I've been mulling this over for a while. Seems like these ought to
be the stepping stones to a capitalistic movement into space. Tell
me how wrong I am.

1) Develop a controlling market share on the production of solar
cells and panels.

This should be done primarily in the space satellite area, but it
doesn't hurt to do this generally across the industry. It is not
necessary to actually do this with a single company. Potentially, a
large, recognized consortium that creates standards for the industry
would do the same thing. In this case, charismatic or intellectual
leadership would be required.

2) Standardize solar panel connectivity.

Use the controlling market share to create a standard, modular solar
panel connector. It is not quite necessary to standardize the solar
panel layout and shape, but the panel must be connected using the
standard connector. The connector should be simple and
disconnect-able.

3) Implement a space tug.

To me, this is the weakest link of this plan. Ideally, this tug is
refuel-able. Fantastically, perhaps it runs on IIS gray water or
space junk. (Pelletizing and ejecting.) It must be capable of
changing orbits heights and inclinations in order to rendezvous with
satellites. This tug should be engineered to grapple with the
standardized connector, remove it, and insert a new.

4) Begin satellite power upgrading.

As solar panel productivity begins to degrade on satellites orbited
using the standard connector, replace them. Fly panels to a
rendezvous point, pick them up with the tug, fly them to the
satellite, replace. Furthermore, as solar panel technology
increases, upgrade satellites with greater power supply.

5) Expand

From here, it becomes financially viable to look for resources that
are already outside the gravity well. For, if we can manufacture the
solar panels in orbit, satellites can be launched without panels.
(Allowing weight for other things. And, perhaps more powerful
satellites.) The panels made on orbit could be low tech because
weight is no longer a factor. It remains to devise a way of
extracting raw materials from a non-terrestrial source and using them
in the manufacture of solar panels. Even if, first all we get is
silicon (shipping the balance up from earth.)

Similar low-tech components could be substituted for solar panels
here. Suppose it were batteries? Antennae?

Well, there's a lightweight business plan for ya. Flame away.

Chris.

> I've been mulling this over for a while. Seems like these ought to
> be the stepping stones to a capitalistic movement into space. Tell
> me how wrong I am.

I appreciate the thought you've put into your proposal, and despite
your invitation to flame away, I'd rather show proper respect by
replying in a tone that matches your post.

>
> 1) Develop a controlling market share on the production of solar
> cells and panels.
>
> This should be done primarily in the space satellite area, but it
> doesn't hurt to do this generally across the industry. It is not
> necessary to actually do this with a single company. Potentially,
a
> large, recognized consortium that creates standards for the
industry
> would do the same thing. In this case, charismatic or intellectual
> leadership would be required.

I'm not sure what you mean by "developing" controlling market share?
Can this be achieved by a standards setting body? That seems to me
to be the most easily achievable route, but it raises the question
of penalties for non-compliance? Is such a penalty simply economic
cost of developing competing standards and not being able to
participate in future solar panel upgrades compared to your
competitors.

>
> 2) Standardize solar panel connectivity.
>
> Use the controlling market share to create a standard, modular
solar
> panel connector. It is not quite necessary to standardize the
solar
> panel layout and shape, but the panel must be connected using the
> standard connector. The connector should be simple and
> disconnect-able.

Yes, I see your point that this is the critical linkage (no pun
intended) to the standardization and replacement schema.

>
> 3) Implement a space tug.
>
> To me, this is the weakest link of this plan. Ideally, this tug is
> refuel-able. Fantastically, perhaps it runs on IIS gray water or
> space junk. (Pelletizing and ejecting.) It must be capable of
> changing orbits heights and inclinations in order to rendezvous
with
> satellites. This tug should be engineered to grapple with the
> standardized connector, remove it, and insert a new.

Clearly there needs to be a mechanism to to transport the solar
panels to their destinations. Your suggestions are as plausible as
many other suggestions for tugs et al. I have nothing to contribute
towards this part of your proposal.

>
> 4) Begin satellite power upgrading.
>
> As solar panel productivity begins to degrade on satellites orbited
> using the standard connector, replace them. Fly panels to a
> rendezvous point, pick them up with the tug, fly them to the
> satellite, replace. Furthermore, as solar panel technology
> increases, upgrade satellites with greater power supply.

I'd like to offer up some points to consider. First off, as the
solar panel starts to degrade from exposure to the van allen
radiation belts, so to will the onboard electronics, n'est pas?

Secondly, to replace degraded solar panels on the satellites will
require launching those satellites with the new standard panels
already attached. Thus, the first replacements will take place 10-15
years in the future. No existing satellites will will be able to
accomodate the new connection fittings.

>
> 5) Expand
>
> From here, it becomes financially viable to look for resources that
> are already outside the gravity well.

That's assuming this venture doesn't perform similarly to the
Iridium stellite network.

For, if we can manufacture the
> solar panels in orbit, satellites can be launched without panels.

True, they can, but will they? Can it be cost effective?

> (Allowing weight for other things. And, perhaps more powerful
> satellites.) The panels made on orbit could be low tech because
> weight is no longer a factor.

I agree with you.

It remains to devise a way of
> extracting raw materials from a non-terrestrial source and using
them
> in the manufacture of solar panels. Even if, first all we get is
> silicon (shipping the balance up from earth.)

I would appreciate if you could flesh this section out some more. I
fear the devil is in the details. Where will the silicon come from?
How will be find it, package it, transport it, refine it, where will
the energy for the refining come from, where will the fuel and
oxidizer for transport come from, where will the means to produce
and transmit that energy come from, where will the silicon crystal
growing apparatus come from, how will it be operated, where will the
crystals be cut and polished, how will the panels be manufactured,
and so on.

>
> Similar low-tech components could be substituted for solar panels
> here. Suppose it were batteries? Antennae?
>
> Well, there's a lightweight business plan for ya. Flame away.
>
> Chris.

It's a good start for a business plan. I'd like to read your further
musings.

TangoMan

Just a few comments I want to add on top of TangoMan.

First off, if I understand correctly, you want to
state your business plan essentially on repairing
solar panels on satellites on orbit.

First off, with any business plan you first need to
look at need and competition. In this case, this is
very important.

First the competition: DARPA has already given a phase
2 contract (to boeing i think) for the Orbital Express
project which address this very issue and then some.
In fact, there was some pretty intense competition on
the phase 1 aspect of this project and a couple of
plans came out, I am sure with some web searching you
can come up with a couple of hits.

Also on competition: there are actually numerous
subsystem contractors that already provide
space-qualified solar panels. Many of the interfaces
into these are in fact standardized.

Next need: Part of the Orbital Express mission was
defining what in fact were the issues that caused
satellites to end their life. The number one by a
long shot was fuel needed for station keeping. This
is most true in LEO constellation as alot of fuel is
spent to battle the degrading orbits and is also true
in GEO though less so. The second want was to be able
to swap out payloads. Last was more bus related
functions like power (which would include solar
panels) and CPUs.

On the launch costs, I really do not see a significant
saving to launch panels seperately. The fraction of
the total mass associated with jsut the panels is not
great enough that people are looking to reduce weight
there. If your business plan is looking at wanting to
reduce weight, I would concentrate more on material
engineering (finding more lightweight stuff) and most
importantly, FUEL FUEL FUEL. Not only is alot of fuel
needed for station keeping, it is also needed for
orbit raising.

And on a last note, I know that U Mich and Caltech
have both published studies on servicing satellites on
orbit, you should be able to dig around and find those
reports somewhere, as well as other university reports
(a friend of mine who did grad work at U Wash also was
slave labor for a prof there working on this issue
about 3 years ago).

- Ryan Z

--- "victoriatangoman victoriatangoman@...

> > 1) Develop a controlling market share on the production of solar
> > cells and panels.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "developing" controlling market
> share?
> Can this be achieved by a standards setting body? That seems to me
> to be the most easily achievable route, but it raises the question
> of penalties for non-compliance? Is such a penalty simply economic
> cost of developing competing standards and not being able to
> participate in future solar panel upgrades compared to your
> competitors.

I believe that I indicated that it could be attempted by a standard
setting body. The penalty you describe would be the intent. But, it
would be more effective if the market were monopolized by a single
entity. This way, standards would essentially be enforced by fiat.
This is what I meant by developing controlling market share. I'm not
sure if it's possible... As you said, "Devil is in the Details".

The penalty you state would be imposed if a majority of companies
(read market share) adopted the standards imposed by the standard
setting body. This requires a heavy hitting group of professionals
to pull this off.

Or, a group of companies comprising a majority market share could
form a conglomerate. They cannot legally garner more than 80% market
share, but they could get close enough to wield the necessary power.
(Maybe?)

Of course, there's the old-fashioned way -- acquisition.

Might be other ways...

> > 4) Begin satellite power upgrading.
>
> I'd like to offer up some points to consider. First off, as the
> solar panel starts to degrade from exposure to the van allen
> radiation belts, so to will the onboard electronics, n'est pas?

Well, I would expect the on-board electronics to be shielded better
than the solar panels. But, as Mr. Zelnio has already pointed out,
perhaps solar panels are not the best product for this model.

> Secondly, to replace degraded solar panels on the satellites will
> require launching those satellites with the new standard panels
> already attached. Thus, the first replacements will take place
> 10-15 years in the future. No existing satellites will will be able
> to accomodate the new connection fittings.

You are absolutely right. However, note that the "business" part of
the model doesn't depend on step for for profit. Steps 1-3 describe
a "typical" (albeit, large) solar panel manufacturer. This is a
proven business that could survive for the 15 requisite years. Then,
it could begin to expand into the solar panel replacement biz. Yes?

> > 5) Expand
> >
> > From here, it becomes financially viable to look for resources
> > that are already outside the gravity well.
>
> That's assuming this venture doesn't perform similarly to the
> Iridium satellite network.

Well, of course. All business plans make that assumption.

> > For, if we can manufacture the solar panels in orbit,
> > satellites can be launched without panels.
>
> True, they can, but will they? Can it be cost effective?

A point for further investigation. But, not necessary at this point.
Except maybe ball-park stuff.

> > It remains to devise a way of extracting raw materials from
> > a non-terrestrial source and using them
> > in the manufacture of solar panels. Even if, first all we get is
> > silicon (shipping the balance up from earth.)
>
> I would appreciate if you could flesh this section out some more. I
> fear the devil is in the details. Where will the silicon come from?

Frankly, I think that the beauty of this plan is that we don't have
to worry about the details just yet. The business plan is not
dependent on step 5. If step 5 never happens, you still have a
legitimate business. And, over the 15 years mentioned above, the
company can research the answers to the questions below with no fear
from the shareholders. We have stated our goals up front. We are
legitimately pursuing stated goals.

> How will be find it, package it, transport it, refine it, where
> will the energy for the refining come from, where will the fuel and

> oxidizer for transport come from, where will the means to produce
> and transmit that energy come from, where will the silicon crystal
> growing apparatus come from, how will it be operated, where will
> the crystals be cut and polished, how will the panels be
> manufactured, and so on.

These are all good questions that I don't think need to be answered
in the business plan. This is the research arm of the business.
(Another reason for creating a company with large market share. It
takes bucks to do this kind of research. The bigger you are, the
more you can spend.)

Make sense?

Chris.

> First off, if I understand correctly, you want to
> state your business plan essentially on repairing
> solar panels on satellites on orbit.

Not exactly. The business plan is essentially founded on manufacture
of solar panels. We're not talking about anything new here. There
are many such companies. The objective of this one would be to "get
big", establish standards, and work towards repairing solar panels on
orbit.

> First off, with any business plan you first need to
> look at need and competition. In this case, this is
> very important.

Well, first, I think you need to have an idea. But, I see your
point. All good plans look at the competition.

> First the competition: DARPA has already given a phase
> 2 contract (to boeing i think) for the Orbital Express
> project which address this very issue and then some.

Excellent. Thanks, I'll explore this.

> Also on competition: there are actually numerous
> subsystem contractors that already provide
> space-qualified solar panels. Many of the interfaces
> into these are in fact standardized.

I expected that there would be people who already do this. I'm not
really presenting any new business. The new part is providing an
industry wide standard coupler. There must be an economic penalty
for not adopting the coupler. The coupler must be machine operable.
It must also be disconnectable. I'm not sure that the standard(s)
you mention above meet these criteria. Furthermore, you indicate
that "Many of the interfaces ... are standardized." Ummm, the
trouble with this kind of "standard" is that there are "many". I
suggest that a standard should be singular.

> Next need: Part of the Orbital Express mission was
> defining what in fact were the issues that caused
> satellites to end their life. The number one by a
> long shot was fuel needed for station keeping. This
> is most true in LEO constellation as alot of fuel is
> spent to battle the degrading orbits and is also true
> in GEO though less so. The second want was to be able
> to swap out payloads. Last was more bus related
> functions like power (which would include solar
> panels) and CPUs.

This is useful. It suggests a need for a standard refueling approach
rather than a standard solar panel replacement strategy. I suppose
that some large government controlled firm is already developing
this. That's great -- maybe. I'd rather see it privatized.

> On the launch costs, I really do not see a significant
> saving to launch panels seperately.

I think you might be slightly misunderstanding the model here. I'm
not talking about launching the panels separately. I'm talking about
not launching them at all. Step five indicates that the panels are
produced outside the gravity well.
The earlier part of the model talks about shipping replacement panels
separately. This would happen before the space manufacturing
facility is in place.

> reduce weight, I would concentrate more on material
> engineering (finding more lightweight stuff) and most

No, the ultimate goal is to justify space manufacturing and
non-terrestrial resource usage. The initial goal is to produce solar
panels.

> importantly, FUEL FUEL FUEL. Not only is alot of fuel
> needed for station keeping, it is also needed for
> orbit raising.

You're point is made here. Suppose the satellite were launched
without fuel (or with minimal fuel) and were fueled on orbit with
some low-tech fuel like, say, water. I'd like to know why this
wouldn't work.

> And on a last note, I know that U Mich and Caltech
> have both published studies on servicing satellites on
> orbit, you should be able to dig around and find those
> reports somewhere, as well as other university reports

Thanks for the tip. You've provided me with some great direction for
further research. Incidentally, I've done a Google search for
standard space solar panel interfaces and haven't had much luck.
Lots of stuff on Orbital Express. But, can you be a little more
specific about the interfaces?

Chris.

>>

> I believe that I indicated that it could be attempted by a standard
> setting body. The penalty you describe would be the intent. But,
it
> would be more effective if the market were monopolized by a single
> entity. This way, standards would essentially be enforced by
fiat.
> This is what I meant by developing controlling market share. I'm
not
> sure if it's possible... As you said, "Devil is in the Details".

As I'm reading your writings on this matter it strikes me that you
may be referencing a software market model and its reliance on
standards for gains in efficiency and interoperability. If this is
indeed the case, I have reservations about its applicability to the
business case you're trying to make.

Interoperability is the key benefit found in software standards,
whereas manufacturer efficiency and lower unit cost, both derived
from large market share, are the key benefits found in steps 1-4 of
your plan.

Without the efficiency and lower unit cost, the ease of replacement
issue may come to naught. If your design, with its common coupling,
only offers a savings of 1% over a custom designed coupling, then
that may not be a driving factor in your quest for market dominance.

With multiple players, a standard is usually adopted in order to
facilitiate market acceptance, lower development costs, and permit
interoperability. Standards by themselves don't usually lead to a
dominant player emerging because all of the players have equal
access to the standard.

ALso, don't neglect the players who don't adopt the standard and
work actively against it and promote their own internal standard
(Microsoft Java vs. Sun Java) or try to establish an alternative
coalition for their standard.

In the end, I don't see a widely accepted standard leading to a
dominant player.

When you write "it would be more effective if the market were
monopolized by a single entity" I have to ask by what gauge you
measure effectiveness? If that gauge is solely the adoption of a
standard then there may be many other gauges in which this single
entity fails, and I'm not yet convinced that the single gauge is the
best measure by which to judge the endeavor.

>>

>
> The penalty you state would be imposed if a majority of companies
> (read market share) adopted the standards imposed by the standard
> setting body. This requires a heavy hitting group of professionals
> to pull this off.
>
> Or, a group of companies comprising a majority market share could
> form a conglomerate. They cannot legally garner more than 80%
market
> share, but they could get close enough to wield the necessary
power.
> (Maybe?)
>
> Of course, there's the old-fashioned way -- acquisition.
>
> Might be other ways...

Again I reference the software model, and if a maverick company
bucks the standard, then they cannot interoperate in the larger
marketplace. That is definitely a hindrance in the computer market
(IBM vs. Apple), the cell phone market (Europe - GSM 900; US -
Analog, TDMA, CDMA, GSM 1900; Japan - PDC), TV braodcast markets
(NTSC - US and Asia; PAL - Europe; SECAM- France) and also video
with its classic Beta vs. VHS battle. In these cases a common
standard defintely helps achieve many goals.

But there are many markets in which a single standard would be of
little value. Consider auto tires; they are designed for specific
functions and that functionality would be lost by incorporating a
single standard. To take the example further, consider the common
zipper; what benefit would be gained by having all of the teeth from
every zipper being able to intermesh. I would venture the opinion
that all of the goals that you hold out for solar panel inter-
connectivity could be applied to the zipper model. Would the cost of
zippers come down so much so as to make the standard palatable?
Other than achieving the goal of having a dominant player or
standard, what else is accomplished? Repairing half of a broken
zipper is now easier because any other half of a zipper can be used.
In the end I don't see the "zipper" standard leading to a monopoly.

>>

Steps 1-3 describe
> a "typical" (albeit, large) solar panel manufacturer. This is a
> proven business that could survive for the 15 requisite years.
Then,
> it could begin to expand into the solar panel replacement biz.
Yes?

In short, yes, but in a more lengthy analysis, I have to ask how the
solar manufacturer has achieved its large size? Is it through
defensible intellectual property, superior product which cannot be
duplicated, innovative financing, or a myriad of other avenues? I
have some trouble with this conceptual leap because solar cell
manufacturing is more like a commodity business and is open to many
players who may be willing to invest their resources in the
endeavor. I can't see how a dominant player is going to emerge.

While this one player is incorporating their standard coupling on
satellite solar panels for fifteen years, their competitors are
doing the same with their preferred standards.

>>

> These are all good questions that I don't think need to be answered
> in the business plan. This is the research arm of the business.
> (Another reason for creating a company with large market share. It
> takes bucks to do this kind of research. The bigger you are, the
> more you can spend.)
>
> Make sense?
>
> Chris.

One doesn't create a business with a large market share, that market
share is the result of other actions that are taken within the
business. Thus, the stategy of the business must be successfully
implmented in order to bring about both profitability and large
market share. Is a standard satellite coupling the sole strategy
that a solar cell manufacturer is relying on, and if so, how does
that feature lead to market dominance and increased profitability?
Those are the issues that I'm having trouble grasping and your
further expalnation would help me understand.

TangoMan

>>

> > importantly, FUEL FUEL FUEL. Not only is alot of fuel
> > needed for station keeping, it is also needed for
> > orbit raising.
>
> You're point is made here. Suppose the satellite were launched
> without fuel (or with minimal fuel) and were fueled on orbit with
> some low-tech fuel like, say, water. I'd like to know why this
> wouldn't work.

I'd like to interject with the observation that in order to get the
water to be available for refueling in orbit is going to take a lot
of resources, probably costing more than the savings from not
launching fueled satellites. To have orbital refueling is gong to
require a heck of a lot more activity in orbit in order to justify
the infrastructure investment. Satellite refueling will definitely
be a market but in and of itself, cannot serve as the sole market.

As for using water, I'm assuming you mean either superheating it as
steam and using that for propulsive effect, or splitting the water
into its constituent parts and storing them cryogenically. The first
option doesn't perform effectively while the second option doesn't
store effectively for extended periods of time and requires special
tankage to store for even short periods of time.

Further, there are no satellites in orbit that rely on stored
LO2/LH2 as onboard propellants. The existing satellites rely on
hypergolic fuels such as Nitrogen Tetroxide (N2O4), Hydrazine (N2H4)
and for the ISS and some Russian satellites Unisymmetrical
Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) ((CH3)2NNH2.)

If we are retreiving the water from NEOs, I would prefer that they
bring back liquid methane and liquid ammonia as well.

With those three constituents, an orbital refining operation can
make the above hypergolic fuels to service the satellite refueling
industry.

Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrazine
2NH3 + 2O2 --> N2O4 + 3H2
2NH3 --> N2H4 + H2
4H2 + 2O2 --> 4H2O

Unisymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
2CH4 + 2NH3 --> (CH3)2NNH2 + 3H2
3H2 + 1.5O2 --> 3H2O

TangoMan

--- "victoriatangoman victoriatangoman@...
> > > importantly, FUEL FUEL FUEL. Not only is alot of fuel
> > > needed for station keeping, it is also needed for
> > > orbit raising.
> >
> > You're point is made here. Suppose the satellite were launched
> > without fuel (or with minimal fuel) and were fueled on orbit with
> > some low-tech fuel like, say, water. I'd like to know why this
> > wouldn't work.

[side note:]
After Mr. Zelnio's recommendation, I read a bit about the Orbital
Express. This project covers, among other things, refuelable
satellites, water as a fuel, and a fuel delivery satellite.

> I'd like to interject with the observation that in order to get the
> water to be available for refueling in orbit is going to take a lot
> of resources, probably costing more than the savings from not
> launching fueled satellites. To have orbital refueling is gong to
> require a heck of a lot more activity in orbit in order to justify
> the infrastructure investment. Satellite refueling will definitely
> be a market but in and of itself, cannot serve as the sole market.

Can you support your statements? I mean, I agree that it's going to
take a lot of resources, but how do you justify the statement that
follows "probably"? I could just as easily say, probably not.
Intuitively only, I don't agree with your remaining statements in the
paragraph. Of course, the burden of proof is probably on me.
Perhaps that's what you're hoping to extract from me. I don't have
it.

>
> As for using water, I'm assuming you mean either superheating it as
> steam and using that for propulsive effect,

This was my thought.

> [this] option doesn't perform effectively

What do you mean effectively? Does it boost and maneuver satellites
or not? Here's the trade-off. For poorer full performance, you get
longevity of satellite use. And, ultimately, you get cheaper fuel.
And, I don't mean the price of water v. hypergolic fuel. I mean: 1)
I believe that it's easier to extract and purify water from
non-terrestrial resources than it is to extract nitrogen and ammonia
and then manipulate them into a hypergolic fuel. 2) I believe
non-terrestrial water is cheaper than any terrestrial fuel.

Chris.

> > I'd like to interject with the observation that in order to get
the
> > water to be available for refueling in orbit is going to take a
lot
> > of resources, probably costing more than the savings from not
> > launching fueled satellites. To have orbital refueling is gong
to
> > require a heck of a lot more activity in orbit in order to
justify
> > the infrastructure investment. Satellite refueling will
definitely
> > be a market but in and of itself, cannot serve as the sole
market.
>
> Can you support your statements? I mean, I agree that it's going
to
> take a lot of resources, but how do you justify the statement that
> follows "probably"?

I'll do my best to offer support for my above statement. Let's
consider a satellite launch on a Arianne 44LP with a cost of $110
million and a payload mass to GEO of 4,290 kg.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/arie44lp.htm

Now that payload mass will include the rockets and fuel to
circularize the orbit, the satellite itself, and its onboard
stationkeeping fuel.

Here's an example of how that payload is broken down. If anyone can
provide a more authoritative source I'd gladly welcome it.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/index.html?
area=left6.html&body=/en/mtp/background/meteosat_history.html&a=612&b
=2&c=610&d_0&e=0

By my reckoning, only 47.28% of the payload is the satellite and its
on-board fuel. The fuel itself only comprises 5.87%. The fuel is
hydrazine (see below link)

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/index.html?
area=left6.html&body=/en/mtp/background/meteosat_history.html&a=612&b
=2&c=610&d_0&e=0

Thus, by eliminating the fuel, and launching the satellite empty,
you would save $6,461,000.

Let's pile on more assumptions. How many satellites are you going to
service. Let's bound the discusssion by limiting it to no more than
currently orbit the Earth: 2,816.

https://www.cheyennemountain.af.mil/boxscore.htm

How about that you are able to convince 100 satellite owners that
you'll be able to provide orbital refueling to their satellites so
they can launch without fuel.

Total savings: $6,461,000 * 100 = $646,100,000.

Ok, let's say that to induce the satellite owners to forego
launching without fuel, you charge only half of the savings. How's
that sound?

So now you have $343,050,000 in initial operational income to play
with in addition to your own invested capital, and I'll forego a
time value of money analysis for extending satellite lifespan beyond
20 years and adding additional servicing capacity.

To put it another way, for a 20 year service contract, you could
bill each satellite $161,525 per year.

Of course, the above calculations are premised on the assumption
that no offsetting mass on a satellite is needed for the steam
propulsion. Otherwise adjust for lower savings.

With Hydrazine having an Isp of 205

http://woodmansee.com/science/rocket/r-other/rb-fuels.html

we would need to consider how a solar-powered steam rocket would
perform. Its specific impulse would be dependent on the temperature
of the steam. To raise the temperature will require more
concentrating mirrors on each satellite. In my personal notes, I
have an Isp of 150 for steam at 800K. So at that temperature point
you have lower performance and efficiency. Engineer to higher
standards to get same performance.

Now our discussion would naturally progress into solar mirror
performance and mass data and this is an area that I don't have data
on. Could you supply the mass data for a mirror needed to heat water
to steam at a temperature of 800K or greater?

Now consider where the water is going to come from, the mass of
equipment that will have to be sent there, how the water will be
transported to cislunar space, and then finally to each satellite.

Use this chart to calculate the delta-v needed to get your equipment
to a NEO or the moon and then to return cargo back to cislunar space.

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html

Are you getting your water from the moon? If so, then from a GTO
you're going to need an additional delta-v of 6.9 km/s to land on
the moon and using aerobraking, return the same mass to GEO
satellites compared to 13.8 km/s by direct launch from Earth. How
much additional infrastructure mass do you have to land on the moon
to refine the water or other volitiles in order to justify saving
the 6.9 km/s penalty of launching fuel from earth?

Are you getting your water from a NEO? If so, then from a GTO you're
going to need an additional delta-v of 3.8 km/s if we assume that
the NEO shares a delta-v profile similar to that of Mars and we make
significant use of aerobraking maneuvers to kill delta-v on the
return voyage.

In conclusion on this question, let's assume that for every 100
satellites you sign up for your service you could afford to launch 3
Arriane 4 to GEO. Just for simplicity of argument let's assume that
the payload of 4,290 can get to a NEO. So you've managed to send
almost 13 tonnes to an NEO to be your mining and refining operation.
How about the equipment for the transport back to cislunar space,
the fuel needed for that transport, the tank farm in cislunar space,
the space tugs to refuel the satellites, the earthside
administration and sales expenses to keep track of everything. I ask
you, how many satellites need to be modified for solar steam
operation in order to bring you to a breakeven status?

>I could just as easily say, probably not.
> Intuitively only, I don't agree with your remaining statements in
the
> paragraph. Of course, the burden of proof is probably on me.
> Perhaps that's what you're hoping to extract from me. I don't have
> it.

The remaining statement I made had to do with increased activity in
orbit in order to justify refueling operations. I think that the
details I provided in my above argument buttress this point. You
will require a sizable infrastructure, and the more volume of fuel
you sell the easier it will be to make a profit and to justify the
infrastructure.

>
> > As for using water, I'm assuming you mean either superheating it
as
> > steam and using that for propulsive effect,
>
> This was my thought.
>
> > [this] option doesn't perform effectively
>
> What do you mean effectively? Does it boost and maneuver
satellites
> or not?

Yes it maneuvers satellites.

Here's the trade-off. For poorer full performance, you get
> longevity of satellite use.

Only if you have the infrastructure to find and deliver that water.
That infrastructure comes at a price. But if you can have your
infrastructure produce the hypergolic fuels then you can get better
performance and also serve satellites that are there right now, and
many other future satellites and future space vehicles. Water
doesn't provide the longevity of satellite use, the infrastructure
does.

>And, ultimately, you get cheaper fuel.

Yes, water is cheaper on Earth compared to standard satellite fuels.
In 1990 NASA was paying $17 per kg for Hydrazine.

http://www.astronautix.com/props/hydazine.htm

Water prices are basically free, or up to $1.00 per kg for premium
bottled water.

So, the 40 kg of Hydrazine on a satellite costs about $680. Your
savings are between $640-$680 per satellite.

> And, I don't mean the price of water v. hypergolic fuel.

Oh, then disregard the above :))

>I mean: 1)
> I believe that it's easier to extract and purify water from
> non-terrestrial resources than it is to extract nitrogen and
ammonia
> and then manipulate them into a hypergolic fuel.

Frozen Water, frozen Ammonia and frozen Methane should all be
readily available and each should be equally extractable as Ice.
That's not a problem.

I agree with your point that the refining in the hypergolic fuels is
more involved.

My point is that with ready availabilty of hypergolic fuel in orbit,
you can then service all satellites, as well as other types of
spacecraft. The satellites don't have to be modified with different
engines and the means to produce the superheated steam, they can
instead use the well-engineered existing rocket engines. There is
never a misfire with hypergolic fuels; they ignite on contact and
you also avoid the need for a steam chamber, and the mirrors to
produce the heat to create the steam that traditional rocket engines
don't need. You actually may save on mass by using traditional fuels!

2) I believe
> non-terrestrial water is cheaper than any terrestrial fuel.
>
> Chris.

I hope that the above analysis can change your opinion on this
matter. The only way I can see your statement holding true is if
there is a large volume of demand for orbitally produced fuels which
can amortize the investment in the infrastructure.

TangoMan

To add more to this discussion a few points:

- Sorry Tango, arianne 4 are no more, but your point
is still valid.

- To me, a larger market then the GEO commsats (which
is definitely a good market) would be more towards
vehicles in LEO. LEO requires much more station
keeping and hence a lot more fuel loss. Looking at a
typical LEO bird (either remote sensing or telecom
like globalstar) the lifespan due to fuel is around 5
years or so. Now you could probably also extend to
service Russian comm birds which are in a Molnya (sp?)
orbit while not burning alot of fuel to reach them.

- Another point here, since the satellites used for
refueling are attaching with another satellite to
deliver fuel, there is no reason why they can also be
used to help boost satellites. Now if something like
this was in place, you would have been able to save
the Astra 1k fiasco that recently happened. This
brings in a potential investor, space insurance
companies. I believe there is currently one company
looking into this but I cannot remember their name
right away, if interested I am sure others on this
list would remember who they are. I *think* it was a
company who was also looking into orbital debris.

-Ryan Z

p.s. on the whole hydrazine vs steam talk, the
original orbit express was hydrazine based. Another
thing to look at though is perhaps competition from
Ion thrusters. While their ISP are not high, their
fuel comsuption is awesome. Alot of money is being
poured into using them for station keeping, which
could have adverse effects on your business plan.

--- victoriatangoman wrote...
> As I'm reading your writings on this matter it strikes me that you
> may be referencing a software market model and its reliance on
> standards for gains in efficiency and interoperability. If this is
> indeed the case, I have reservations about its applicability to the
> business case you're trying to make.

Very likely. I'm a software engineer. I'm largely influenced by the
models in my industry. However, I recommend that you consider that
interoperability provided advantages in the railroad industry in the
1800s.

> Interoperability is the key benefit found in software standards,
> whereas manufacturer efficiency and lower unit cost, both derived
> from large market share, are the key benefits found in steps 1-4 of
> your plan.
>
> Without the efficiency and lower unit cost, the ease of replacement
> issue may come to naught. If your design, with its common coupling,
> only offers a savings of 1% over a custom designed coupling, then
> that may not be a driving factor in your quest for market
> dominance.

No, market dominance must come first.

> ALso, don't neglect the players who don't adopt the standard and
> work actively against it and promote their own internal standard
> (Microsoft Java vs. Sun Java) or try to establish an alternative
> coalition for their standard.

Irrelevant (for the most part) if the standard promoter is the market
dominator.

> In the end, I don't see a widely accepted standard leading to a
> dominant player.

No. On the contrary. I believe I was relying on the existence of a
dominant player to produce a widely accepted standard. Also, I
suggested this as only one way of reaching this standard. There are
likely others.

> When you write "it would be more effective if the market were
> monopolized by a single entity" I have to ask by what gauge you
> measure effectiveness? If that gauge is solely the adoption of a
> standard then there may be many other gauges in which this single
> entity fails, and I'm not yet convinced that the single gauge is
> the best measure by which to judge the endeavor.

I'm not really sure I understand your question. Forgive my
ignorance. The adoption of a standard is more effective if the
market is monopolized. That is, it is faster, more likely to be
adopted, etc. And... here's a kicker... the standard doesn't
necessarily have to be immediately beneficial in an economic sense.
Monopolistic arm twisting can enforce it until it's viable.

Not sure I answered your question.

> >>

>
> Again I reference the software model, and if a maverick company
> bucks the standard, then they cannot inter-operate in the larger
> marketplace.

I think this might be irrelevant when the standard setter is a
monopoly. At least for a time.

> ...In these cases a common
> standard definiely helps achieve many goals.

> In the end I don't see the "zipper" standard leading to a monopoly.

But, I'm proposing that a monopoly lead to a standard rather than the
other way around. Precisely because I believe standards in these
areas can help achieve the ultimate goal of space based mining and
manufacturing.

>
> >>
>
> In short, yes, but in a more lengthy analysis, I have to ask how
> the
> solar manufacturer has achieved its large size? Is it through
> defensible intellectual property, superior product which cannot be
> duplicated, innovative financing, or a myriad of other avenues? I
> have some trouble with this conceptual leap because solar cell
> manufacturing is more like a commodity business and is open to many
> players who may be willing to invest their resources in the
> endeavor. I can't see how a dominant player is going to emerge.

I have no idea. I had assumed that this could be accomplished
through mergers and acquisitions. Perhaps that assumption is
incorrect. I will do more thinking and attempt to strengthen the
plan in that area.

> While this one player is incorporating their standard coupling on
> satellite solar panels for fifteen years, their competitors are
> doing the same with their preferred standards.

Right. If there is no monopoly -- no robber baron.

> >>
>
> One doesn't create a business with a large market share, that
> market
> share is the result of other actions that are taken within the
> business. Thus, the stategy of the business must be successfully
> implmented in order to bring about both profitability and large
> market share. Is a standard satellite coupling the sole strategy

No, as I said, the standard is the byproduct of the large size, not
the other way around.

I apologize for the long delay between responses. I have personal
time constraints, and y'all have given me much to consider. I will
continue to respond as I can.

Chris.

> --- victoriatangoman wrote...
> > As I'm reading your writings on this matter it strikes me that
you
> > may be referencing a software market model and its reliance on
> > standards for gains in efficiency and interoperability. If this
is
> > indeed the case, I have reservations about its applicability to
the
> > business case you're trying to make.
>
> Very likely. I'm a software engineer. I'm largely influenced by
the
> models in my industry. However, I recommend that you consider that
> interoperability provided advantages in the railroad industry in
the
> 1800s.

Yes, I'm very well versed in the railroad business models of the
1800s. Could you expand on what insight you think might benefit me.
As I see it, the benefits accrued due to linkages between the
different lines. I'm not sure how satellites are going to
interoperate or link with your scheme.

In the railroad model, when one train could operate across many
lines, it gained efficiency. What efficiency is gained by being able
to replace the solar cells on a satellite? How does this replacement
lead one satellite to interoperate with another?

>
> > Interoperability is the key benefit found in software standards,
> > whereas manufacturer efficiency and lower unit cost, both
derived
> > from large market share, are the key benefits found in steps 1-4
of
> > your plan.
> >
> > Without the efficiency and lower unit cost, the ease of
replacement
> > issue may come to naught. If your design, with its common
coupling,
> > only offers a savings of 1% over a custom designed coupling,
then
> > that may not be a driving factor in your quest for market
> > dominance.
>
> No, market dominance must come first.
>
> > ALso, don't neglect the players who don't adopt the standard and
> > work actively against it and promote their own internal standard
> > (Microsoft Java vs. Sun Java) or try to establish an alternative
> > coalition for their standard.
>
> Irrelevant (for the most part) if the standard promoter is the
market
> dominator.

I'm not quite following how you can so quickly dismiss the above
point as irrelevent. What if the standard promoter is NOT the market
dominator?

>
> > In the end, I don't see a widely accepted standard leading to a
> > dominant player.
>
> No. On the contrary. I believe I was relying on the existence of
a
> dominant player to produce a widely accepted standard. Also, I
> suggested this as only one way of reaching this standard. There
are
> likely others.

I would suggest that you rethink your primary premise, which I
understand to be, that a firm will achieve market dominance just by
hoping for that status. Give me a reason why said firm has achieved
market dominance, and then I may have an easier time following the
reasoning that follows that premise.

>
> > When you write "it would be more effective if the market were
> > monopolized by a single entity" I have to ask by what gauge you
> > measure effectiveness? If that gauge is solely the adoption of a
> > standard then there may be many other gauges in which this
single
> > entity fails, and I'm not yet convinced that the single gauge is
> > the best measure by which to judge the endeavor.
>
> I'm not really sure I understand your question. Forgive my
> ignorance. The adoption of a standard is more effective if the
> market is monopolized. That is, it is faster, more likely to be
> adopted, etc. And... here's a kicker... the standard doesn't
> necessarily have to be immediately beneficial in an economic
sense.
> Monopolistic arm twisting can enforce it until it's viable.
>
> Not sure I answered your question.

It appears to me that your argument is driven by the need to
implement a standard. Is that the basis of your business plan? Again
I come back to how the firm got to be a monopoly so that it could
wield its power in setting a standard. You may be putting the cart
before the horse.

>
> > >>
>
> > Again I reference the software model, and if a maverick company
> > bucks the standard, then they cannot inter-operate in the larger
> > marketplace.
>
> I think this might be irrelevant when the standard setter is a
> monopoly. At least for a time.
>
> > ...In these cases a common
> > standard definiely helps achieve many goals.
>
> > In the end I don't see the "zipper" standard leading to a
monopoly.

Yes, my point exactly! I can't just say that there will be a
monopoly and all sorts of benefits from the interoperability of
zippers will flow into the marketplace. Now I'll use your above
comment as a rebuttal statement.

"In the end I don't see the "solar cell" standard leading to a
monopoly."

>
> But, I'm proposing that a monopoly lead to a standard rather than
the
> other way around. Precisely because I believe standards in these
> areas can help achieve the ultimate goal of space based mining and
> manufacturing.

From where will you conjure this monopoly? How will it maintain its
monopoly?

>
> > >>
> >
> > In short, yes, but in a more lengthy analysis, I have to ask how
> > the
> > solar manufacturer has achieved its large size? Is it through
> > defensible intellectual property, superior product which cannot
be
> > duplicated, innovative financing, or a myriad of other avenues?
I
> > have some trouble with this conceptual leap because solar cell
> > manufacturing is more like a commodity business and is open to
many
> > players who may be willing to invest their resources in the
> > endeavor. I can't see how a dominant player is going to emerge.
>
> I have no idea. I had assumed that this could be accomplished
> through mergers and acquisitions. Perhaps that assumption is
> incorrect. I will do more thinking and attempt to strengthen the
> plan in that area.

As you've probably noticed, must of my questions concern the above
points and how the monopoly came to exist and maintains itself,
before it is even in a position to set standards.

TangoMan

I was reminded in an article today
(http://www.spacedaily.com/news/salvage-03a.html) about the other
competitor to the original idea for working on satellites, orbital
recovery services. They are looking like they have a well developed
business plan in action already.

I don't suppose anyone here has any clue on how they plan on
connecting to a satellite's apogee kick motor?

In a way, I almost consider this a bad thing. It seems our space
program is getting more and more concentrated on keeping the status
quo and this program will push that. In the long run, with success
people will just continue to extend the life of their satellites,
keeping the demand for newer satellites and the push for newer
technologies down.

This is true in almost all aspects of the space program. Why make a
new rocket propulsion when we can jsut incrementally up ELVs? Why
push for a new manned vehicle when the Soyuz and Shuttle have shown
that they can handle the job? Why design better satellite
technology when we can just extend the life of those in orbit?

Great endeavors inspire great developments. Currently, I do not see
any projects on the horizon that are really pushing the envelop.
Maybe I'm being a little cynical cause it is a Monday but other then
nuclear propulsion, I am not seeing anything new in the next ten
years. And nuclear propulsion is still a big maybe.

-Ryan

--- In ssi_list@... "ryjaz "
> I was reminded in an article today
> (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/salvage-03a.html) about the other
> competitor to the original idea for working on satellites, orbital
> recovery services. They are looking like they have a well
developed
> business plan in action already.
>
> I don't suppose anyone here has any clue on how they plan on
> connecting to a satellite's apogee kick motor?
>
> In a way, I almost consider this a bad thing. It seems our space
> program is getting more and more concentrated on keeping the
status
> quo and this program will push that. In the long run, with
success
> people will just continue to extend the life of their satellites,
> keeping the demand for newer satellites and the push for newer
> technologies down.
>
> This is true in almost all aspects of the space program. Why make
a
> new rocket propulsion when we can jsut incrementally up ELVs? Why
> push for a new manned vehicle when the Soyuz and Shuttle have
shown
> that they can handle the job? Why design better satellite
> technology when we can just extend the life of those in orbit?
>
> Great endeavors inspire great developments. Currently, I do not
see
> any projects on the horizon that are really pushing the envelop.
> Maybe I'm being a little cynical cause it is a Monday but other
then
> nuclear propulsion, I am not seeing anything new in the next ten
> years. And nuclear propulsion is still a big maybe.
>
> -Ryan

You raise some very thought provking questions. I can't disagree
with you but would like to add to your analysis.

What is the space industry? Is it the launching end of things or is
it the service end? The satellites earn their money from providing a
service to the earth economy, so I wouldn't consider them to be a
space industry.

The satellite manufacturers and launcher are more appropriately
categorized as space industries.

Now, if a satellite operator can increase the useful life of their
equipment by orbital servicing, then they should. Such actions will
be the start of orbital economics. Now a new player, Orbital
Recovery Services, has entered the market and upset the oligopoly of
the established order.

After a time, old equipment becomes more expensive to maintain and
it becomes obsolete. Thus, it will be incumbent on satellite
manufacturers to provide economic or technological reasons for a
satellite operator to replace an existing satellite other than it
ran out of fuel.

All that said, the real problem in my estimation, is that there is
no orbital economy at all, notwithstanding the economic assets
presently in orbit.

Nothing is bought, sold, traded, manufactured, claimed, mined, or
refined in orbit.

Have you seen the witty satire recently circulated about the wagon
expeditions to the Desert.

You point out that the satellite repair venture might reduce
innovation in the space industry and thus maintain the status quo.
But what drives innovation in the space industry? Surely not a
stagnant market launching missions into a Desert.

My opinion is that the best thing that government(s) could do would
be to drop the farce of science in orbit and start launching
infrastructure.

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

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

No Mars mission, which will be a one-off mission with no legacy
hardware. Rather, lay down the roads, water pipes and electricity
grid and let those assets be the legacy for future users and
missions. Then will come the farmers, oil prospectors,
saloonkeepers, shopkeepers, doctors, dentists, settlers,
schoolmarms, etc.

Any chance of this happening? Nope!

TangoMan

>Have you seen the witty satire recently circulated about the wagon
>expeditions to the Desert.

Nope. How about a link? Thanks :)

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack

> > An orbital tether system, some means of storing fuel, and better
> > yet, refining fuel, also providing orbitally obtained life
support
> > materials. This is akin to laying down the roads or wagon
trails,
> > having watering stops for the mules, having some nice vittles
for
> > the travellers and a place to rest for the weary folk as they
> > journey into the desert for their own reasons.
>
> Can you explain more about a "tether system"? Is this the "space
> elevator" I hear about or just a means of connecting two otherwise
> diparate space contraptions together to form a "unified" system?

No, it's not the space elevator system. An elevator would be
attached to a point on the earth and extend out into space, with its
center of mass at geostationary orbit. This is a huge undertaking
and requires materials to withstand impressive tensile loads. We
don't have those materials in the engineering toolbox, although
people point to lab samples of nanotubes and feel comfortable
extrapolating their engineering use. I think many things can go
wrong between a 1 gram lab sample and millions of tons of the stuff
making a tower 35,000+ kilometers long.

For a more detailed fictional account of this techology read Arthur
C. Clarke's "Fountains of Paradise."

The problems I mentioned for constructing such a device on Earth are
not present in a lower gravity environment such as the Moon, Mars,
or Mercury. The tensile loads are lower and thus are within reach of
existing materials. Hans Moravic did a nice analysis of the
requirements for a lunar elevator.

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/papers/sc
asci.txt

A space tether system, OTOH doesn't attach to the planet and doesn't
face the same tensile stresses. By my reckoning there are two
families of space tethers: 1.) skyhooks and 2.) rotating tethers.
FWIW, I prefer the rotating tether system.

A skyhook would consist of six primary components. At the lowest
altitude would be the docking station. At the highest altitude would
be another station, let's call it the launching station. Midway
between the two is the midway station. Joining all stations is a
cable system. Attached to the cables are the elevators. And finally,
attached to the midway station are the PV cells that power the whole
endeavor.

This skyhook will be orbiting the earth and its orbit will be
determined by its center of mass - the midway station. Because the
skyhook will be gravity gradient stabilized, or tidally locked, it
will always maintain the same orientation towards the Earth.
Further, the upper and lower stations, if unattached, would have
different orbital velocities. But they are attached, so the orbital
velocities of the two stations are the same as that of midway
station. The implications of this are that the lower station has a
lower orbital velocity that it would if it was unattached, and the
upper station has a higher orbital velocity.

Let me switch gears for a moment. Using the rocket equation, you can
get more bang for your buck if you launch a suborbital payload
rather than one destined for a higher orbit. Further, you don't need
to engineer as sophisticated (nor as expensive) a rocket to reach
suborbital velocity. You can probably build a suborbital shuttle
that has a high payload capacity to fuel capacity ratio.

Now by combining these two principles you can launch the payload in
your suborbital shuttle or ELV and dock with the lower skyhook
station, which is in orbit, but is orbiting at a velocity less
than "orbital velocity." If the whole skyhook structure is
engineered properly, you can even dock the shuttle to the structure
and it will orbit the earth indefinitely.

Now the payload is transferred to the elevator cars and using $10.00
worth of electricity the payload is lifted to either midway station,
where the orbital velocity is equalized, or it is lifted to the high
station where it can be launched with an added velocity boost
because the high station, moving at the same velocity as midway
station, is moving faster than it needs to be in order to maintain
orbit.

While this structure wouldn't be permanently attached to the surface
of the earth and be 36,000 + km, it would still be quite long by
terrestrial engineering standards.

Keep in mind that the greater the distance between the low and high
stations, the lower the docking velocity and the higher the boost
gained from launching from high station. Also keep in mind that the
lower station probably shouldn't go below 150 km in order to avoid
atmospheric drag.

Thus, if the rough orbital velocity at 150 km, itself an unstable
orbit, is 7.8 km/s, and you had a cable length of 746.9 km from the
lower station to midway, and 800.8 km from midway to high station,
then your docking velocity would be only 85% of orbital velocity.
Further if you launched from the high station, then you would be at
about 88% of escape velocity for that altitude. You'd still need
some rocket assist, but not as much.

If you increase the length of the cables seperating the stations,
then you also increase the length or the orbital period, so you
can't launch as frequently from the same spaceport. But to offset
this supposed disadvantage, you make other gains. Consider, a lower
cable length of 1751.5 km and an upper cable length of 2,050 km. Now
the docking velocity is only 70% of orbital velocity and your launch
velocity is now 99% of escape velocity.

Not too bad! But first you need to build the damn thing and as
you've probably noticed, there is a trade-off between lower shuttle
performance/increased paylod ratio against the size of skyhook
apparatus.

Now let me pontificate about a rotating tether system.

It works on the same principles as the skyhook, but because it
rotates it really amplifies the momentum exchange properties. Let's
put this is real world terms. You're at a skating rink and all your
buddies join hand in hand to form a chain. You can join the chain
and climb along by pulling yourself (skyhook elevator) and not use
any leg power (rockets) or you can hang on as they round the corner
and whip you along and watch you zoom by at the release point
(rotating tether.)

With the rotating tether you've got a simpler device, but you're not
docking to a "stationary" point but a docking bay that is rotating.
I don't think that should pose an unsurmountable problem, its just a
matter of matching velocities and timing arrival time.

Once the payload is picked up it is swung about and released. Then
the tether loses some orbital height, just as the skyhook would. But
if the tether catches a payload of equal mass from on high and
lowers it, then its orbit is restored.

How practical is it to count on deorbiting mass to restore the
tether to its original orbit? In the early stages probably not too
practical. We could deorbit some satellites and let the tether take
them the last mile so to speak. That would work towareds restoring
(assuming equal masses) the orbit and the satellites would burn up
in the atmosphere.

But if it's one way traffic we're modeling, and you recall that
there is no such thing as a free lunch, then you'll be saying to
me "Hey, all we're doing is trading reduced fuel for the payload
against the need to reboost the skyhook or rotating tether. How is
that more efficient?"

Well you didn't really think I was going to write this whole long
post and not have an answer for you, did you?

Here's how the efficiency comes about (and I'm discounting for now
the returned payload scenario though I think it will be significant
in the future - see my 60 Easy Steps posts :)

We are transferring the momentum of the large mass tether to the
smaller mass payload and thus increasing the velocity of the payload
disproportionately to its mass and conversely, the tether's velocity
drops and so too does its orbit. For an illustration of this check
out page 8 of this report.

http://www.tethers.com/papers/CislunarAIAAPaper.pdf

You'll recall that the kinetic energy of these object has the mass
proportional to the square of the velocity. Further, while we can't
launch from earth using high ISP ion thrusters, they are perfectly
suitable for orbital work.

It is more efficient to restore the energy lost from the tether
using high ISP engines than it is to boost the payload without a
tether system and having to boost the fuel and the rockets as well.

Further, the tether by lowering a conducting cable into the
atmosphere, and running a current through it can boost itself using
electrodynamic forces. No rocket fuel is needed, just electricity!

For more on this topic check out

http://www.tethers.com

and Vincent Cate's site

http://www.spacetethers.com

I perfer the rotating tether because it is lower mass and simpler to
construct but if traffic increases in orbital space then I would
favor a more elaborate and expensive skyhook system. This opens up
whole new vistas that the rotating tether can't match.

For instance, you could build hotels and crew stations along the
cables. You can have a Mars gravity training facility, hotel, or
theme park at 340 km altitude, where the gravity experienced would
be about 1/3 of Earth's. Do the same for the Moon at the 900 km
level so that 1/6 gravity can be experienced. Make the thing long
enough and the expense of engineering and operating suborbital
shuttles gets much lower, their ticket prices come down, tourist and
commerical traffic increases to the tether. Moreover, this makes
suborbital hops from city to city more cost effective, thus
increasing the number of shuttles and lowering their unit cost, thus
making traffic to the tether even less expensive. Even more
moreover, crews returning from extended zero-g missions can
reacclimate at the "Moon Level" then move down to the "Mars Level"
before they have to land on Earth with its crushing "Earth Level"
gravity.

As an aside, even if an ambitious skyhook is constructed, I still
think you'd need the MEO station and the lunavator that I've
described in the 60 Easy Steps series of posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think of it this way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"

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

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

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

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

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

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

One comment about market vs. cost:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree completely.

Jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You magically assume too much to reach your conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classic Chicken and Egg conundrum.

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

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

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

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

TangoMan

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

What did you conclude about tethers vis a vis rockets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack

Jack,

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

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

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

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

Ryan Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show me how.

TangoMan