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.
I never said it was a "necessary pre-condition". I said having such an infrastructure in place would reduce the cost of individual missions because it would eliminate their expense of having to integrate infrastructure subsystems. In eliminating this cost, space industry could be made more fundable because the overall cost of the mission would be less.

This whole conversation started because I said one of the reasons space missions were costly was because they had to bring all of their infrastructure with them. I made the comparison to current businesses and said we would have fewer Earth-based businesses today if every one of them had to furnish their own infrastructure. That is what started this recent debate over infrastructure.

Who do you propose build the infrastructure for all of the
businesses to use?
I propose the MUOL, as described in earlier posts. Let me know if you need additional information.

>
> 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?
Separating the two (the business and the infrastructure) reduces the overall cost. By making the business more affordable, you increase fundability and therefore at least improve the potential for profit. At the very least, you should be able to show a quicker ROI. There can be profitability without it being guaranteed up front. I never said the businesses couldn't make money. I said it was difficult to get a space business capitalized because it costs sooooo much up front. reducing this up front cost increases the likelihood of being capitalized.

Jack

Speaking just for myself, not at all. A good debate is fun. The back
and forth should be a means of honing in on specific issues and
seeking clarifications and defending one's position in the face of
good natured criticism.

I'm not riled in the least. You asked a question of members of this
group, and you're getting responses. If there are points you
disagree with, of course, go ahead and bring forth the rebuttal, but
make your case, refute the positions put forward. Personally, I'll
concede if you make a strong case, but a battle of opinions or
slogans doesn't work for me.

So, you haven't riled me in any way. Keep it coming. :)

> 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

>
> >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.
>
> I never said it was a "necessary pre-condition". I said having
such an
> infrastructure in place would reduce the cost of individual
missions
> because it would eliminate their expense of having to integrate
> infrastructure subsystems. In eliminating this cost, space
industry could
> be made more fundable because the overall cost of the mission
would be less.
>

Ok, I think I see the point you're trying to make. The users of the
infrastructure would still have to pay for the use of the common
infrastructure in orbit, but they wouldn't have to dedicate a whole
set of infrastructure to just their mission. OK, I can buy that
concept, but "infrastructure" is such a broad term. I'll get more
into this concern in the next paragraph.

> This whole conversation started because I said one of the reasons
space
> missions were costly was because they had to bring all of their
> infrastructure with them. I made the comparison to current
businesses and
> said we would have fewer Earth-based businesses today if every one
of them
> had to furnish their own infrastructure. That is what started this
recent
> debate over infrastructure.
>
> >Who do you propose build the infrastructure for all of the
> >businesses to use?
>
> I propose the MUOL, as described in earlier posts. Let me know if
you need
> additional information.

I went back and read your posts about MUOL. If that is what you
propose for infrastructure, then I think we're talking in very
narrow terms of what infrastructure is, and which businesses would
find it useful. I'll concede that MUOL, or one of its competitors,
would be useful infrastructure, but only in the very limited sense
of how a MUOL is to be used. I don't see how it would be useful for
industrializing the moon/asteroid, setting up a space transportation
system, building a habitat. Besides, where will all of the material
for the MUOL come from. Earth launched?

Also, a few questions about MUOL. I presume that there would only be
enough room for a fixed number of modules. What happens when modules
are to be replaced. Where does the old one go? If you consider MUOL
to be infrastructure, then how does it help a space operation that
doesn't fit in module form but may be a refinery, or may be a
process that needs more power than all of the modules in the MUOL
combined? The sense I get from what you wrote about the MUOL is that
it will take standardized modules that are in a sense plug-ins. It
would be of little use to processes that can't be fit into module
form.

>
> > > 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?
>
> Separating the two (the business and the infrastructure) reduces
the
> overall cost. By making the business more affordable, you increase
> fundability and therefore at least improve the potential for
profit. At the
> very least, you should be able to show a quicker ROI. There can be
> profitability without it being guaranteed up front. I never said
the
> businesses couldn't make money. I said it was difficult to get a
space
> business capitalized because it costs sooooo much up front.
reducing this
> up front cost increases the likelihood of being capitalized.

Yes, but the MUOL must still be capitalized. And they'll charge the
business for the right to plug their modules in for a fixed period
of time. And they'll still have to incur the fixed costs whether
they get the volume of modules plugging in or not. If not, then they
may try to amortize that fixed cost to the existing module holders.
If that MUOL is operating at half capacity, then the module holders
MAY end up paying their rental at a rate greater than bringing their
own modest infrastructure necessary to operate their module only.

I don't see a way of escaping infrastructure costs.

> I never said it was a "necessary pre-condition". I said having
such an
> infrastructure in place would reduce the cost of individual
missions
> because it would eliminate their expense of having to integrate
> infrastructure subsystems. In eliminating this cost, space
industry could
> be made more fundable because the overall cost of the mission
would be less.
>

Ok, I think I see the point you're trying to make. The users of the
infrastructure would still have to pay for the use of the common
infrastructure in orbit, but they wouldn't have to dedicate a whole
set of infrastructure to just their mission.
Yes, that is correct.

I went back and read your posts about MUOL. If that is what you
propose for infrastructure, then I think we're talking in very
narrow terms of what infrastructure is, and which businesses would
find it useful.
In the near-term, yes. Start small so as to reduce up-front costs, but not so small as to render useless. But remember, the M in MUOL stands for modular - the MUOL can evolve . . . and grow!

I'll concede that MUOL, or one of its competitors,
would be useful infrastructure, but only in the very limited sense
of how a MUOL is to be used. I don't see how it would be useful for
industrializing the moon/asteroid, setting up a space transportation
system, building a habitat. Besides, where will all of the material
for the MUOL come from. Earth launched?
Because the MUOL is extensible - it can be expanded - it can evolve into much more than just an unmanned platform for research. I believe, if designed right research modules can be replaced with production modules that utilize the same infrastructure (the goal of product research is production, essentially). There is no reason, too, that habitation and life-support modules can't be developed to "plug" into the MUOL backplane. This would turn the MUOL into a manned space station. Additional modules can expand functionality and capacity; a backplane module, for example, can increase the MUOL's power output and comm bandwidth. The MUOL can grow and evolve into something much larger and more useful. By starting small and focusing on leasing space on the backplane for research, we make the project fundable up front; by designing the MUOL as a "modular" space systems platform, you provide an infinite variety of applications and the opportunity to grow as space industry grows.

As far as what material the MUOL is made of or where it will come from, there are options available, but, yes, it will be Earth launched. But the initial seed structure (seed module) should be small enough that it can be deployed in one launch using existing, cheap(er) ELVs.

Clearly, there are many details that need to be worked out and a lot of questions still need to be answered. But I think you get an idea of what I am talking about.

Also, a few questions about MUOL. I presume that there would only be
enough room for a fixed number of modules.
Possibly. The MUOL is extensible and therefore can support a growing population of modules.

What happens when modules
are to be replaced. Where does the old one go?
Depends. Does the company who owns the module (remember, they're just leasing the backplane connection from us for their infrastructure) need it? If not, it can probably just be deorbited and burn up in the atmosphere. Returning a module from LEO, while tricky, is certainly not prohibitive.

If you consider MUOL
to be infrastructure, then how does it help a space operation that
doesn't fit in module form but may be a refinery, or may be a
process that needs more power than all of the modules in the MUOL
combined?
Well, there may be situations where demand for the infrastructure exceeds the MUOL's ability to provide it. Situations like this have to be discussed further, I don't have a ready answer. I will say that the backplane can be extended, thus increasing power output and comm bandwidth, but how far it can be extended is hard for me to say at this early stage. Is it conceivably infinite? Probably not. But it could be that the "max" size/capacity is so great that reaching that point will be a non-issue. We will presumably outgrow the LEO MUOL at some point (in fact, that is the whole goal), hopefully prior to reaching max capacity. Hard to say, though. I have a lot of work to do on the concept, there's no doubt about that.

The sense I get from what you wrote about the MUOL is that
it will take standardized modules that are in a sense plug-ins.
That is correct, but there will be some flexibility.

It
would be of little use to processes that can't be fit into module
form.
Give me an example of a process that doesn't fit easily into module form. Most anything, I would think, could be accommodated. While the interface itself (the "plug", if you will) will be pretty standard, the method of "plugging in" could vary. Perhaps you just have a long "cord" running from the backplane connection to the "module" or whatever spacecraft is using the backplane. Wouldn't that solve the problem of a process not easily adapted to module form?

> Separating the two (the business and the infrastructure) reduces
the
> overall cost. By making the business more affordable, you increase
> fundability and therefore at least improve the potential for
profit. At the
> very least, you should be able to show a quicker ROI. There can be
> profitability without it being guaranteed up front. I never said
the
> businesses couldn't make money. I said it was difficult to get a
space
> business capitalized because it costs sooooo much up front.
reducing this
> up front cost increases the likelihood of being capitalized.

Yes, but the MUOL must still be capitalized. And they'll charge the
business for the right to plug their modules in for a fixed period
of time. And they'll still have to incur the fixed costs whether
they get the volume of modules plugging in or not. If not, then they
may try to amortize that fixed cost to the existing module holders.
If that MUOL is operating at half capacity, then the module holders
MAY end up paying their rental at a rate greater than bringing their
own modest infrastructure necessary to operate their module only.
The MUOL will never be operating at half capacity (unless we lose modules). It expands with the demand. We don't start with a fixed capacity backplane. Instead, we start with the seed structure and as demand begins to near the current max capacity, we extend the backplane to accomodate additional modules.

I don't see a way of escaping infrastructure costs.
There is no way to escape those costs, but hopefully by distributing the infrastructure costs to multiple users, we reduce the overall cost burden of that infrastructure on the individual user, thus making the mission more "affordable". That's the goal, anyway. Remember MUOL = Modules + Backplane; it consists of multiple companies, an Industrial Cooperative perhaps. The debt burden of the MUOL is distributed among all the users.

Clearly, I have a long, long way to go with this concept, but it makes real practical sense to me. I didn't come up with the idea. The premise has been around for a long time and Eric Hunting put this all together. But I think the idea has a lot of merit and I want to take it as far as I can. If at some point it becomes clear that it is impossible or impractical, then I drop it. Otherwise, I just keep going until I can't go any further or the MUOL is developed and deployed.

Jack

> How do you propose to make money?

This is the ONLY question currently lacking an appropriate answer. All
of the technical issues have answers. We may not like some of the
answers, but they are out there.

Answering this question defines how we select "acceptable" answers to
ALL of the technical questions.

>
> 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.

Bill Gates is the perfect example of what we are waiting for. He and
his friends saw in the development of the personal computer an
opportunity to make LOTS of money by selling the operating system. They
did not create the computer.

How can we take what is available today in space technology and use it
to make money?

Hint: I don't believe NASA or any other government agency can answer
this question.

I try to think about the following:

1) How SMALL a tool can we send into space and control from the ground?
What can we make with that tool? Can we make the tools that make the
tools that eventually create/assemble products we can sell? Must we
wait for nanotechnology? Must we wait for advanced robotics? What can
we do with TODAY's technology?

2) Can we fit our "tool" into any currently available commercial launch
system such as Orbital Science's "Pegasus" or Boeing's Sea Launch?
Using the "tool" requires a communications infrastructure. Can we
rent/lease that or must we launch it?

3) Where do we put our "tool" to maximize production? Does it convert
lunar materials into something valuable? Does it convert asteroidal
material into something valuable? Does it just sit in LEO and convert
sunlight into something useful? I don't much like this last one. I
want to put a tool into a resource-rich environment like the moon or a
NEO and build more tools, expand capability, increase production and
reduce cost per unit of product. That's a "want" though, and may not be
the right answer for a first generation "tool."

4) How do we deliver our products to market? If it is information, just
beam it to receivers on Earth or in LEO or GEO. If it is a physical
product some sort of transportation will be required. Is there any way
to just "drop" it and let some sort of recovery crew "catch" it
dirtside? Will some sort of aerodynamic return vehicle be needed?

As you can tell, I am impatient with the idea of sending research
instruments into space. Our ancestors came to the Americas with
blacksmith tools, glassworking tools and all sorts of "industry starter"
equipment. We have done a little of that on ISS and MIR but I am not
aware of any business that has yet setup shop in orbit or on the moon.
There might be some firms that have made money from the results of
experiments. Microspheres and microgravity alloys come to mind.

Sure hope we see some more of that soon. That would begin to answer the
fundamental question.

What can we do in space to make money on Earth?

Colin Keizer

> >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.

If you're talking about frontiers, the right comparison is other
frontiers, not highly developed areas. If explorers and risk takers
in times past had insisted on infrastructure before trying to make
a go of it in undeveloped areas, we'd all still be living in Africa :)

> >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.

I suggest that is part of the problem. Too many people thinking that
you need government handholding to get anything done. If governments
start working to develop the infrastructure it's going to be bogged
down in pork and bureaucratic empire building.

> 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.

Yet. The road ahead is long and fraught with difficulties, but we can
make a go of it if we follow intelligent approaches, and make many starts.
Most space startups will fail, as has most ventures attempting to make
a profit on a new frontier. Since VCs are so gunshy about taking real
risks, it seems logical to seek other sources of funding. The best bet
appears to me to start small and work slowly up, with each step funding
the next. The initial steps that are most promising right now are
suborbital tourism and suborbital imaging.

> 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.

The two are fundamentally connected at the most basic level. Any
significant reduction in launch costs will create new markets, and any
significant increase in demand (i.e. from new markets) will reduce
launch costs. IMO the most promising approach is to incrementally
follow a path of small improvements in each area. Any other approach
requires very large risks, and in the end of the day risk is the
critical factor in developing new markets, not money. If the risks
can be managed, new markets can be developed. Note that managing
risks doesn't mean eliminating them, or even keeping them small -
it means knowing what they are and making plans accordingly. Oil
exploration is very high risk, but the risks are understood, so
people are willing to invest money based on a risk/reward analysis.
Currently the environment for space development is such that it's
not possible to make a credible risk assessment, so there is no
way to even begin a risk/reward analysis. If government intervention
were to take place anywhere, the most promising would be in the
area of risk management, such as providing insurance for high risk
ventures.

......Andrew

Andrew Case
acase@... |

> If government intervention
> were to take place anywhere, the most promising would be in the
> area of risk management, such as providing insurance for high risk
> ventures.

Actually, the government already does some of that, at the
billion-dollar
liability level (partly by treaty). Also, PERMANENT has a nice list of
things
the government could do to promote private space development:

http://www.permanent.com/ep-ghelp.htm

Arthur

> It would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy
> market from the OPEC nations.
With the increasing distaste of the Americans and to a lesser extent the Europeans to have to depend on the powder keg of the Middle East for oil? I think it would require Herculean strength to retain that energy market. Though if you say "wrench the energy market from the oil industry", then you hit nearer the mark, perhaps. :-)

Jon L. Beck.

> It would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy
> market from the OPEC nations.
With the increasing distaste of the Americans and to a lesser extent the Europeans to have to depend on the powder keg of the Middle East for oil? I think it would require Herculean strength to retain that energy market. As you say, politically, it's easy to sell. What will make it hard to wrench the energy market away from the OPEC nations is the current cheap price of oil. Money talks much louder than any political considerations. In truth, it was cheap OPEC oil which killed SPS and keeps it dormant right now. But I still have this fantasy where America pursues SPS, and then announces a new policy: "From now on, we only buy oil from democracies." Living in Texas, I then chuckle at the thought of Texas waving their hand and saying, "Hey, democracy, right here!" So such a policy would be good for the local economy. But for as long as Middle East oil is several times cheaper than potential SPS energy, my fantasy is going to remain such.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> But for as long as Middle East oil is several times cheaper than
> potential SPS energy, my fantasy is going to remain such.
>

Mike, my thesis has been that oil is priced unrealistically low.

Factor in the hidden costs, e.g. the US military and peacekeeping
operations throughout the middle east, the cost of homeland security,
and the balance of trade deficit.

Factor in a balance of trade surplus if we eliminate oil imports, cost
savings in the military.

Then factor in global warming, the elimination of greenhouse gases.

If the USA stops using oil, then the USA can sign the Kyoto protocol and
all of a sudden the US is the global hero, instead of being the selfish
bad guy. Note how the rest of the world is currently attacking the USA
in Johannesburg because of their refusal to sign Kyoto.

Then the seemingly cheap price of oil today, does not look so cheap.

Mike, my thesis has been that oil is priced unrealistically low.

Factor in the hidden costs, e.g. the US military and peacekeeping
operations throughout the middle east, the cost of homeland security,
and the balance of trade deficit. I wouldn't disagree a bit. It's a shame we can't get policy makers to compare SPS with "business as usual" while properly factoring in such hidden costs.

Regards,

Mike Combs

>
> Mike, my thesis has been that oil is priced unrealistically low.
>
> Factor in the hidden costs, e.g. the US military and peacekeeping
> operations throughout the middle east, the cost of homeland
security,
> and the balance of trade deficit.
>
> I wouldn't disagree a bit. It's a shame we can't get policy
makers to
> compare SPS with "business as usual" while properly factoring in
such hidden
> costs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

I too agree. Just came across this article about the Bush
Administration opening a new foreign policy initiative.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/801653.asp?0bl=-0

A brief quote:

But analysts generally agree that the driving force behind the
courtesy call in Gabon and Angola is to secure oil sources in the
run-up to a possible conflict with Iraq.
The United States is the main customer for crude oil from
Gabon and Angola, located on the hydrocarbon-rich Gulf of Guinea
an area that as a whole produced more than 4 million barrels a day
in 2000, which is more than Iran, Venezuela or Mexico. In return,
U.S. companies sell large quantities of oil exploration and drilling
equipment in the region. In some of these countries, most notably
Nigeria, U.S. companies are deeply involved in production and
refining.

>But I still have this fantasy where America pursues SPS, and then
>announces a new policy: "From now on, we only buy oil from
>democracies." Living in Texas, I then chuckle at the thought of Texas
>waving their hand and saying, "Hey, democracy, right here!" So such a
>policy would be good for the local economy.

Where do you live in Texas, Mike, if you don't mind me asking? I live in
Bastrop and work in Austin.

Jack

> Because the MUOL is extensible - it can be expanded - it can
evolve into
> much more than just an unmanned platform for research. I believe,
if
> designed right research modules can be replaced with production
modules
> that utilize the same infrastructure (the goal of product research
is
> production, essentially).

It's very easy to say "if designed right, then this will work" but
it's much more difficult in practice to achieve this perfect state.
With respect to swapping research modules with production modules, I
don't think I would be too happy if my company placed a research
module into this MUOL, and the research module "next door" was
replaced with a production module. Let's just assume it was as easy
as a straight swap. Now I may have massive vibration effecting my
module because of the production process. I have heat and waste
discharge issues, there'll be material delivery and product
discharge to contend with. This approach is too simple in its
premise to be realistic. It's like saying "I've wired my house for
electricity, so now I can use any electrical appliance anywhere."
Good luck using your stove (running on 240V) on your bathroom
outlet. The devil is in the details and you often times can't design
systems to be universally adaptable. That is the danger of simply
ignoring issues with a statement like "if we design it right . . "

There is no reason, too, that habitation and
> life-support modules can't be developed to "plug" into the MUOL
backplane.

Same criticism as above. I'm sure there are lots of reasons. Wishing
won't make it so.

> This would turn the MUOL into a manned space station. Additional
modules
> can expand functionality and capacity; a backplane module, for
example, can
> increase the MUOL's power output and comm bandwidth. The MUOL can
grow and
> evolve into something much larger and more useful. By starting
small and
> focusing on leasing space on the backplane for research, we make
the
> project fundable up front; by designing the MUOL as a "modular"
space
> systems platform, you provide an infinite variety of applications
and the
> opportunity to grow as space industry grows.

Why can't the Hubble telescope grow into something much larger and
more useful. Or for that matter, the other satellites up there. I'm
sure we could marry them into one big useful platform. You see, just
because I wrote this doesn't make it any more likely to happen. I
didn't give you any reason why it is plausible and what engineering
details have been solved to make my proposition become reality. Let
me go further with this analogy. If the hubble telescope
was "designed right", we could block off the tube, fill it with
atmosphere and live in it, but still use it as a telescope. It just
has to be "designed right." Easy for me to say, but I dare to
venture a guess that the unlucky engineer who actually is given the
task of "designing it right" will quit the moment he's given the
task. I don't mean to sound insulting, and I fear that I may be
coming across that way, but I think that this group has a lot of
people committed to furthering the goal of space settlement and we
can all help the goal by employing peer review. It's something I
went through in my doctoral program, and what scientists go through
for the entirety of their careers. I think our collective
understanding would be helped immensely if our proclamations were
defensible. "Designed right" becomes a whitewash.

> As far as what material the MUOL is made of or where it will come
from,
> there are options available, but, yes, it will be Earth launched.
But the
> initial seed structure (seed module) should be small enough that
it can be
> deployed in one launch using existing, cheap(er) ELVs.

So, I can buy into the seed module being earth launched, and even
modules that follow, but at some point doesn't it behoove the
promotors of this scheme to try to lessen the expense of launch by
developing orbital manufacturing capabilities. That's the major
trade-off for the space development advocates.

>
> Clearly, there are many details that need to be worked out and a
lot of
> questions still need to be answered. But I think you get an idea
of what I
> am talking about.

Yes, I do.

> The MUOL will never be operating at half capacity (unless we lose
modules).
> It expands with the demand. We don't start with a fixed capacity
backplane.
> Instead, we start with the seed structure and as demand begins to
near the
> current max capacity, we extend the backplane to accomodate
additional modules.

Not so fast there partner. Design paramters influence most
everything you come across in life. It's not always so easy to
extend infrastructure. As an example, look at your home's electrical
system. The fusebox can only handle so much load. If you want to run
some type of industrial process in your basement you might max out
your fusebox. So, perhaps it becomes a simple matter of just
upgrading. But if that isn't enough, then you need to bring more
power in from the powerline. And if that isn't enough, then you need
to upgrade the power coming down the line. You might be talking
about step down transformers, etc. Again, my point is along the
lines, that it is very simple to say "we'll just expand" and it's
very hard to actually achieve it.

If your MUOL, has an electrical generating capacity of 20 MW, and
all of the internal electrical transmission systems are designed to
distribute that power at 240 V, then you're going to have a hard
time accomodating users who need 10,000 V power to refine lunar
ores. Or, your cooling and radiating system can only disipate X
amount of waste heat, and now one of the modules wants to run a
crystal growth experiment in zero-g, and the flux in which the
crystals will be growing will be at a temeprature of 2,000 C.
Where's that heat going to go? It may completely disrupt the whole
MUOL system.

Same concerns with bandwidth, life-support, radiation shielding,
etc. The initial design parameters may limit the MUOL to an optimum
configuration, and by adding more capacity you'll be experiencing
diminishing returns, and no "designing right" magic bullet can
reverse the trends.

As for not operating the MUOL at half-capacity. Why not? For the
sake of argument, let's say it can host 20 modules and has a design
life of 20 years with each module buying a 1 year contract. The
promoters of the MUOL will need to host 400 modules over the life of
the MUOL to achieve their goals. It's extremely unlikely that
they've comitted all 400 modules for the next 20 years. More likely
in my opinion is that they may have pre-booked for the first few
years. What happens if things don't turn out as rosey as they
expect. They still have to amortize the cost of the project, but now
they find that they can only realize 200 modules over the design
life of the MUOL. What do they do? Perhaps they raise prices to
their clients who have already commited their projects to the design
criteria of the module form. Perhaps the new cost is now within
striking range of the module being able to supply it's own power,
communications, and radiation shielding requirements. That certainly
won't bode well for future sales of module slots. Rather than
it "never" being able to happen, I think it may indeed be a
possibility, and there will be consequences that flow from that turn
of events.

> >I don't see a way of escaping infrastructure costs.
>
> There is no way to escape those costs, but hopefully by
distributing the
> infrastructure costs to multiple users, we reduce the overall cost
burden
> of that infrastructure on the individual user, thus making the
mission more
> "affordable". That's the goal, anyway. Remember MUOL = Modules +
Backplane;
> it consists of multiple companies, an Industrial Cooperative
perhaps. The
> debt burden of the MUOL is distributed among all the users.
>
> Clearly, I have a long, long way to go with this concept, but it
makes real
> practical sense to me. I didn't come up with the idea. The premise
has been
> around for a long time and Eric Hunting put this all together. But
I think
> the idea has a lot of merit and I want to take it as far as I can.
If at
> some point it becomes clear that it is impossible or impractical,
then I
> drop it. Otherwise, I just keep going until I can't go any further
or the
> MUOL is developed and deployed.
>
> Jack

From what I've been able to gather from your postings on the MUOL
concept, I don't think it's a magic bullet. Rather, I think it
serves a limited purpose, and may be effective in serving its
clients who can design within its limited scope. Terrific. Every
little bit helps.

But I'm certainly not convinced that the MUOL concept is going to
play a major part in the 4-step process that you've outlined in the
beginning of this thread.

If we need a metal refinery, or a sugar refinery, or a water
recycling plant, or a toothbrush factory up in orbit, I can't see
that being only a short term need. I also can't see the modularity
concept being employed, not can I see how all of these examples
would have common infrastructure requirements.

> > Because the MUOL is extensible - it can be expanded - it can
>evolve into
> > much more than just an unmanned platform for research. I believe,
>if
> > designed right research modules can be replaced with production
>modules
> > that utilize the same infrastructure (the goal of product research
>is
> > production, essentially).
>
>It's very easy to say "if designed right, then this will work" but
>it's much more difficult in practice to achieve this perfect state.

This is simply a case of me trying too hard to choose my words carefully.
Let me put it more emphatically: If it can't be designed so that research
modules can be converted to or replaced with production modules, then the
idea won't work and should be scratched (at least from my perspective). I'm
not at a point where I can state it is absolutely going to be the case. But
nor do I believe anyone can say just as absolutely that it is not possible.

>With respect to swapping research modules with production modules, I
>don't think I would be too happy if my company placed a research
>module into this MUOL, and the research module "next door" was
>replaced with a production module. Let's just assume it was as easy
>as a straight swap. Now I may have massive vibration effecting my
>module because of the production process. I have heat and waste
>discharge issues, there'll be material delivery and product
>discharge to contend with.

Clearly this is an issue and not one I have overlooked in anything but my
very cursory overview of the concept you are commenting on here. Is it
absolutely impossible to design a way for those concerns to be mitigated?

>This approach is too simple in its
>premise to be realistic. It's like saying "I've wired my house for
>electricity, so now I can use any electrical appliance anywhere."
>Good luck using your stove (running on 240V) on your bathroom
>outlet. The devil is in the details and you often times can't design
>systems to be universally adaptable. That is the danger of simply
>ignoring issues with a statement like "if we design it right . . "

"if we design it right" was a poor choice of words. Please don't dismiss
the idea based on my inability to adequately articulate the concept. The
devil is indeed in the details. In fact, when I first did a website to
promote the (very) general concept I have apparently so poorly described
here, that was the very motto prominently displayed in the upper left hand
corner of every page.

Details aren't being left out in the manner you seem to subtly suggest
here. They are being left out because this is all very new and recent and
young. I am not at all convinced that there is anything completely
prohibitive about any of these issues. Challenging, yes. Prohibitive, no.
Does this concept have a long, long, long, long way to go? Of course it does.

>There is no reason, too, that habitation and
> > life-support modules can't be developed to "plug" into the MUOL
>backplane.
>
>Same criticism as above. I'm sure there are lots of reasons. Wishing
>won't make it so.

I'm not wishing. It's just a simple statement - a goal of the MUOL. Again,
are you prepared to state that this concept is absolutely unworkable? No
merit whatsoever?

> > This would turn the MUOL into a manned space station. Additional
>modules
> > can expand functionality and capacity; a backplane module, for
>example, can
> > increase the MUOL's power output and comm bandwidth. The MUOL can
>grow and
> > evolve into something much larger and more useful. By starting
>small and
> > focusing on leasing space on the backplane for research, we make
>the
> > project fundable up front; by designing the MUOL as a "modular"
>space
> > systems platform, you provide an infinite variety of applications
>and the
> > opportunity to grow as space industry grows.
>
>Why can't the Hubble telescope grow into something much larger and
>more useful.

Because it was never designed to be anything more than a space telescope.
The MUOL will be designed for much more than a single purpose.

>Or for that matter, the other satellites up there. I'm
>sure we could marry them into one big useful platform. You see, just
>because I wrote this doesn't make it any more likely to happen.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that I said it would happen because
I said it would happen?

>I
>didn't give you any reason why it is plausible and what engineering
>details have been solved to make my proposition become reality.

Well, gee, if the standard of posting an idea to this board is that you
have to have engineering specs in hand, I guess there's not much point in
being subscribed to it. It is a rough, general overview of a concept still
in its infancy. And you criticize it because I haven't accounted for every
single little detail?

>Let
>me go further with this analogy. If the hubble telescope
>was "designed right", we could block off the tube, fill it with
>atmosphere and live in it, but still use it as a telescope. It just
>has to be "designed right." Easy for me to say, but I dare to
>venture a guess that the unlucky engineer who actually is given the
>task of "designing it right" will quit the moment he's given the
>task. I don't mean to sound insulting, and I fear that I may be
>coming across that way, but I think that this group has a lot of
>people committed to furthering the goal of space settlement and we
>can all help the goal by employing peer review. It's something I
>went through in my doctoral program, and what scientists go through
>for the entirety of their careers. I think our collective
>understanding would be helped immensely if our proclamations were
>defensible. "Designed right" becomes a whitewash.

God, will I ever live down that poor choice of words. Again, saying "if it
is designed right" has no relevance to the concept itself. It only goes to
my description of the concept. You see that, right. You aren't talking
about the MUOL there. You are talking about my description of the MUOL.

> > As far as what material the MUOL is made of or where it will come
>from,
> > there are options available, but, yes, it will be Earth launched.
>But the
> > initial seed structure (seed module) should be small enough that
>it can be
> > deployed in one launch using existing, cheap(er) ELVs.
>
>So, I can buy into the seed module being earth launched, and even
>modules that follow, but at some point doesn't it behoove the
>promotors of this scheme to try to lessen the expense of launch by
>developing orbital manufacturing capabilities.

Yes, that's what I said before. Convert or replace research modules with
production modules.

>That's the major
>trade-off for the space development advocates.
>
> > Clearly, there are many details that need to be worked out and a
>lot of
> > questions still need to be answered. But I think you get an idea
>of what I
> > am talking about.
>
>Yes, I do.
>
> > The MUOL will never be operating at half capacity (unless we lose
>modules).
> > It expands with the demand. We don't start with a fixed capacity
>backplane.
> > Instead, we start with the seed structure and as demand begins to
>near the
> > current max capacity, we extend the backplane to accomodate
>additional modules.
>
>Not so fast there partner. Design paramters influence most
>everything you come across in life. It's not always so easy to
>extend infrastructure. As an example, look at your home's electrical
>system. The fusebox can only handle so much load. If you want to run
>some type of industrial process in your basement you might max out
>your fusebox. So, perhaps it becomes a simple matter of just
>upgrading. But if that isn't enough, then you need to bring more
>power in from the powerline. And if that isn't enough, then you need
>to upgrade the power coming down the line. You might be talking
>about step down transformers, etc. Again, my point is along the
>lines, that it is very simple to say "we'll just expand" and it's
>very hard to actually achieve it.

Understood. Again, I didn't say "we'll just expand" because "we'll just
expand". I said it because I had no idea what standard you were going to
apply to this general overview. I'll rephrase and you tell me if this is
better: A goal of the MUOL is that we will be able to expand. If not, the
idea may very well be untenable.

>If your MUOL, has an electrical generating capacity of 20 MW, and
>all of the internal electrical transmission systems are designed to
>distribute that power at 240 V, then you're going to have a hard
>time accomodating users who need 10,000 V power to refine lunar
>ores.

By the time we are refining lunar ore, there will be whole different
systems handling that process. I seriously doubt the MUOL would be doing that.

>Or, your cooling and radiating system can only disipate X
>amount of waste heat, and now one of the modules wants to run a
>crystal growth experiment in zero-g, and the flux in which the
>crystals will be growing will be at a temeprature of 2,000 C.
>Where's that heat going to go? It may completely disrupt the whole
>MUOL system.

All of this, I agree with absolutely. If it disrupts the system, yes. Some
of this can be "predicted" within certain limitations, some of it can't (I
would suppose). We are so early in this project, that to dismiss it based
on the potential problems with it now would be, in my mind, irresponsible.
The idea has merit and I just want to pursue it until it has been
determined to my satisfaction that the idea does not have merit or cannot
be done.

>Same concerns with bandwidth, life-support, radiation shielding,
>etc. The initial design parameters may limit the MUOL to an optimum
>configuration, and by adding more capacity you'll be experiencing
>diminishing returns, and no "designing right" magic bullet can
>reverse the trends.

Absolutely. I agree with you again. There will probably be such an optimum
configuration and clearly that config would need to be determined to some
degree of accuracy before hand. If it was determined at that point that the
config limited the MUOL too much (in other words, would render the MUOL TOO
ineffective), the idea should be dropped from further consideration and
discussion. And I sincerely hope it will be dropped from discussion in this
forum after your response to this (if you respond to this).

> > >I don't see a way of escaping infrastructure costs.
> >
> > There is no way to escape those costs, but hopefully by
>distributing the
> > infrastructure costs to multiple users, we reduce the overall cost
>burden
> > of that infrastructure on the individual user, thus making the
>mission more
> > "affordable". That's the goal, anyway. Remember MUOL = Modules +
>Backplane;
> > it consists of multiple companies, an Industrial Cooperative
>perhaps. The
> > debt burden of the MUOL is distributed among all the users.
> >
> > Clearly, I have a long, long way to go with this concept, but it
>makes real
> > practical sense to me. I didn't come up with the idea. The premise
>has been
> > around for a long time and Eric Hunting put this all together. But
>I think
> > the idea has a lot of merit and I want to take it as far as I can.
>If at
> > some point it becomes clear that it is impossible or impractical,
>then I
> > drop it. Otherwise, I just keep going until I can't go any further
>or the
> > MUOL is developed and deployed.
> >
> > Jack
>
> >From what I've been able to gather from your postings on the MUOL
>concept, I don't think it's a magic bullet.

I swear I do not recall ever saying it was the magic bullet. I do however
believe that the single most important breakthrough for advancing the
development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY product whose
cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in the space
environment. And I believe that providing a platform for product research
and development in space would be a good idea and that is what I believe
could lead to increased production and a growing and thriving space industry.

Jack

Jack,

I like the way you're defending your idea. Many of your responses
are adding more detail to your original proposal, and I'm coming
around to seeing what you're getting at.

I think that what's happened here is that you may have a more
fleshed out concept in your mind than what you're conveying through
your postings. As you probably surmised from my response, I'm
skeptical of vague solutions and when I raise a question, you seem
to be able to answer it, or clarify your position to invalidate my
question. That's great. Your giving me, or all of us, a better
understanding of the MUOL concept.

It would really help me if you could post a URL that describes in
more detail the MUOL. Don't take for granted the knowledge that you
have of it. I don't have it, so I'm just going on your descriptions.
Alternatively, perhaps post in more detail a description of the MUOL
and how it helps in the 4-step process that you raised in the start
of the thread. They're still connected issues, right?

While I'm at it; what is the scale of this thing? How many modules
is it supposed to support? Do you have any diagrams? Just more
information. I feel that I'm offending you, and I don't mean to, but
I can only go on the information you've provided. :)

In your last response, when you raised the question of "Is it
absolutely impossible to design a way for those concerns to be
mitigated?" I'm sure that could be the case, but then you'd have
design limitations. Maybe the MUOL authorities have to approve each
module with an eye to how its functionality will integrate with all
of the other modules.

As for your concern about my dismissing the idea. Not at all. I'm
playing devil's advocate. As I've already stated, I think it has
some merit, but I'm still unsure of how you see it playing a
significant role in the 4-step program you raised?

When you wrote "Because it was never designed to be anything more
than a space telescope. The MUOL will be designed for much more than
a single purpose."

Now this is where you can shine a lot of light on the issue for me.
With no need for engineering drawings :) exactly HOW will it be
designed for more than a single purpose? I hope I'm not coming
across as being very dense, but exactly what does that entail? You
know, an answer to this question may solve a lot of my skepticism.
What are the common factors that the MUOL must have to be of use to
the modules? What would distinguish the MUOL from a rack onboard the
ISS or Space Shuttle?

When you wrote " I do however believe that the single most important
breakthrough for advancing the development of space is the invention
or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
significantly more favorable in the space environment. And I believe
that providing a platform for product research and development in
space would be a good idea and that is what I believe could lead to
increased production and a growing and thriving space industry."

Yes. Very well put and I agree with you whole-heartedly. But to me
this statement can stand apart from the 4 steps issue that started
this thread. I really have trouble seeing how the MUOL concept
advances that process and that's the heart of my skepticism. But
your above statement makes a lot of sense for small pilot project
packages, kind of like they had for the space shuttle, I can't
remember what they were called, something like "get-away specials?"
maybe. Couldn't the MUOL concept be grafted onto the ISS?

Jack,

I like the way you're defending your idea. Many of your responses
are adding more detail to your original proposal, and I'm coming
around to seeing what you're getting at.

I think that what's happened here is that you may have a more
fleshed out concept in your mind than what you're conveying through
your postings.
I think this is certainly part of it. I also have a difficult time of articulating it in a way that affords people a better understanding of the idea.

As you probably surmised from my response, I'm
skeptical of vague solutions and when I raise a question, you seem
to be able to answer it, or clarify your position to invalidate my
question. That's great. Your giving me, or all of us, a better
understanding of the MUOL concept.
Well, this is a relief. Up to now, my impression was the opposite.

It would really help me if you could post a URL that describes in
more detail the MUOL.
I had a website, but lost it when I lost my last job (IT industry). I am now gainfully employed again and will be creating another site within a few months. There are two Distant Star articles (I am the webmaster for that on-line magazine) that will give you a good idea of what I am referring to about the MUOL. I didn't write the articles. Both of them are responses to questions I posted last year. Some of the writing reflects the authors personal political and (to a lesser extent) social views and aren't entirely irrelevant to the MUOL, so please extract the relevant information as you see fit. The URLs for those articles are:

http://www.distant-star.com/issue13/oct_2001_barriers.htm
http://www.distant-star.com/issue13/jan_2002_leo_or_geo.html

Don't take for granted the knowledge that you
have of it. I don't have it, so I'm just going on your descriptions.
Alternatively, perhaps post in more detail a description of the MUOL
and how it helps in the 4-step process that you raised in the start
of the thread. They're still connected issues, right?
Yes. If the MUOL can be expanded and developed into a manned space station, it could act as the first of those four steps. My logic is that we should focus on the next 10-20 years with an eye on future needs. I believe we need a clear picture of the necessary industrial infrastructure to support industry in space. It is from that picture we can better surmise our most immediate goals and needs.

While I'm at it; what is the scale of this thing?
I don't have a firm answer for this. All I can say is that the goal is to start small (affordable) and expand it's size and function as money and engineering allows.

How many modules
is it supposed to support?
The MUOL seed would probably just support, say, 2-3 modules. But if a significant enough revenue stream could be generated from the leasing of backplane space to those modules, then we would expand the backplane and increase it's capacity to support more modules. That is the goal. I don't believe launching a fixed-capacity backplane is the way to go. If the MUOL cannot be extended, then much of what makes the MUOL appealing to me is lost.

Do you have any diagrams?
Two. One of the seed and one of the larger, more complete MUOL. I will try to post to the files section later today.

Just more
information. I feel that I'm offending you, and I don't mean to, but
I can only go on the information you've provided. :)
At times, I have a very difficult time censoring myself. I tend to overreact and not think through my responses. I was not offended by anything you have said. Unfortunately, there has been so little progress on this concept and I don't have ready responses to the concerns and issues you raised.

In your last response, when you raised the question of "Is it
absolutely impossible to design a way for those concerns to be
mitigated?" I'm sure that could be the case, but then you'd have
design limitations. Maybe the MUOL authorities have to approve each
module with an eye to how its functionality will integrate with all
of the other modules.
This will absolutely be the case. Collateral damage to modules or to the backplane are a concern that will have to be addressed. It will most likely require the leasee be given a vote in who else can lease space on the backplane.

As for your concern about my dismissing the idea. Not at all. I'm
playing devil's advocate. As I've already stated, I think it has
some merit, but I'm still unsure of how you see it playing a
significant role in the 4-step program you raised?
The progression in my mind (having not thought this through all the way) is:

MUOL seed in LEO
MUOL expanded to support additional modules
Transition from primarily research to primarily production
Habitation and CELSS modules added to the backplane
Transition from unmanned laboratory to manned space station

MUOL seed to L2 above moon
MUOL progresses as above (research --> production : unmanned --> manned)

MUOL seed to Lunar surface
MUOL progresses as above (research --> production : unmanned --> manned)

MUOL seed to NEO
MUOL progress as above (research --> production : unmanned --> manned

At some point along this progression, each MUOL/station will have to assume it's responsibility within the "Earth-Moon Network". The idea is to establish the necessary infrastructure to support wide spread use of space and it's resources. For example, the LEO station's primary function in the network may be to act as refueling station. This doesn't mean it foregoes it's other goals and tasks. The Lunar station may provide the necessary volatiles from which the LEO station develops the propellant it provides. Each station serves a function within the network. But each station also serves itself. The LEO station can continue to function as a product research and development platform in space. The Lunar station might extract He3 from the soil. Each station must not only be able to support itself but also serve an important function within the Earth-Moon Network.

Keep in mind this is all within the MUOL concept. No single entity bears the full load of the debt burden. The initial MUOL seed is still made up of two separate elements, the backplane and the modules. The backplane is owned by one (we'll call them the MUOL Venture) and the modules are owned by other companies. In this way, support costs are shared and, therefore, lessened to each individual company or "venture". I refer to this as distributed debt burden. The debt burden of the MUOL is shared by both the MUOL venture and the companies leasing space on the backplane. I do not have an economics degree. I am thinking in terms of simple logic, as flawed as it may be. But this is an important concept to the overall MUOL. It suggests a less expensive approach to individual companies while still assuming the huge costs involved with any space venture, at least for the time being.

This same principal should be applied through the whole progression. And different companies may have different goals within each MUOL/station, but the unit as a whole serves the larger network as well.

When you wrote "Because it was never designed to be anything more
than a space telescope. The MUOL will be designed for much more than
a single purpose."

Now this is where you can shine a lot of light on the issue for me.
With no need for engineering drawings :) exactly HOW will it be
designed for more than a single purpose? I hope I'm not coming
across as being very dense, but exactly what does that entail? You
know, an answer to this question may solve a lot of my skepticism.
What are the common factors that the MUOL must have to be of use to
the modules?
The MUOL must provide power to the modules.
The MUOL must provide the necessary communications infrastructure to the modules (clearly, some comm unique to each module is required)
The MUOL must provide a reasonable amount of protection from space hazards.
The MUOL must provide a means of thermal radiation.
The MUOL must provide a means of temperature amelioration.

Power is a requirement of almost every single space mission, correct? By eliminating the need for power subsystems almost entirely from the space mission, how much cost is cut?

Communication is another requirement of almost every single space mission. By eliminating much of the need for comm subsystems, by how much is the bottom line reduced?

What would distinguish the MUOL from a rack onboard the
ISS or Space Shuttle?
Remember, the MUOL is made up of two distinct components:

Backplane + Modules = MUOL

Think of the ISS or space shuttle as the backplane. Sure you can plug commercial "modules" into their "backplane". Clearly, NASA is a "competitor" in that sense. But both the ISS and Space Shuttle have huge costs associated with their use.

And I believe the MUOL backplane can be a less expensive option than either of those two above. For one thing, it starts off as unmanned. This will hopefully reduce the costs significantly by not requiring expensive life-support systems. Nor does the MUOL have the political overhead that the other two have. I am sure there are other advantages as well. And disadvantages, too.

When you wrote " I do however believe that the single most important
breakthrough for advancing the development of space is the invention
or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
significantly more favorable in the space environment. And I believe
that providing a platform for product research and development in
space would be a good idea and that is what I believe could lead to
increased production and a growing and thriving space industry."

Yes. Very well put and I agree with you whole-heartedly. But to me
this statement can stand apart from the 4 steps issue that started
this thread.
The "4 steps issue" provide the infrastructure to support a growing industrial base in space that, in this discussion at least, began to grow and increase because of product research and development.

Jack

When you wrote " I do however believe that the single most important
breakthrough for advancing the development of space is the invention
or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
significantly more favorable in the space environment. And I believe
that providing a platform for product research and development in
space would be a good idea and that is what I believe could lead to
increased production and a growing and thriving space industry."

Yes. Very well put and I agree with you whole-heartedly. But to me
this statement can stand apart from the 4 steps issue that started
this thread. I really have trouble seeing how the MUOL concept
advances that process and that's the heart of my skepticism. But
your above statement makes a lot of sense for small pilot project
packages, kind of like they had for the space shuttle, I can't
remember what they were called, something like "get-away specials?"

>Hi Victoria,
>
>One thing that it is very difficult to do is to stay strictly on a single
>discussion focus. The steps needed to advance mankind s steps toward the
>stars don t number 4, 40 or even 4000.

I would add that the "4 steps" I described previously are not, in fact,
steps at all. Rather they are discrete physical elements that together form
an infrastructural network to support wide-spread industry in space. I
believe with those four stations active and manned, the sky (pardon the
pun) is truly the limit.

How significant is it to the telecommunications market to be able to
perform in-orbit servicing of satellites? How does extending the life of a
satellite reduce the amortized costs of the project? What if satellites
were built in the manner that computers were? What if in-orbit upgrades
could be done? Decide the form factor of the satellite, break down the
components of the satellite into discrete subsystems (they already are,
really), and put them together like computers. When you need more power, a
service agent rendezvous with the satellite, performs the upgrade and
releases the satellite. Might you even be able to increase the satellites
functionality and purpose? In this way, the satellites life is extended
considerably, perhaps more than doubled or even tripled. I'm sure this
isn't a new idea, but this is one example of what an industrial network and
a permanent, manned presence in space can do.

Much of what the "Earth-Moon Network" does ultimately will most likely be
self-support industries. We are now almost certain that there is water on
the moon (or is it now fact?). Where humans go, water needs go. Reducing
the need to bring water from Earth reduces some of the cost to the network
as a whole. All four stations may be able to fill their water needs
in-orbit (or at least in the reduced-gravity environment of the Moon :).

To me the potential is endless. I'm sure I am not saying anything new or
different. We all know that there is a great deal of potential in
space-based industry. We may not agree on which specific industries or how
or when or why, but we know the potential is there. And that's just the
stuff we can imagine. I dare say that much of the industry in space will be
centered around concepts and products and technologies and services we
haven't even imagined yet. Because such concepts and products and
technologies and services can NOT be imagined until we invent or discover
or exploit them. And to do that effectively, we really need to be there.

>Jack, from your phrasing and our own conversations, it looks to me as well
>that you have a lot more prepared on the MUOL concept than you are
>sharing. Is that because you are nervous of the ideas getting out?

Yes, there is some truth to that. Also, I don't consider what I have and
what I have been doing with this to be all that much. But all of you
started with no idea of what the MUOL is, so what I have now is quite a bit
when you have nothing on the subject.

And I am a little paranoid. I am a little nervous about the idea getting
away from me. With all due respect, this community is full of a lot of
chiefs and very few Indians. I am concerned about the ego-driven politics
that collaboration will bring to this discussion. I have seen many good
ideas explode in the face of such politics. Often times such projects get
bogged down in dealing with the personalities rather than the issues
involved. Nonetheless, I cannot do this alone. Input and help are required
and it is this community that is best in a position to help me.

>My suggestion is that we drill down and help you deal with some of the
>devil in the details problems, and we ll let you handle the bigger picture.

That would be great. I need the help. We can continue this discussion on
this group (assuming the group doesn't object), but once I put together the
"MUOL Project" website, we'll need to migrate the discussion over to it.

>Que voudriez-vous?

Huh?

Jack