it into "our" backplane. How
> much money does the company save by not having to provide it's own
> power and communications subsystems? How much time and money is saved
> by not having to worry about orbit allocation? How many millions of
> dollars are saved by "sharing" the infrastructure of their
> "neighbors"?
>

We need to do a crtiical market analysis.

Which companies are interested in doing this research ? It has not
happened yet, and I not expect much in the forseeable future.

Space tourism is our best best IMHO.

>>
>> Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ? It assumes that the
>> big
>> market is energy for Earth, then the infrastructue is designed to
>> service that market.
>
> Quite familiar with it, but I don't believe it to be practical. It
> would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy
> market from the OPEC nations. I don't see

Indeed. Something perhaps as drastic as thousands of lunatic religious
fanatics funded by tons of oil money, spreading around anthrax
everywhere, and blowing up radiological dirty bombs in major cities.

Pure fantasy I guess. Fortunately there is no chance of that
happening, right ?

> that happening in the near future. Solar Power Satellites are an
> excellent idea and one that has my whole-hearted support. But I don't
> see it as realistic in the next 50 or so years.
>

Assuming we live that long. On the other hand, SPS could be an
important survival strategy. It could allow us to stop using oil, and
thereby shut down the lunatic fringe of the oil producers. Not to
mention put a stop to greenhouse gas emissions.

> My post has nothing to do with asteroid prospecting specifically, but
> potential industries in space generally and the infrastructure needed
> to support these industries.
>

It is not possible to answer this question. It is along the lines of
"how long is a piece of string".
I disagree, but I do understand the point you are making.
As for a usefulness of a LEO space station for other purpose. Well, it
depends on your purpose.

Some people say it is already already useful and remains useful today (
ISS, Mir, Salyut, Skylab ).

Other people say it will never be useful.
I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent argument AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious. The initial cost and investment demands of developing a space project and industry are daunting, even to the big guys. Governments and agencies like NASA are talking about Billions of dollars like they are nothing, and the average person doesnt have the perspective to be able to handle the numbers. So if you ask the person on the street if they think that the government should spend $50 Billion or more just to develop a viable space infrastructure, the first thought that comes to mind is why that amount of money isnt being spent to improve life down on Earth first. (Side note, this question is dealt with wonderfully at the following website: http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/crossrds.htm) What this average Joe doesnt understand is that investing that $50 Billion will net Trillions of dollars for their children and grandchildren, or will net zero if the investment is not made. So, do we put the investment up to a vote and let the average Joe decide, or take it out of their hands and get private backing? Easy answer: the average Joe will be much happier if he doesnt know what is happening, and Joes children and grandchildren will be much happier when they reap the benefits 25-100 years in the future.
It depends on the quality of your crystal ball and/or how you define
"useful".

What is your definition of "useful" ?
Useful: Being of use or service.

In this context, can a LEO space station support industry in space? Should it? Yes, absolutely. Every step on the road to the stars must be able to support itself in terms of energy consumption and ROI, otherwise it wont receive the funding necessary to get it off the ground. My definition is financially "profitable" (which is not self
sufficient). That means I think of it as a business, which means we
need a business plan.
Of course. Agree completely.
So what is your business plan?
Don't have one. You may not have one, but you are in the right position to develop one. Anyone can come up with a viable business plan if they have the help of industry experts and enough foresight to make dreams part of a future plan for reality. Thats what business is all about. How do you propose to raise capital?
I don't. If you dont, who will? With a business plan describing a MUOL and a proof of concept module on the ISS, capital investors will be pounding down the door. How do you propose to make money?
The ability to make money in space is a foregone conclusion. It CAN be immensely profitable. Can be is only the same as Will be if the person with the idea can get it off the ground before the next guy. I.e. Bill Gates, Steve Bezos, Christopher Columbus, etc. All of these guys turned an idea in to a business venture and made it succeed, sometimes by accidentally stumbling on a better way and not even knowing about it. What are your markets?
Don't have any. But you are describing market after market here. Industrial supply companies with a need for micro-gravity and vacuum. I cant even imagine what I could do with a MUOL module because Im not in the industry, but anyone who reads about other successes will be constantly asking him/herself how can I do it differently, and how can I improve the concept and make my own magic. But without a venue, idea generation is stalled. How many people thought about email lists before email? Once you have addressed these questions, then the type of infrastructure you need
can be evaluated and will then become apparent.
I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many Earth-based business would we have today if every one of them had to provide their own infrastructure (transportation network, communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The fact is they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is already in place. They share that infrastructure with all the other businesses and residents of the "neighborhood". And it was never about deciding what business they wanted to go into before deciding on what infrastructure was needed. What I am trying to glean from this community is the infrastructure that would be required in space to support businesses in space.

As it exists right now, yes, all the infrastructure for every mission (or "space business') has to be brought up as payload. This, to me, is the most fundamental problem. The only way to resolve that, it seems to me, would be to provide some of the basic infrastructure necessary so companies wanting to do business/research in space could better afford to do so. Am I being any clearer?

Take the MUOL concept I spoke of in the past: Place a backplane in orbit that provides the infrastructure needed to support some basic product research and development (the power, comms, etc.). Lease out space on the backplane for companies interested in doing research. They design and deploy a module and plug it into "our" backplane. How much money does the company save by not having to provide it's own power and communications subsystems? How much time and money is saved by not having to worry about orbit allocation? How many millions of dollars are saved by "sharing" the infrastructure of their "neighbors"?
> Again, NEO prospecting is merely one potential industry in space. I am
> speaking much more generally. What physical elements are needed in
> space to provide the necessary infrastructure to support large-scale
> industries in space? Not just asteroid mining, though certainly not
> excluding it either.
>

Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ? It assumes that the big
market is energy for Earth, then the infrastructue is designed to
service that market.
Quite familiar with it, but I don't believe it to be practical. It would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy market from the OPEC nations. I don't see that happening in the near future. Solar Power Satellites are an excellent idea and one that has my whole-hearted support. But I don't see it as realistic in the next 50 or so years. Solar Power Satellites are a far off dream, yes, but with the energy crunch of the 1970s, its no wonder that energy was the first thing that people thought of at the end of that decade. What industries will come up in the future, we can only guess at, but we have to gather the resources first. > But is it usefull/needed for other industries in space?
>

Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ?
:) Yep :)

Jack

> I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion
> that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many
> Earth-based business would we have today if every one of them had to
> provide their own infrastructure (transportation network,
> communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The fact is
> they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is already

On the contrary, they did and do.
There are exceptions, but they are rare. Few business spring up in the middle of nowhere with no appreciable infrastructure already in place.

Governments do not put services into
place where there is not solid demand by tax paying business and
individuals. At least anywhere where supply and demand are in
operation.
Didn't say they did. I understand your point, though. It's my communications failure. I'm not explaining myself very well.

Trying to leapfrog the build up process will only work if you have
PERFECT foresight. And that sure doesn't discribe any organization that
I know of.

Mitchell James
On the contrary, I'm not trying to leapfrog the build-up process, I am trying to get you guys to help me define the physical elements required for that build-up.

Jack

Charles, your wit shines through. I like your prespective and the
style with which you convey it it.

Keep up the incisive commentary.

> There are exceptions, but they are rare. Few business spring up in the
> middle of nowhere with no appreciable infrastructure already in place.

But they do, all the time. The first farmers to start farming in
the Ohio valley just went there and started farming, building
infrastructure as they went. Ditto oil exploration in Alaska, or
on the continental shelf. Ditto again for gold miners in the Yukon
or California. The infrastructure follows after the pioneers
have already started to make money.

The real problem holding up development of ET resources isn't
infrastructure, it's launch costs. If it was cheaper to launch
people into LEO, there would be a larger LEO tourist market, so
it would make sense to build orbital hotels, which could also
serve as construction depots for asteroid mining missions etc.
Every problem in ET resource exploitation comes down to launch
costs sooner or later. The good news is that there is no fundamental
reason that launch costs have to be high. The bad news is that
the people with the money haven't yet realized this, and there
are a large number of people who should know better pushing the
notion that some magic bullet is required. The technology exists
today to get launch costs well under $1000/lb to LEO, and with
high flight rates it should be possible to get to ~$200/lb, at
which point some fairly speculative asteroid missions begin to
look pretty attractive.

......Andrew

Andrew Case
acase@... |

>
> I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO
> space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent argument
> AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious.
>

The case against a space station is that so far no space station has
created a revenue stream which amortized its development. So in the
case of simple commercial criteria, nobody has built a profitable space
station.
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there have only been three, right? One Russion, two American (technically, one American and one International). Since all have been done by government bureaucracies, infamous for their wasteful spending, I am stunned by the argument. I understand it, just disagree with it.

>> What is your definition of "useful" ?
>
> Useful: Being of use or service.
>

??? I have no idea what you mean.
Sorry. When I hit your series of questions, I turned into a bit of a smart mouth. I was just defining useful.

>
>> So what is your business plan?
>
> Don't have one.
>

Well, that kinda stifles the dicussion.
No, it shouldn't. Do you all have business plans? Truth is, I do have part of a business plan relating to the MUOL.

>> How do you propose to raise capital?
>
> I don't.
>

Oh.
Again, being a smart mouth. Can't tell you the way I might raise capital, but I or someone better equipped to do so will need to.

>> How do you propose to make money?
>
> The ability to make money in space is a foregone conclusion. It CAN be
> immensely profitable.
>
>> What are your markets?
>
> Don't have any.
>

?? You lost me.
Sorry. The answer should have been markets for what? The MUOL? Or are you asking generally?

>> Once you
>> have addressed these questions, then the type of infrastructure you
>> need
>> can be evaluated and will then become apparent.
>
> I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion
> that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many
> Earth-based business would we have today if every one of them had to provide their own infrastructure (transportation
> network, communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The
> fact is they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is
> already in place. They share that infrastructure with all the other
> businesses and residents of the "neighborhood". And it was never about
> deciding what business they wanted to go into before deciding on what
> infrastructure was needed. What I am trying to glean from this
> community is the infrastructure that would be required in space to
> support businesses in space.
>

Nonsense. In the 1950 and 1960's oil companies spent billions and
billions of dollars creating infrastructure in the artcic wilderness, in
the deserts or Arabia and in the violent North Sea. In all these areas
infrastructure was non existent. They built fleets of ships, bought
fleets of aircraft, trucks, they built roads, they built airports, and
they built cities in the middle of nowhere. And the food was, and in
many cases still is, flown in. Much of the water is trucked in, or
drilled from wells thousands of feet below ground at a huge cost.

But despite all of these costs, the industry is extremely profitable.
There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies are started where infrastructure already exists. While I am confident that space businesses can be and will be profitable, we can't guarantee that they will be so profitable as to support the huge start-up costs required to include the basic infrastructure needed to support the business.

> As it exists right now, yes, all the infrastructure for every mission
> (or "space business') has to be brought up as payload. This, to me, is
> the most fundamental problem. The only way to resolve that, it seems
> to me, would be to provide some of the basic infrastructure necessary
> so companies wanting to do business/research in space could better
> afford to do so. Am I being any clearer?
>

When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for the
colonies to be more or less profitable.
Yes, but they came to America for wholly different reasons than we are going to space. I don't think this analogy holds up under careful scrutiny. I really don't see the similarities.

> Take the MUOL concept I spoke of in the past: Place a backplane in
> orbit that provides the infrastructure needed to support some basic
> product research and development (the power, comms, etc.). Lease out
> space on the backplane for companies interested in doing research.
> They design and deploy a module and plug it into "our" backplane. How
> much money does the company save by not having to provide it's own
> power and communications subsystems? How much time and money is saved
> by not having to worry about orbit allocation? How many millions of
> dollars are saved by "sharing" the infrastructure of their
> "neighbors"?
>

We need to do a crtiical market analyses.
We need to do many analyses.

Which companies are interested in doing this research ? It has not
happened yet, and I not expect much in the forseeable future.
It hasn't happened because it costs too much to warrant what is essentially speculative research. We know it can be profitable, we just don't know how or in what way, necessarily. As far as who is interested in doing such research - how about pharmaceutical companies? Materials manufacturers? I believe, though I can't substantiate it at this time, there are numerous companies that would love to have an opportunity to do affordable product research and development in the special and unique environment of space.

Space tourism is our best best IMHO.
I strongly disagree with this commonly held contention, but that is one hornets nest I do NOT want to stir up.

>> Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ? It assumes that the
>> big
>> market is energy for Earth, then the infrastructue is designed to
>> service that market.
>
> Quite familiar with it, but I don't believe it to be practical. It
> would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy
> market from the OPEC nations. I don't see

Indeed. Something perhaps as drastic as thousands of lunatic religious
fanatics funded by tons of oil money, spreading around anthrax
everywhere, and blowing up radiological dirty bombs in major cities.

Pure fantasy I guess. Fortunately there is no chance of that
happening, right ?
Hehehe. No, no chance at all.

> that happening in the near future. Solar Power Satellites are an
> excellent idea and one that has my whole-hearted support. But I don't
> see it as realistic in the next 50 or so years.
>

Assuming we live that long. On the other hand, SPS could be an
important survival strategy. It could allow us to stop using oil, and
thereby shut down the lunatic fringe of the oil producers. Not to
mention put a stop to greenhouse gas emissions.
I think SPS should be a part of all long-range plans for space. It's a great idea and entirely doable. Just not practical in the near term.

Great comments!

Jack

Jack,

I think that you are on to something here, and I want to point out that you are wrong on a few points. Not through lack of vision, but perhaps a different perspective will help. Please see below.
Thanks, Chad.

I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent argument AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious.

The initial cost and investment demands of developing a space project and industry are daunting, even to the big guys. Governments and agencies like NASA are talking about Billions of dollars like they are nothing, and the average person doesnt have the perspective to be able to handle the numbers. So if you ask the person on the street if they think that the government should spend $50 Billion or more just to develop a viable space infrastructure, the first thought that comes to mind is why that amount of money isnt being spent to improve life down on Earth first. (Side note, this question is dealt with wonderfully at the following website: http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/crossrds.htm) What this average Joe doesnt understand is that investing that $50 Billion will net Trillions of dollars for their children and grandchildren, or will net zero if the investment is not made. So, do we put the investment up to a vote and let the average Joe decide, or take it out of their hands and get private backing? Easy answer: the average Joe will be much happier if he doesnt know what is happening, and Joes children and grandchildren will be much happier when they reap the benefits 25-100 years in the future.
I understand all that, but I don't see an argument against LEO space station there. I see why the average Joe wouldn't support it, but not on why it would be useless.

So what is your business plan?

Don't have one.

You may not have one, but you are in the right position to develop one. Anyone can come up with a viable business plan if they have the help of industry experts and enough foresight to make dreams part of a future plan for reality. Thats what business is all about.
I believe the MUOL is a viable concept and I have started developing a business plan, very rough at this stage. I was kidding earlier and being a bit of a smart mouth. Parts of it are developed. I do not, however, have the help of industry experts. As far as having the foresight, only time will tell!

How do you propose to raise capital?

I don't.

If you dont, who will? With a business plan describing a MUOL and a proof of concept module on the ISS, capital investors will be pounding down the door.
That's encouraging! Again, I was out of line and being a smart mouth. I can't say at this stage how I propose to raise capital, but clearly I (or someone else) do intend to.

How do you propose to make money?

The ability to make money in space is a foregone conclusion. It CAN be immensely profitable.

Can be is only the same as Will be if the person with the idea can get it off the ground before the next guy. I.e. Bill Gates, Steve Bezos, Christopher Columbus, etc. All of these guys turned an idea in to a business venture and made it succeed, sometimes by accidentally stumbling on a better way and not even knowing about it.
:) I agree.

Jack

>
>> >
>> > I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO
>>
>> > space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent
>> argument
>> > AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious.
>> >
>>
>> The case against a space station is that so far no space station has
>>
>> created a revenue stream which amortized its development. So in the
>>
>> case of simple commercial criteria, nobody has built a profitable
>> space
>> station.
>
> Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there have only been three, right?
> One Russion, two American (technically, one American and one
> International). Since all have been done by

No, there have been many more than that.

From the USSR/Russia: Seven in the Salyut series (two of which failed),
plus Mir, makes 8

>
> There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies are
> started where infrastructure already exists. While I am confident that
> space businesses can be and will be

So the oil industry is a trivial exception ?

C'mon, it is a pretty darn big portion of the global economy.

>> When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
>> infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for the
>> colonies to be more or less profitable.
>
> Yes, but they came to America for wholly different reasons than we are
> going to space. I don't think this analogy holds up under careful
> scrutiny. I really don't see the similarities.
>

The similarities are obvious.

>> Which companies are interested in doing this research ? It has not
>>
>> happened yet, and I not expect much in the forseeable future.
>
> It hasn't happened because it costs too much to warrant what is
> essentially speculative research. We know it can be profitable, we
> just don't know how or in what way, necessarily. As far as who is
> interested in doing such research - how about pharmaceutical
> companies? Materials manufacturers? I believe, though I can't
> substantiate it at this time, there are numerous companies that would
> love to have an opportunity to do affordable product research and
> development in the special and unique environment of space.
>

If you give the space away for free, probably there is a non-zero
market. But not enough to make a profit in the forseeable future.

> I think SPS should be a part of all long-range plans for space. It's a
> great idea and entirely doable. Just not practical in the near term.
>

Practical ? In what sense ? It is certain technologically feasible.

It is simply a matter of money. As long as society remains blind to the
true costs of fossil fuels then of course it will not happen.

> There are exceptions, but they are rare. Few business spring up in the
> middle of nowhere with no appreciable infrastructure already in place.

But they do, all the time. The first farmers to start farming in
the Ohio valley just went there and started farming, building
infrastructure as they went.
Come on, now. Back then infrastructure consisted of a railroad track if you were lucky. They farmed and built their infrastructure as they went because there was NO other option nor was there all that much to the infrastructure they "developed". These days 90% or more of all start-ups in the 1st world piggy-back on existing infrastructure. And this has been the case now for more than a generation.

Ditto oil exploration in Alaska, or
on the continental shelf. Ditto again for gold miners in the Yukon
or California. The infrastructure follows after the pioneers
have already started to make money.
That was then. That thinking is gone for the most part. They didn't have a choice. The financiers of today do and choose to finance companies that either (a) use existing infrastructure or (b) virtually guarantee high profitability (thus warranting the added expense of including infrastructure in their start-up). Space businesses can neither guarantee high profitability nor piggy-back on existing infrastructure. But of the two, which is most likely? I believe infrastructure can be provided separately and profitably and make doing in space more affordable to others.

The real problem holding up development of ET resources isn't
infrastructure, it's launch costs.
Yeah, I've heard this argument many times. But I have also been privy to other, equally compelling arguments. Like it's the lack of a market that keeps launch costs high.

If it was cheaper to launch
people into LEO, there would be a larger LEO tourist market, so
it would make sense to build orbital hotels, which could also
serve as construction depots for asteroid mining missions etc.
Every problem in ET resource exploitation comes down to launch
costs sooner or later. The good news is that there is no fundamental
reason that launch costs have to be high. The bad news is that
the people with the money haven't yet realized this, and there
are a large number of people who should know better pushing the
notion that some magic bullet is required. The technology exists
today to get launch costs well under $1000/lb to LEO, and with
high flight rates it should be possible to get to ~$200/lb, at
which point some fairly speculative asteroid missions begin to
look pretty attractive.

......Andrew
I agree that reducing launch costs would go a long way to resolving the problem, but I don't think it alone is the answer.

Jack

>>
> Come on, now. Back then infrastructure consisted of a railroad track
> if you were lucky. They farmed and built their infrastructure as they
> went because there was NO other option nor was there all that much to
> the infrastructure they "developed". These days 90% or more of all
> start-ups in the 1st world piggy-back on existing infrastructure. And
> this has been the case now for more than a generation.

What have start-ups got to do with it ? They are less than 10% of the
economy.

Most infrastructure development today still follows in the wake of
business developments, as has already been explained.

>> Ditto oil exploration in Alaska, or
>> on the continental shelf. Ditto again for gold miners in the Yukon
>> or California. The infrastructure follows after the pioneers
>> have already started to make money.
>
> That was then. That thinking is gone for the most part. They didn't
> have a choice. The

Nonsense, prospectors and developers are still developing vast tracts of
the world, there is plenty of undeveloped territory.

My brother is helping build a huge power station in the middle of a
Borneo jungle right now, with no infrastructure to speak of, unless you
count a dirt road and small boat terminal.

Somebody figured it would make a proft.

> >
> > > There are exceptions, but they are rare. Few business spring
up in the
> > > middle of nowhere with no appreciable infrastructure already
in place.
> >
> >But they do, all the time. The first farmers to start farming in
> >the Ohio valley just went there and started farming, building
> >infrastructure as they went.
>
> Come on, now. Back then infrastructure consisted of a railroad
track if you
> were lucky. They farmed and built their infrastructure as they
went because
> there was NO other option nor was there all that much to the
infrastructure
> they "developed". These days 90% or more of all start-ups in the
1st world
> piggy-back on existing infrastructure. And this has been the case
now for
> more than a generation.
>
> >Ditto oil exploration in Alaska, or
> >on the continental shelf. Ditto again for gold miners in the Yukon
> >or California. The infrastructure follows after the pioneers
> >have already started to make money.

I think you may need to re-examine some of the premises underlying
your question. When the other posters are referencing Colonial
America, and blazing infrastructure trails into the wilderness of
the Artctic, Amazon, Sahara, North Sea, etc they are making an
analogy to the situation that will face space development.

There needs to be a reason to go to space. If it is economic, then
the rewards but be thought to be so great that enormous sums of
capital will be committed to put in place an infrastructure that is
sufficient to achieve economic success for the project. Then other
projects may follow, and if satisfactory arrangements regarding use
of existing infrastructure are made, additional infrastructure will
be put in place to support the goals of the next project, and so on.

If the goals of the move to space are political or military, then
previous poster's comments are still very relevant.

I think you're going to have a tough job defending the position that
the way industry develops in terrestrial markets, markets which are
well serviced by the infrastructures of existing societies, is going
to be a necessary pre-condition to developing space.

Space is called the next frontier for a reason. There are no exiting
societies to lay the groundwork for commerce.

Any business group that sees a way of making money in space will
have to tough it out and front the cost of establishing itself, just
like the examples used by the other posters.

Who do you propose build the infrastructure for all of the
businesses to use?

>
> That was then. That thinking is gone for the most part. They
didn't have a
> choice. The financiers of today do and choose to finance companies
that
> either (a) use existing infrastructure or (b) virtually guarantee
high
> profitability (thus warranting the added expense of including
> infrastructure in their start-up). Space businesses can neither
guarantee
> high profitability nor piggy-back on existing infrastructure. But
of the
> two, which is most likely? I believe infrastructure can be
provided
> separately and profitably and make doing in space more affordable
to others.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too! You write
that "Space businesses can neither guarantee high
profitability . . " but then go on to write that the infrastructure
will "provided separately and profitably . . " My question to you
is how will the infrastructure operate profitably if the business
that it is there to support aren't operating profitably. The
businesses will go bankrupt and then who will pay for the
infrastructure?

>
> >The real problem holding up development of ET resources isn't
> >infrastructure, it's launch costs.
>
> Yeah, I've heard this argument many times. But I have also been
privy to
> other, equally compelling arguments. Like it's the lack of a
market that
> keeps launch costs high.
>
> >If it was cheaper to launch
> >people into LEO, there would be a larger LEO tourist market, so
> >it would make sense to build orbital hotels, which could also
> >serve as construction depots for asteroid mining missions etc.
> >Every problem in ET resource exploitation comes down to launch
> >costs sooner or later. The good news is that there is no
fundamental
> >reason that launch costs have to be high. The bad news is that
> >the people with the money haven't yet realized this, and there
> >are a large number of people who should know better pushing the
> >notion that some magic bullet is required. The technology exists
> >today to get launch costs well under $1000/lb to LEO, and with
> >high flight rates it should be possible to get to ~$200/lb, at
> >which point some fairly speculative asteroid missions begin to
> >look pretty attractive.
> >
> >......Andrew
>
> I agree that reducing launch costs would go a long way to
resolving the

> Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there have only been three, right?
> One Russion, two American (technically, one American and one
> International). Since all have been done by

No, there have been many more than that.

>From the USSR/Russia: Seven in the Salyut series (two of which failed),
plus Mir, makes 8
Ok. But still, all government controlled and ran. The lack of profitability was due more to their management and purpose than to the potential of space stations to make money, wouldn't you agree?

> There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies are
> started where infrastructure already exists. While I am confident that
> space businesses can be and will be

So the oil industry is a trivial exception ?
Never said anything like that, Charles.

C'mon, it is a pretty darn big portion of the global economy.
Of course it is, but that is almost completely irrelevant. The fact is that they have a guaranteed market. They are virtually guaranteed a high enough profit margin to warrant the additional up-front costs of adding infrastructure needs. Space industry does not have that. And unless we can:

1. Guarantee high profitability (to warrant the added expense of bringing all necessary infrastructure);
2. Reduce launch costs so that the added expense of that infrastructure is less conspicuous; or
3. Separate the two (the business and the infrastructure) so that the infrastructure is in place in space and therefore not a part of the start-up costs of the business,

. . . then we will never get anywhere. What other factors could reduce the cost of doing business in space? It is entirely possible (darn right probable) that I missed a factor or two. Nonetheless, the point remains. It costs too much at this time to do business in space and we can either sit around and wait for that cost to drop or we can move forward with some way of reducing it now. I believe #3 is both practical and possible and can make doing business in space affordable and profitable. I have a long way to go to proving that, but surely you would agree that if the infrastructure existed in space to provide the business with its power and communication and other needs, the cost of starting that business would be significantly reduced and possibly make funding such a business more manageable.

>> When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
>> infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for the
>> colonies to be more or less profitable.
>
> Yes, but they came to America for wholly different reasons than we are
> going to space. I don't think this analogy holds up under careful
> scrutiny. I really don't see the similarities.
>

The similarities are obvious.
No they aren't, Charles. Perhaps if we were pilgrims that would have some relevance. Perhaps if we were escaping religious persecution, that would be relevant. We're not, it's not.

>> Which companies are interested in doing this research ? It has not
>>
>> happened yet, and I not expect much in the forseeable future.
>
> It hasn't happened because it costs too much to warrant what is
> essentially speculative research. We know it can be profitable, we
> just don't know how or in what way, necessarily. As far as who is
> interested in doing such research - how about pharmaceutical
> companies? Materials manufacturers? I believe, though I can't
> substantiate it at this time, there are numerous companies that would
> love to have an opportunity to do affordable product research and
> development in the special and unique environment of space.
>

If you give the space away for free, probably there is a non-zero
market. But not enough to make a profit in the forseeable future.
You have no way to substantiate that at all. Are you saying nobody is interested in doing research in space? I can't substantiate my contention that it could be profitable, either. But until it can be reasonably demonstrated that it is NOT profitable, I will continue researching the possibility.

> I think SPS should be a part of all long-range plans for space. It's a
> great idea and entirely doable. Just not practical in the near term.
>

Practical ? In what sense ? It is certain technologically feasible.

It is simply a matter of money. As long as society remains blind to the
true costs of fossil fuels then of course it will not happen.
And as long as society remains blind, SPS remains impractical in the near term. That is all I meant. We don't have to get caught up arguing every minor point just for the sake of disagreeing, Charles.

I have been enjoying our discussion so far, but I am sensing a sharpening edge to your replies. I apologize if I have said anything that was offensive in some way. We merely disagree on some things. It's no big deal. Is it?

Jack

I have somehow managed to rile everyone in a non-constructive way. I apologize. This discussion has degenerated into one where even if I were to declare the sky blue, most of you would argue. That is my fault and I apologize.

Jack

>>
> Come on, now. Back then infrastructure consisted of a railroad track
> if you were lucky. They farmed and built their infrastructure as they
> went because there was NO other option nor was there all that much to
> the infrastructure they "developed". These days 90% or more of all
> start-ups in the 1st world piggy-back on existing infrastructure. And
> this has been the case now for more than a generation.

What have start-ups got to do with it ? They are less than 10% of the
economy.

Most infrastructure development today still follows in the wake of
business developments, as has already been explained.

>> Ditto oil exploration in Alaska, or
>> on the continental shelf. Ditto again for gold miners in the Yukon
>> or California. The infrastructure follows after the pioneers
>> have already started to make money.
>
> That was then. That thinking is gone for the most part. They didn't
> have a choice. The

Nonsense, prospectors and developers are still developing vast tracts of
the world, there is plenty of undeveloped territory.

My brother is helping build a huge power station in the middle of a
Borneo jungle right now, with no infrastructure to speak of, unless you
count a dirt road and small boat terminal.

Somebody figured it would make a proft.

>
>> > Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there have only been three,
>> right?
>> > One Russion, two American (technically, one American and one
>> > International). Since all have been done by
>>
>> No, there have been many more than that.
>>
>> >From the USSR/Russia: Seven in the Salyut series (two of which
>> failed),
>> plus Mir, makes 8
>
> Ok. But still, all government controlled and ran. The lack of
> profitability was due more to their management and purpose than to the
> potential of space stations to make money, wouldn't you agree?
>

No. Lack of profitability was due to lack of market.

The reasons for those space station was not business. It was pure
research and military, plus a good dash of national prestige. Standard
fare for government programs. Nobody ever expected them to make a
profit in a financial sense.

>
>> > There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies are
>> > started where infrastructure already exists. While I am confident
>> that
>> > space businesses can be and will be
>>
>> So the oil industry is a trivial exception ?
>
> Never said anything like that, Charles.
>

I re-quote you

"There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies are
> started where infrastructure already exists."

When I read more closely there is a lot of spin in what you are saying.

Whilst it may be true about "most companies", the fact is that "most
companies" are very small, and only represent a tiny fraction of the
overall economy.

Most of the economy comprises large companies. And most infrastructure
has been funded by the development of large companies.

>
>> C'mon, it is a pretty darn big portion of the global economy.
>
> Of course it is, but that is almost completely irrelevant. The fact is
> that they have a

No, it is the heart of the issue.

> guaranteed market. They are virtually guaranteed a high enough profit
> margin to warrant the additional up-front costs of adding
> infrastructure needs. Space industry does not have that. And unless we
> can:
>

EXACTLY ! At last you have got it. We seem to be violently agreeing.

>
>> >> When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
>> >> infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for the
>>
>> >> colonies to be more or less profitable.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, but they came to America for wholly different reasons than we
>> are
>> > going to space. I don't think this analogy holds up under careful
>> > scrutiny. I really don't see the similarities.
>> >
>>
>> The similarities are obvious.
>
> No they aren't, Charles. Perhaps if we were pilgrims that would have
> some relevance. Perhaps if we were escaping religious persecution,
> that would be relevant. We're not, it's not.
>

For the most part religion was the excuse, not the reason, the Pilgrim
Fathers were actually the exception in that they were escaping
persecution.

Most American colonies were sponsored by government and commercial
interests.

For example, the sprawling complex of Catholic missions in the west were
state subsidized (by Spain); they were chess moves to block Russia from
expanding south from Alaska. The Church was a convenient smoke screen
for the geopolitcal interests jockeying for position. If Spain had
sent in troops, Russia might have launched a military counter
attack. But Russia could not in good faith attack a bunch of
priests, that would have provoked an international outcry. The Spanish
move worked like a charm.

>
> > > Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there have only been
three, right?
> > > One Russion, two American (technically, one American and one
> > > International). Since all have been done by
> >
> >No, there have been many more than that.
> >
> > >From the USSR/Russia: Seven in the Salyut series (two of which
failed),
> >plus Mir, makes 8
>
> Ok. But still, all government controlled and ran. The lack of
profitability
> was due more to their management and purpose than to the potential
of space
> stations to make money, wouldn't you agree?

But all of those stations were designed without profitability as a
criterion. Therefore, there was no lack of profitability.
>
> > > There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies
are
> > > started where infrastructure already exists. While I am
confident that
> > > space businesses can be and will be
> >
> >So the oil industry is a trivial exception ?
>
> Never said anything like that, Charles.
>
> >C'mon, it is a pretty darn big portion of the global economy.
>
> Of course it is, but that is almost completely irrelevant. The
fact is that
> they have a guaranteed market. They are virtually guaranteed a
high enough
> profit margin to warrant the additional up-front costs of adding
> infrastructure needs. Space industry does not have that. And
unless we can:
>
> 1. Guarantee high profitability (to warrant the added expense of
bringing
> all necessary infrastructure);
> 2. Reduce launch costs so that the added expense of that
infrastructure is
> less conspicuous; or
> 3. Separate the two (the business and the infrastructure) so that
the
> infrastructure is in place in space and therefore not a part of
the
> start-up costs of the business,
>
> . . . then we will never get anywhere. What other factors could
reduce the
> cost of doing business in space? It is entirely possible (darn
right
> probable) that I missed a factor or two. Nonetheless, the point
remains. It
> costs too much at this time to do business in space and we can
either sit
> around and wait for that cost to drop or we can move forward with
some way
> of reducing it now. I believe #3 is both practical and possible
and can
> make doing business in space affordable and profitable. I have a
long way
> to go to proving that, but surely you would agree that if the
> infrastructure existed in space to provide the business with its
power and
> communication and other needs, the cost of starting that business
would be
> significantly reduced and possibly make funding such a business
more
> manageable.

Nothing is free in life. If I read you correctly, you're trying to
have businesses avoid the cost of infrastructure, but even on earth
those costs must be paid for, and in the case's of companies having
to put in place their own infrastructure, those costs were paid for
in their entirety by the company. As for the oil companies being
guaranteed a profit, that's not really the case. They are taking a
risk with theie shareholder's capital and will only have success if
they remain on budget, get the whole North sea drilling
infrastructure in place without cost overruns and pump enough oil to
pay for the cost of setting everything up. Otherwise, they wouldn't
get involved in the project.

Now, here are a few examples of projects which are feasible.

1.) With enough of these Tito/Shuttleworth/Bass flights we may see a
growing interest in torism. Already, the vomit comet flights, which
though expensive for most of us, are cheap compared to space flight,
and they are showing a positive upside in terms of market growth.
Some Japanese companies are planning hotels in space. When some
comany figures the market is ripe, they'll invest 20 billion dollars
into constructing an orbiting hotel and contract with a launch
provider for x number of launches per year to get their guests to
the facility.

2.) If the greenhouse effect continues to cause havoc with global
weather patterns, causing huge disaster insurance payouts, lost
productivity, loss of life and we factor in the destabilizing effect
of middle eastern politics and the growing stranglehold on world
finances that they will enjoy with our ever increasing dependence on
their oil . . . then the Kyoto accords, the technological
sophistication of electric cars (hydrogen fuel cell powered), the
political unpopularity of nuclear power, and the need to increase
electrical power generation to fuel the electric cars but finding no
existing way of increasing power generation while reducing noxious
emissions will drive the political decision makers and the business
decision makers to look at Solar Power Satellites. This cannot be a
half measure. It will be like opening up the North Sea to drilling,
but many times over. The NEED, and the HUGE PROFIT, of the SPS, will
put into play hundred of billions to a trillion dollars (I saw a
report that the ISS is up to 92 billion dollars) to get those SPS
built because the profit from them will be immense, and the
political ramifications will also be huge, ranging from a
realignment of global power structures away from the mid east, to
environmentalist lobbies, to new industrial development spurred on
by the now cheaper electrical power.

Once that power is available, I'd expect to see numerous
desalinization plants dotting the California coast to provide power
to the people who decide they want to live in a desert (go figure!),
a proliferation of fuel cell technology, or some other means of
using electrical power to replace gasoline powered vehicles.

You see, the electrical market will be many times larger than the
North Sea oil market, thus the investment in getting SPS going may
be entered into with a good chance for profit.
>
> > >> When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
> > >> infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for
the
> > >> colonies to be more or less profitable.
> > >
> > > Yes, but they came to America for wholly different reasons
than we are
> > > going to space. I don't think this analogy holds up under
careful
> > > scrutiny. I really don't see the similarities.
> > >
> >The similarities are obvious.
>
> No they aren't, Charles. Perhaps if we were pilgrims that would
have some
> relevance. Perhaps if we were escaping religious persecution, that
would be
> relevant. We're not, it's not.

The analogy that's being made is that of FRONTIER, not why people
settled the frontier. Of course the reasons for going to space today
will be different than the reasons the pilgrims settled the New
World. But both frontiers present OPPORTUNITY. That's the key.
>
> > >> Which companies are interested in doing this research ? It
has not
> > >>
> > >> happened yet, and I not expect much in the forseeable future.
> > >
> > > It hasn't happened because it costs too much to warrant what is
> > > essentially speculative research. We know it can be
profitable, we
> > > just don't know how or in what way, necessarily. As far as who
is
> > > interested in doing such research - how about pharmaceutical
> > > companies? Materials manufacturers? I believe, though I can't
> > > substantiate it at this time, there are numerous companies
that would
> > > love to have an opportunity to do affordable product research
and
> > > development in the special and unique environment of space.
> > >
> >If you give the space away for free, probably there is a non-zero
> >market. But not enough to make a profit in the forseeable
future.
>
> You have no way to substantiate that at all. Are you saying nobody
is
> interested in doing research in space? I can't substantiate my
contention
> that it could be profitable, either. But until it can be
reasonably
> demonstrated that it is NOT profitable, I will continue
researching the
> possibility.
>
> > > I think SPS should be a part of all long-range plans for
space. It's a
> > > great idea and entirely doable. Just not practical in the near
term.
> > >
> >Practical ? In what sense ? It is certain technologically
feasible.
> >
> >It is simply a matter of money. As long as society remains blind
to the
> >true costs of fossil fuels then of course it will not happen.
>
> And as long as society remains blind, SPS remains impractical in
the near
> term. That is all I meant. We don't have to get caught up arguing
every
> minor point just for the sake of disagreeing, Charles.
>
> I have been enjoying our discussion so far, but I am sensing a
sharpening
> edge to your replies. I apologize if I have said anything that was
> offensive in some way. We merely disagree on some things. It's no
big deal.