&nbsp;

Link To Post

Post ID:17532
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17532
BoK Link:[[Post:17532]]

# 17533 byvictoriatangoman on March 19, 2003, 1:44 a.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

> > No, I 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.

Jack, I read your whole post before I started this reply and I
sensed what I take to be some frustration on your part towards some
of my comments. I see that you have a passion for your ideas and I
don't mean to be offensive or blockheaded.

I do see the potential of your MULE concept but most of my comments
were motivated by seeking your clarification on some points you made
that I thought were overreaching, or trying to refute those same
broad statements. Those comments shouldn't be interpreted as taking
any value away from your concept.

I've worked with scientists, engineers and software engineers, and
I've noticed that sometimes they become so deeply embedded within
their visions that they can't see beyond the beauty of their
creations. My reading of your posts gives me the sense that as a
business plan (maybe I'm incorrectly assuming that this is a real-
world scenario you're proposing) you're relying on unsupported
assumptions and a lot of best case scenarios.

Perhaps our friction stems from my having reviewed many business
plans and having to critique them. I'm treating your plan with
serious consideration, hence the volume of our correspondence. Once
again, I do believe that your MULE concept has merit, but by
chipping away at you I want to see how well you support some
assertions that I don't buy.

Now onto business :)

>
> So gravity never effects production quality? Of course it does,
> that's a well-established fact. You are contending that while
> discoveries will take place all will be reproducable on Earth?

No, I'm just questioning the assumption that a space-manufactured
product will not have a terrestrial substitute. Some will, some
won't. The product that must be manufactured in orbit may be the
first, or the hundreth, out of the gate. I have no clue which.

Surely
> you see that is not going to be the case nor will it likely be the
> case most of the time.

Actually, I don't see either, and I have no basis to share your
conclusion about the frequency of occurance.

And in anticipation of your next question, I
> say that because the impact of gravity on Earth-based processes IS
> that profound. It is just THAT significant.

Yes, gravity is an unescapable force on the surface of the Earth. No
argument from me. I too have faith that some processes may be
developed that require the absense of gravity in order to operate.

>
> You do not need to have that scientific talent in orbit to
evaluate
> the merits and potential returns from space-based R&D. In this day
> and age, with networks and rapid communication, computers and
> robotics, in-orbit presence is superfluous. This army of engineers
> and scientists who must consider the ramifications of gravity on a
> daily basis can do so from Earth. They don't have to be in space.

Seeing the army of talent that is used in product R&D and even in
basic engineering of structures leads me to conclude that a series
of garage startups are not going to be pumping out revolutionary
products. I look about and see engineers relying on Physical
Handbook type references all the time. No such body of knowledge
exists for the environment of space and the practice of engineering
in space. Does it? I'd love to read it if it does.

Let me give you an example of what guides my thinking with respect
to this statement. To calculate the forces acting on a 10 storey
building on earth one would use a constant for the force of gravity,
but the same building in some habitat will have a noticable
variation in the centripetal forces acting over its height.

Consider fluid dynamics acting within a pipeline inside a refining
process. Now consider moving that fluid in a zero-g environment.

I think that when you have people trained in all of the nuances of
operating in zero-g, vacuum, radiation, etc, then innovation will
really flourish. People will be taught by experts, curriculms will
be specially designed, codes will be worked out, reference works
will be published, journals dedicated to science dealing only in
this new environment will disseminate the progress to a wide body of
specialists. I think that when these specialists know this new
environment as intimately as their Earth counterparts know theirs,
then things will really start hopping.

It's just a matter of efficiency. Sure, Earth-based people can learn
to operate in space, but when you compare the innovation that arises
from the army of earth-based engineering talent against a thousand
space specialists, the imbalance will be drastic.

>
> But for the record, my opinion of the above is:
>
> Your suggestion that there won't be a product whose production is
> exclusive to the unique environment of space, an environment that
can
> NOT be reproduced in it's totality on Earth, until there's an army
of
> engineers and scientists already in orbit to evaluate the research
> data is such an extreme exageratioin. I find it hard to believe
that
> you, an educated, intelligent person, truly think that is a
serious
> argument.

Actually I do. I'm playing the odds with that statement. I feel more
comfortble that the intellectual resources of a well trained large
cadre of specialists, well versed in their fields, will produce an
economically viable product that can find no substitute on Earth,
than such a product being developed early in the game by only a few.

I look at your position and think it is a long shot, and the odds
for mine are closer to even. But in your defense, long shots do win
the bet once in a while. Conversely, all these scientists on Earth
haven't yet been able to identify a single product that must be
manufactured in orbit. The best they've been able to do is to
identify avenues of research.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Invested billions in research that has such little promise for any
> near-term returns? My God, they must be mad! And who in the world
> would give their researchers grants? It's so speculative and
stands
> little chance of contributing significantly to Earth-based markets.
>
> Seriously, you're making my case. Yes, they invested billions - to
> provide the infrastructure to support microgravity research oboard
> the ISS. And when that infrastructure was rendered moot by NASA
cuts
> they were mad. I'm sure they were mad that they spent all that
money,
> but why spend it in the first place if there's no merit to space-
> based R&D.

I'm not taking the position that space R&D has no merit. It does.
But I also don't take the position that the ISS country partners
invested in the station for purely R&D reasons. I think a large part
of had to do with national prestige, cooperation, wanting to have
astronauts from your nation, some members of national academies of
science wanting to be players in a new game, etc. The actual merit
of space R&D did have a role, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it
was the primary factor. I base this position on the preponderance of
press that I've read from ISS partner space agences that addressed
the other features of their ISS involvement, from the science
journals and their relative lack of orbital references, and lastly
from negative statements from some national academy of sciences that
said the monies spent ill served their scientific community. That
same comment was made about the Superconducting SuperCollider in
Texas. Of course, the scientists associated with it thought it was
the best thing since sliced bread, but others said it took a
disproportionate share of national R&D funding for too little gain.

>
> > 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.
>
> No, you need to go back and reread that message. You're combining
> different arguments from different points. You originally were
> implying there was little, if any, value in space-based R&D
without
> extensive in-orbit infrastructure. Now that that contention has
been
> aptly refuted, you argue that even if there is value that doesn't
> translate into a product whose cost-effective production is
exclusive
> to the space environment. I never said it did. I was merely
refuting
> your apparent assertion that there is no promise of return from
space-
> based R&D absent of extensive infrastructure in space.

Wow, this is really getting interesting :) How did you refute
something I didn't advocate? I never asserted that there was no
value to orbital R&D, just that it isn't the driver for laying
orbital infrastructure. As for your second refutation, I also never
took the postion that you need infrastructure to conduct orbital R&D.

I think your MULE platform is a standalone project that adds nothing
to orbital refueling, life-support, refit, launch, shelter and other
infrastructure capabilities.

Are we in disagreement?

>
> There has been enough research in space to easily suggest there is
a
> great deal of promise in space-based production. I am NOT the only
> person on the planet who thinks so. Many people, much smarter than
I,
> agree.
>
> Roger Handberg, Director of the Center for Space Policy and Law,
> states in his book, "The Future of the Space Industry":
>
> "Materials process in a microgravity environment confronts
directly
> the competition of Earth-based products - a competition in which
> price and quality become a direct trade-off. For this reason,
> materials processing in space continues to be pursued but the
field
> awaits either a product that uniquely requires microgravity
> processing and is essential for some critical need (i.e., a life
> saving drug)

Mr. Handberg supports my point. The field awaits a product that even
this expert can't guess about. He's relying on faith that such a
product exists. Yes, I too have the same faith, but I won't argue
based on faith, and if I were the decisionmaker at a tech company I
wouldn't invest in a MULE compartment without having an idea of what
I wanted to produce. Most corporations don't do basic science -
that's usually funded by governments. Maybe after such science has
been done, then practical applications will come of it. That's when
I'd be willing to buy a MULE compartment. That's when my faith will
be buttressed by evidence and I'd at least be able to assign some
expected values to the outcomes of research and base the funding
decision on somethng a little more solid.

or else a significant decline in launch costs that
> reduces overhead expenses. The latter remains more likely than the
> former in the short term. . .

Don't you find this statement disheartening? Even this expert thinks
it's more likely to lower launch costs that it is to develop a
product unique to space.

A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower
> costs is clearly separating materials processing from manned
flight
> operations." (emphasis mine)

Yes, I agree with you. Yes, I do see that a MULE could achieve this
goal.

>
> Continuing, ". . . robotic missions presently allow longer time
> periods for materials to be processed in low-vibration
environments
> prior to return to Earth. The cost savings should make such
products
> more competitive in the marketplace. In addition, robotic
> missions . . . can be flown more frequently. This means that the
> products produced move from the the status of exotic rarities to
> commercially available ones, enhancing their price is likely to
> increase their use (a nicely circular relationship)."
>
> Now, having said that I will also tell you that I have read a NSF
> report stating there is no real market for commercial microgravity
> research. I disagree and I believe I can make the case. I may not
be
> able to make the case to you, but I don't think that has much to
with
> the merits of my argument or the logic I employ.

I don't hold myself up to be a paragon of wisdom. I'm sure that many
innovators can point to experts who said their accomplishments
couldn't be done. But why did NSF take a negative view, and on what
basis do you disagree with them?

Straying a little from the topic of MULE driver infrastructure
construction, I do want to bring up an issue that I've left
unstated, but nevertheless is in the background of my thinking in
all matters concerning orbital commerce. That issue has to do with
the cost/gram of the most expensive products on Earth and how any
orbitally manufactured product, or even mined or refined products,
would reflect the cost of retrevial from orbit. Would the products
have to be soft-landed? Would they splash into the ocean? Hard land
into a desert? Parachute? Let's say you're using an economical
Russian launch service and you're paying $1,000/lb. Look about and
see how many products sell for more than a $1,000 per pound.

With the above in mind, even if you're correct with respect to the
odds, and that these space-only products are more numerous than I
believe, how likely is it that you may devise a product but won't be
able to market it because of its expense?

> Pharmaceutical research in space is based largely on the creation
of
> pristine, near-perfect crystals (protein crystals, for examples)
that
> can NOT be duplicated in ANY gravity-affected environment. Can
your
> company produce protein crystals in Earth-based labs? Yes. But not
> like my company can in space. And it is that ability to create
> pristine crystals in microgravity that is most likely (and already
> has in some cases) going to lead to the medical breakthrough you
> hypothesize.

Let me give you a related real-world example that I was involved
with that has to do with crystal growth.

Company A is growing sapphire/ruby crystals via a flux process. This
process grows the crystals in a molten material over a period of
months within platinum crucibles. By maintaining a steady state
temperature but having a temperature gradient over the height of the
crucible a convection current is established within the flux and the
crystal nutrients slowly crystallize on the crystal. This is a very
expensive and time consuming process.

Company B sets out to compete but they use a different process. They
decide to employ what is called the Czochralski method which still
needs a noble metal container, but they use iridium (cheaper) and
they do a controlled pull out of the flux, resulting in an inferior
crystal, but one that is larger in size and one that is produced in
a shorter period of time.

Company C sees that the market is growing because of reduced price
for the end product. It sets out to perfect a third technique,
hydrothermal growth. Using autoclaves that contain pressures of
30,000 psi and tempetures of 600 C and also employing a temperature
gradient they produce greater quantities of product, much cheaper
than either Company A or B, but their product has crystal
dislocations and other imperfections.

Company C is doing much better than its two competitors.

The moral of this story, is that a perfect protein crystal MAY not
be ESSENTIAL to a product, thus one grown on Earth may do a
sufficient job.

>
> > 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.
>
> If a product is developed based on the exploitation of the unique
> environment of space (an environment that can NOT be completely
> reproduced in Earth-based labs), then if you want to compete with
> that product you won't have a choice. If it's exclusive to the
space
> environment, IT IS EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT. Please
don't
> claim you are willing to suspend disbelief in exclusivity then
argue
> against exclusivity.

You got me. OK, me bad. :)

>
> > 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.
>
> Please, tell me how to produce crystals that are the same size and
> possess the same pristine characteristics of space-borne crystals
on
> Earth? If so, we got ourselves a great new business!

Please don't gloss over this point. Basing a business plan on the
assumption that somebody else can't do what you did unless they do
it your way is prone with danger.

As I've already stated, perhaps you and I are just having a
dialogue, and there is no serious business plan in the background.
That's one thing, and I'm game . . I find it interesting, and I'm
willing to suspend disbelief in order to move forward, but a
business plan can't ask investors to suspend disbelief.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Of course it is a general statement. Your suggestion that one must
> predict the future to make the case for this is just a little
goofy,
> if you ask me. Asserting that growth in the PC market will have a
> positive collateral effect on other industries before the PC
market
> was anything more than a niche market would have been met with the
> exact same cynicism you espouse in these exchanges. Nonetheless,
the
> growth in the PC market has had a considerable impact on other
> industries - this impact was not all foreseen.

True it wasn't foreseen, but the investment in, and development of,
the PC industry wasn't predicated on its impact on many other
industries. It rose on its own merits.

You're stating that a benefit of MULE is its impact on other
industries. I just don't see how such a broad statement is
supportable, especially when a specific product or technology or
even consumer use isn't specified.

> > > 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.
>
> Are you saying that success in a given industry will not breed
> competition within that industry?

Now that you put it this way. Yes, I'll agree that competitors may
now have more incentive to MULE up :) Conversely, they would also be
more reticent if their competitor met with R&D failure.

Are you saying that success in one
> industry can't have a positive collateral effect on other
industries?

Not can't, but the connections are more tenuous than intra-industry
competition. Sure, anything can happen, but the odds are different
for the many instances of anything. You're describing such a rosy
scenario where one success leads to another, and I'm just pointing
out that things aren't always so rosey in real life.

> I have no problem with what you just said. In fact, I agree. I do,
> however, contend that research on the MULE will be cheaper than
space-
> based R&D has been in the past. I also contend that by reducing
the
> cost you potentially increase the size of your market.

Cheaper in what way? The marginal cost of adding one more module.
The average cost of placing a module after the MULE development has
been expensed. The cost incorporating amortization of all expenses.
Compared to a shuttle R&D mission. Compared to a SpaceHab mission
which may have expensed its development by the time you're ready to
launch.

Can you use existing launch systems? Do you need to develop new
launch systems? If so, who pays for the development?

Yes, if you do indeed reduce the price, I'll agree in principle that
you can potentially increase the market size.

> > 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.
>
> Great! You tell me what you want to hear. What could I possibly
say
> to convince you? Are you sure you haven't already drawn your
> conclusions about this issue? Are you absolutely positive, no
doubt
> in your mind whatsoever, that there is something, anything, I
COULD
> say to change your mind?

As I've already stated, I think your MULE plan has merit as a stand-
alone venture. Your case is easier to make on that front.

As for it being a driver in the creation of orbital infrastructure,
I'm skeptical, and looking for you to provide the case for it. I
don't know what you can write to make your case. You're the one who
believes it, you must have reasons to believe it, so I guess I'm
looking for those reasons, rather than hope, to convince me.

All I can say in my defense is that I've abandoned many of the ideas
I've had about space development over the years as I've learned more
about all the different topics that touch on space dev. In their
place I've incorporated other people's ideas into my own when they
made a better case or invalidated my opinions and facts.

> > Further, my above comments apply here as well. Also, how does
> > launching a payload to the MULE help lay down infrastructure?
>
> Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting
the
> space environment it might encourage additional applications. That
> doesn't make sense to you?

Yes it does. The conditionals you've added make it possible.
Consider: A might lead to B, or to C, or even to D. Thus if you
invalidate option B, you could still have other outcomes. That's
different than saying A leads to B. A leads to B is a more powerful
and convincing statement to investors but only if you don't
invalidate it.

Sorry if I'm being picky. Really I am. It's just that definitive
statements make me look at their validity more closely than
conditionals. Nothing personal, I assure you.

>
> > For
> > that matter, you can launch bricks into orbit and thus help the
> > launch industry.
>
> That's a little silly. Bricks have no significant application in
> space. The MULE does.

My point was that to help the launch industry, the actual payload
doesn't matter, as long as you launch something.

> Let me ask you this:
>
> Have you ever heard of a company having success in an undeveloped
> market?
> Have you ever known such success to lead to greater competition?
> Have you ever known competition to drive down cost?
> Have you ever heard of increased competition and lower cost
> encouraging market growth?
>
> Now my answer to each of those is a resounding yes. If you agree
that
> the answer to all four is yes, but still don't see where I am
coming
> from, let me know. Maybe we should take this one step at a time.

Yes to all four questions. But I think you're on quicksand to take
these general principles and conclude that they MUST apply to the
MULE concept. They shouldn't form the basis of support for an
argument.

Many things are possible in this Universe of ours. Many fewer things
are likely. And even fewer things are common.

>
> > > 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.
>
> No, I was speaking of the huge cost of SPS not the infrastructure.

Cost is relative. If you take the cost of SPS and divorce it from
the needed infrastructure, then my position is that it would be
funded in a New York minute. If you had all the industries that make
steel, PV cells, transmitters, robotics, fuel, life-support, etc etc
already in orbit, and you just had to buy the supplies from the
orbital suppliers and didn't have to finance all that infrastructure
on the back of SPS, then even the many billions of dollars spent per
SPS wouldn't phase financing authorities because they'd have an
asset earning them billions of dollars. Slam dunk.

I
> believe a motivated industry/market will create the infrastructure
as
> that industry/market grows. You seem to be saying that we need a
> space project to provide enough of a return to fund the
> infrastructure in it's entirety.

Yes, I holding the position that there is a critical mass of
necessary infrastructure required, otherwise many potential orbital
industries are stillborne. They may be able to make a go of it, but
some infrastructure they need isn't there, they can't afford to
build it, thus their project doesn't go forward. A year later, in
some other boardroom somebody else needs the same infrastructure,
they see that it isn't there, and they kill their project.

> > Seriously, just because you can exploit space profitably has no
> > bearing on whether others can.
>
> That is simply untrue. That's like saying just because Christopher
> Columbus crossed the ocean doesn't mean anyone else can.

You've got this backwords. If I flip a coin and get heads, that
doesn't increase your odds of getting tails.

> > You're taking for granted that there is a growing market for
space-
> > borne products. There isn't.
>
> No, I am merely suggesting there COULD be a growing market for
space-
> borne products. There is no market now because nobody is even
trying
> to produce anything in space. But there is a small market for
> research, a market that could be nurtured to grow. A growing
market
> for space-based research could lead to production - Earth-based
> research often leads to production, does it not?

I think I could grasp your point better if there was some substance
to actual products. Despite the drawbacks of SPS it provides a
product that I can analyze. MULE is predicated on too many "what
ifs."

Please don't take offense, but a house of cards exists under only
the best conditions. One bump of the table, a gust of wind, a truck
going by out side, and it crumbles. MULE can also exist and also
produce many wonderful products and profits, but there aren't any
products or processes that can be identified now that mandate the
launching of MULE. NSF is downplaying the market, SpaceHab isn't so
successful that it is drawing attention from potential competitors
who want a piece of the action. So, if everything cuts your way then
MULE is all that you say it can be, but I'm not seeing anything that
increases the odds in your favor. Potential is difinitely there, but
can you translate potential into reality. That's what the VC
industry looks for.

> > 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.
>
> But if you bring with you a set of solar arrays, power storage
units,
> comm equipment, etc AND these "subsystems" have the capacity to
> support multiple factories, you have SOME infrastructure. No more
> than is needed to get started, but some.

How is that different than every comm satellite having its own
infrastructure. Again, great for a stand alone project, but I
wouldn't categorize those attached components as orbital
infrastructure. How does some non-MULE player make use of your
subsystems?

Hopefully, not as offensive with this post :)

TangoMan

Link To Post

Post ID:17533
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17533
BoK Link:[[Post:17533]]

# 17534 byjdr7181 on March 19, 2003, 6:08 p.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

These email are getting longer - with war imminent (distractions,
distractions), I'll need more time to respond. I'll try to finish
tonight and sent it off.

Jack

Link To Post

Post ID:17534
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17534
BoK Link:[[Post:17534]]

# 17535 byjdr7181 on March 20, 2003, 9:23 p.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

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

> Jack, I read your whole post before I started this reply and I
> sensed what I take to be some frustration on your part towards some
> of my comments. I see that you have a passion for your ideas and I
> don't mean to be offensive or blockheaded.

Let me first say that in rereading my post before I sent it I
seriously considered editing it to soften some of the rough edges.
Ultimately I decided not to do that because I felt it was important
to convey my initial reaction to your refutations. The only thing
that bothered me was your use of what I felt were inapplicable
analogies to refute my contentions. One example is the island in the
pacific and how industry there would have no effect on other,
completely unrelated industries. I am sorry, but I do not find that
to be a viable analogy for many reasons. The island doesn't offer any
unique advantage from any other Earth-based location. The space
environment, however, does. There's no disputing that, right?
Furthermore, I wasn't arguing that one industry can or would
influence another disparate industry. I was arguing that there are
several industries that have already been identified as potentially
benefitting from space-based R&D. The pharmaceutical and materials
manufacturing industries are two. And while the markets for each are
very different and while a new drug has no direct correlation to
advances in materials manufacturing, they do share one common
feature - the potential to benefit from space-based R&D. If one
industry that has been identified as a possible benefactor of space-
based R&D experiences success in space, I do not think it is
incredible of me to suggest that their success could impact one of
the other industries that have been identified as potential
benefactors, i.e., could provide some incentive for them to begin or
expand their own space-based R&D efforts.

You also tried to compare commercial ventures to NASA - this is
another analogy I feel is unfair. It may prove persuasive to the
unwashed masses but you and I both know that NASA spending does not
provide a fair basis for comparison to the commercial sector. Nor
does using SpaceHab, in my opinion. SpaceHab and my MULE concept are
not the same thing. Both are designed to provide a platform for space-
based research, but it's a little like comparing a Boeing 747 to an F-
16 - I mean both fly, right? Using your companies below, A, B and C,
NASA is A, SpaceHab is B, and the MULE is C. The quality of the
research doesn't suffer to the extent Company C's product does, but I
think you get the idea - Company C (my MULE) can enable space-based
R&D cheaper than either A or B.

> I do see the potential of your MULE concept but most of my comments
> were motivated by seeking your clarification on some points you
made
> that I thought were overreaching, or trying to refute those same
> broad statements. Those comments shouldn't be interpreted as taking
> any value away from your concept.

Well, I apologize if I let my frustrations get the better of me. I
feel like I have been able to hold my own in this discussion, but
when what I feel to be unfair analogies are used to disprove my
contentions I do get a little defensive. I have said many times that
the case for space-based R&D is difficult to make. I don't believe
the use of unfair analogies to disprove the potential of the concept
is appropriate among space advocates. The fact that these analogies
were drawn at all suggested to me there was more to it than just
trying to get clarification. I apologize if I misread your
intentions. I contend that the use of these "bad" analogies to refute
someone's contentions discourages innovation among space advocates
and other proponents for the peaceful use of space.

> I've worked with scientists, engineers and software engineers, and
> I've noticed that sometimes they become so deeply embedded within
> their visions that they can't see beyond the beauty of their
> creations. My reading of your posts gives me the sense that as a
> business plan (maybe I'm incorrectly assuming that this is a real-
> world scenario you're proposing) you're relying on unsupported
> assumptions and a lot of best case scenarios.

Ok, let's separate the business plan from this discussion. Many of
the points I am making with you would not only prove unpersuasive to
investors, but could ruin any chance of getting the MULE financed.
The points I am trying to make with you are more to encourage general
support for the idea from other space advocates. For example, a
business plan is not an appropriate forum for speculation - I would
never suggest a positive collateral impact on other industries from
space-based R&D except when indicated by solid data. The business
plan should present the MULE as a stand-alone business with the
ability to provide an appropriate return to investors. But if I were
trying to appeal to other space advocates (like I am here) and more
generally, society at large (after a lengthy discussion of the merits
of space use in general) suggesting such collateral impact might
prove persuasive in winning more wide-spread support of the idea.

> Perhaps our friction stems from my having reviewed many business
> plans and having to critique them. I'm treating your plan with
> serious consideration, hence the volume of our correspondence. Once
> again, I do believe that your MULE concept has merit, but by
> chipping away at you I want to see how well you support some
> assertions that I don't buy.

That was my initial take on your responses. Shooting holes in my
ideas and forcing me to rethink or reword my contentions to make them
more palatable is a good thing - thank you. It was only once
analogies were being drawn that I felt were unfair that I got a
little frustrated.

> Now onto business :)

Indeed!

> > So gravity never effects production quality? Of course it does,
> > that's a well-established fact. You are contending that while
> > discoveries will take place all will be reproducable on Earth?
>
> No, I'm just questioning the assumption that a space-manufactured
> product will not have a terrestrial substitute. Some will, some
> won't. The product that must be manufactured in orbit may be the
> first, or the hundreth, out of the gate. I have no clue which.

I agree. Some will, some won't. But, as I mentioned to Al Globus over
at spacesettlers@... (I have been forwarding this discussion
to them in the hopes of sparking more discussion), using space-based
R&D to demonstrate methodologies for Earth-based labs also has value.
If you can't figure out how to do something without doing it in space
first, hey, let's go to space.

> Surely
> > you see that is not going to be the case nor will it likely be
the
> > case most of the time.
>
> Actually, I don't see either, and I have no basis to share your
> conclusion about the frequency of occurance.

Too late - you already said, "some will, some won't". :)

Seriously, you don't think some products are likely to be exclusive
to the gravity-free environment of space? You don't see the impact of
gravity on Earth-borne processes as being that profound? I know you
do - see below.

> And in anticipation of your next question, I
> > say that because the impact of gravity on Earth-based processes
IS
> > that profound. It is just THAT significant.
>
> Yes, gravity is an unescapable force on the surface of the Earth.
No
> argument from me. I too have faith that some processes may be
> developed that require the absense of gravity in order to operate.

Yippeeee! That's a hell of a start. Now let's see if I can take this
argument to the next level.

> > You do not need to have that scientific talent in orbit to
> evaluate
> > the merits and potential returns from space-based R&D. In this
day
> > and age, with networks and rapid communication, computers and
> > robotics, in-orbit presence is superfluous. This army of
engineers
> > and scientists who must consider the ramifications of gravity on
a
> > daily basis can do so from Earth. They don't have to be in space.
>
> Seeing the army of talent that is used in product R&D and even in
> basic engineering of structures leads me to conclude that a series
> of garage startups are not going to be pumping out revolutionary
> products.

The MULE can't be a garage startup, I agree. But there is nothing to
say that that army of talent can't evaluate the research data from
the ground. Also, the MULE doesn't have to employ this army - that is
at the discretion of the individual module owners. I would think they
would have their own in-house talent reviewing the data and directing
further research. And much of the data borne of space-based R&D may
be made available publicly, openning up analysis to a much wider
audience from a broader spectrum of disciplines.

> I look about and see engineers relying on Physical
> Handbook type references all the time.

Would "Space Mission Analysis & Design" (SMAD) and it's companion
volume, "Reducing Space Mission Cost" qualify? I have both setting on
my desk right now. Both are highly technical and were written by a
flock of engineers and scientists. They are thick, heavy volumes. One
breaks down the mission design process step-by-step and covers almost
everything you can think of related to designing a space mission and
the other covers cost estimation and reduction methodologies.

Now, having said that I will agree that much more work is required to
build on the existing volumes of information related to space
missions.

> No such body of knowledge
> exists for the environment of space and the practice of engineering
> in space. Does it? I'd love to read it if it does.

There is in fact such a body of knowledge, but the field is
considerably less developed than physics or chemistry. No argument
there. But again, I say you're making the case for the MULE. Again,
let's compare it to SPS.

Now we not only have the huge cost of SPS development AND the cost of
the infrastructure to support SPS development, we also have an
information/knowledge vacuum. We both agree that SPS is unlikely in
the absence of the infrastructure to support it, and in my opinion it
is equally as unlikely that the infrastructure will be developed
absent of this "body of knowledge" related to the field of space
sciences.

Hmmm . . . how can we bridge the gap . . . hmmm? Oooh, I know. How
about a commercial unmanned platform for research in the space
environment? I know, the knowledge vacuum that has existed in every
science discipline has tradiitonally been filled by government-
sponsored research. But I contend that some of that knowledge vacuum
can still be filled by research conducted in the commercial sector
aboard a MULE or similar platform AND that there is value in that
research - value to the space industry, value to humanity. Is that a
huge stretch?

BTW, this lack of knowledge is why I support an aggressive manned
space program. To me this is the one area we should be most concerned
with - human's ability to survive and thrive in space.

> I think that when you have people trained in all of the nuances of
> operating in zero-g, vacuum, radiation, etc, then innovation will
> really flourish.

I agree, but we are a long way from that and surely an unmanned
research laboratory in space would help bridge that gap - not
completely, of course, but would be helpful. Begin small and gow it
incrementally at a rate the market can absorb. The sooner there is a
commercial lab in space and the longer that lab is in space and the
more the market grows (and, thus, the lab and amount of research
conducted therein), the more rapidly we are able to fill that info
void.

> People will be taught by experts, curriculms will
> be specially designed, codes will be worked out, reference works
> will be published, journals dedicated to science dealing only in
> this new environment will disseminate the progress to a wide body
of
> specialists. I think that when these specialists know this new
> environment as intimately as their Earth counterparts know theirs,
> then things will really start hopping.

Again, I agree. I would say we have one hell of a great start on
that, though. There are many schools with Aerospace Engineering
departments - one down the street from me is University of Texas in
Austin.

> > Your suggestion that there won't be a product whose production is
> > exclusive to the unique environment of space, an environment that
> can
> > NOT be reproduced in it's totality on Earth, until there's an
army
> of
> > engineers and scientists already in orbit to evaluate the
research
> > data is such an extreme exageratioin. I find it hard to believe
> that
> > you, an educated, intelligent person, truly think that is a
> serious
> > argument.
>
> Actually I do. I'm playing the odds with that statement. I feel
more
> comfortble that the intellectual resources of a well trained large
> cadre of specialists, well versed in their fields, will produce an
> economically viable product that can find no substitute on Earth,
> than such a product being developed early in the game by only a
few.

I disagree with some of your assumptions. I, too, "feel more
comfortable that the intellectual resources of a well-trained large
cadre of specialists" are more likely to "produce an economically
viable product that can find no substitute on Earth." However, I
disagree that such a talent pool doesn't already exist. I maintain
that these specialists can be employed from the ground. As I said,
with advances in computers, robotics and communications, there is no
reason why such a talent pool can't be employed by the MULE (which
might be preferable) or the individual module owners.

> I look at your position and think it is a long shot, and the odds
> for mine are closer to even.

I just don't see how, though. How do we go from where we are now to
SPS? By your own admission we need the infrastructure first? Is the
infrastructure going to be developed because of the FUTURE potential
of SPS? If so, why hasn't it already? We both fully admit that SPS is
unlikely to be developed until that infrastructure is in place and at
this stage there is little incentive for either governments or
industries to develop that infrastructure or to develop SPS (an even
bigger political hot-potato). And you've now thrown a whole new
wrinkle into this scenario, complicating it even further. As you have
eluded, we lack the knowledge base to just dive right into orbital
infrastructure/SPS construction. There is a lot of work ahead of us.
I believe the MULE is a great way to start addressing some of these
issues. Remember, for the MULE to be tenable it has to:

1. Not rely on any new infrastructure (hard - new technologies; or
soft - new policy or laws) - in other words, the MULE must be doable
given the current impediments to space development.
2. The MULE must be fundable - can't cost too much.
3. The MULE must provide a cheaper means for the private and public
sectors to conduct research in the space envionnment.

I am confident the MULE is doable given the current issues with space
development. The MULE requires no new technologies, no new policy or
law, nothing. It is doable right now. So I have scratched #1 off.
Check.

Funding the MULE? Yikes! I believe it can be developed and deployed,
but a strong case on behalf of the potential for space-based R&D must
be made - that's going to be tough. It also can't cost an arm and a
leg to develop/deploy nor can the return on investment be delayed
beyond more than seven years (and that's stretching it a lot). So for
the MULE to be fundable, it needs to be low-cost (let's keep some
perspective - low-cost space missions are still expensive) relative
to other funded commercial space missions and it must be able to
provide a more traditional return on investment (3-5 years is
optimum, 5-7 may be doable, any longer and you're likely in trouble).
I do think both of those conditions can be met, but that is
speculation and as you have repeatedly said, I need more than
speculation to sale this to VCs. So #2 is unchecked at this time.

I think we can all agree that by distributing the cost of the entire
MULE system through multiple module owners, you likely reduce the
cost to the individual module owner conducting the research. Again,
that is speculation - I am no businessman (how could you tell?) - but
it is a logical conclusion. Until I am able to provide stronger
evidence than just logic, however, this, too, remains unchecked.

As I have said in the past, I have seen nothing to suggest the MULE
isn't possible and nothing to suggest the MULE can't make a
significant contribution to what we all want - an orbital
infrastructure to support on-going, long-term space missions. The
MULE can do this by demonstrating the ecomonic and industrial
viability of space-based R&D. SPS is the tip of the iceberg - with an
infrastructure in place you can toss in lunar and Martian outposts,
asteroid/comet mining missions, space colonies, interstellar
missions, etc. Everything we ever wanted to happen in space can once
the infrastructure is in space to support them.

> But in your defense, long shots do win
> the bet once in a while. Conversely, all these scientists on Earth
> haven't yet been able to identify a single product that must be
> manufactured in orbit. The best they've been able to do is to
> identify avenues of research.

But that's a start - the door is cracked, it's up to us to push it
open the rest of the way. It's a heavy door and is likely going to
require a lot of effort to open. But it can be opened, surely. It
appears to me most other doors, if not all, are locked tight and are
likely to remain so until governments and/or industries are motivated
to unlock them.

> I'm not taking the position that space R&D has no merit. It does.
> But I also don't take the position that the ISS country partners
> invested in the station for purely R&D reasons.

Neither am I - I was just exagerating to make the point. I do
believe, however, that their ISS investment leaned heavily toward
space-based research for good reason.

> I think a large part
> of had to do with national prestige, cooperation, wanting to have
> astronauts from your nation, some members of national academies of
> science wanting to be players in a new game, etc. The actual merit
> of space R&D did have a role, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it
> was the primary factor. I base this position on the preponderance
of
> press that I've read from ISS partner space agences that addressed
> the other features of their ISS involvement, from the science
> journals and their relative lack of orbital references, and lastly
> from negative statements from some national academy of sciences
that
> said the monies spent ill served their scientific community. That
> same comment was made about the Superconducting SuperCollider in
> Texas. Of course, the scientists associated with it thought it was
> the best thing since sliced bread, but others said it took a
> disproportionate share of national R&D funding for too little gain.

And that's an argument that can only be made if your project is
dependent on "national R&D funding". There will always be those
people who no matter what evidence is provided, no matter how strong
an argument you make will always say it is a bad idea. The key is to
make your argument strong enough to drown out the noise of the
naysayers. That is what I hope our exchanges will do - strengthen my
arguments (though I would settle on weakening yours ;).

> > No, you need to go back and reread that message. You're combining
> > different arguments from different points. You originally were
> > implying there was little, if any, value in space-based R&D
> without
> > extensive in-orbit infrastructure. Now that that contention has
> been
> > aptly refuted, you argue that even if there is value that doesn't
> > translate into a product whose cost-effective production is
> exclusive
> > to the space environment. I never said it did. I was merely
> refuting
> > your apparent assertion that there is no promise of return from
> space-
> > based R&D absent of extensive infrastructure in space.
>
> Wow, this is really getting interesting :) How did you refute
> something I didn't advocate? I never asserted that there was no
> value to orbital R&D, just that it isn't the driver for laying
> orbital infrastructure.

I got the impression you were certainly implying as much. Seeing the
value in orbital R&D is a good restart to this discussion.

> As for your second refutation, I also never
> took the postion that you need infrastructure to conduct orbital
R&D.

That's two . . . we're on a roll!

> I think your MULE platform is a standalone project that adds
nothing
> to orbital refueling, life-support, refit, launch, shelter and
other
> infrastructure capabilities.
>
> Are we in disagreement?

The MULE itself doesn't contribute directly to those things, no - in
that we can both agree. What I do contend, however, is that by
DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-BASED
R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME incentive to
develop the infrastructure. I have never claimed that the MULE was
anything more than a potential catalyst for doing "more stuff" in
space.

> Mr. Handberg supports my point. The field awaits a product that
even
> this expert can't guess about. He's relying on faith that such a
> product exists. Yes, I too have the same faith, but I won't argue
> based on faith, and if I were the decisionmaker at a tech company I
> wouldn't invest in a MULE compartment without having an idea of
what
> I wanted to produce. Most corporations don't do basic science -
> that's usually funded by governments. Maybe after such science has
> been done, then practical applications will come of it.

We do know of some practical applications - the hang-up is in
their "cost-effective production" not the application. If, and I
agree it's a BIG if, the MULE can provide cost-effective ACCESS to
the space environment then perhaps production, too, becomes cost-
effective. Regardless, there is a small, undeveloped market for
research in space.

> That's when
> I'd be willing to buy a MULE compartment. That's when my faith will
> be buttressed by evidence and I'd at least be able to assign some
> expected values to the outcomes of research and base the funding
> decision on somethng a little more solid.

Now, that's MY point. Tap the small, undevelop market for space-based
R&D - and since it is likely to cost less aboard my MULE than other
available means, that market is likely to grow ever so slightly. Then
once "such science has been done" I'll call you and others like you
who've been waiting for the completion of that research and see if
perhaps you are more willing to do some R&D in space yourselves. :)

> or else a significant decline in launch costs that
> > reduces overhead expenses. The latter remains more likely than
the
> > former in the short term. . .
>
> Don't you find this statement disheartening? Even this expert
thinks
> it's more likely to lower launch costs that it is to develop a
> product unique to space.

No, because of what he says next:

> A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower
> > costs is clearly separating materials processing from manned
> flight
> > operations." (emphasis mine)

Here's the deal. The product of which he speaks is hung up, in part
at least, due to the high cost of producing ANYTHING in space right
now. Reduce cost of accessing the space environment and you make
producing ANYTHING in space more cost-effective. Right? Would you
agree? Now, most people start with launch costs. But is there
something in the rules that says you have to cut launch costs to save
money on space missions? Nope. So, the question becomes is there any
other way to reduce costs of space missions? Yes, by "clearly
separating materials processing from manned flight operations."
According to this expert, doing so can "drastically lower costs".

So now I ask you: Is there any positive collateral affect possible
from the drastic reduction of cost of doing research in space? Is
there any way that could lead to something significant - provide
incentive for developing the infrastructure to support further
operations in space, for example?

> Yes, I agree with you. Yes, I do see that a MULE could achieve this
> goal.

Now, in case someone is reading this and is not sure of what "goal"
he is referring to, let me repeat (I feel it is vaguely important):

"A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower costs is clearly separating
materials processing from nanned flight operations."

Ok, so now I got you agreeing on a third point - that by eliminating
the need for a manned presence you will likely reduce the cost of
doing research in space. This is significant. Remember, we all agree
that reducing costs will likely result in some growth in the market,
making my plan even more viable. Yes?

I also contend that if you distribute the overall cost of the MULE
across all participants (those accessing the MULEs infrastructural
backplane) you further reduce cost to the individual.

> I don't hold myself up to be a paragon of wisdom. I'm sure that
many
> innovators can point to experts who said their accomplishments
> couldn't be done. But why did NSF take a negative view, and on what
> basis do you disagree with them?

Well, that's a case I have to make at some time, but honestly I'd
have to go back and reread the report to which I was referring. As
best I recall, their problem with space-based R&D for the commercial
sector stems in large part from the fact that access to the
microgravity environment using current methodologies is expensive.
With a MULE it is less so. If the MULE cannot reduce cost
significantly, then I, too, will find the concept untenable.

> Straying a little from the topic of MULE driver infrastructure
> construction, I do want to bring up an issue that I've left
> unstated, but nevertheless is in the background of my thinking in
> all matters concerning orbital commerce. That issue has to do with
> the cost/gram of the most expensive products on Earth and how any
> orbitally manufactured product, or even mined or refined products,
> would reflect the cost of retrevial from orbit. Would the products
> have to be soft-landed? Would they splash into the ocean? Hard land
> into a desert? Parachute? Let's say you're using an economical
> Russian launch service and you're paying $1,000/lb. Look about and
> see how many products sell for more than a $1,000 per pound.

As far as orbital retrieval, quoting again from Roger
Handberg: "Automated payload retrieval from orbit remains a tricky
operation with failure a distinct possibility but the technology has
been used extensively and successfully over a long time period."

As far as your last two statements, the backplane would pay it's
launch cost by leasing space to module owners (remember, backplane +
modules = MULE). The launch costs related to the modules themselves
would have to be absorbed as part of the cost of doing research
(unlikely cost-effective) or absorbed by the MULE (more likely due to
distribution of cost).

Give me some time with this one. I don't think this is a reasonable
refutation, but let me do some research and see if I can combat it
more effectively. I have forwarded this to my editor for additional
input. I'll let you know what he thinks. . . .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr. Richard Crews, writes:

That's sort of a good way of looking at it, actually -- although most
of the "travel" cost into and out of space is going to be for the
weight of the packaging.

But there are LOTS of things that are worth more than $1,000 per
pound. A nice diamond is worth several hundred times that. Highly
refined crystals and certain pharmaceuticals (such as can only be
made in a micro-gravity environment) come to mind off hand -- they
must easily be worth more than a comparable weight of diamonds.

Consider the value of a diamond. One carat = 200 mg, so a pound =
2,268 carats. So a diamond that is worth only $1,000/carat is worth
$453,000 per pound.

And there are many esoteric substances that are worth far more than
diamonds.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After further consideration, here's my response:

Production in space will have to rely on economies of scale - likely
more so than terrestrial industries. The value of the product must
exceed the cost of production. Of course. Let's say a new thin-film
technique has resulted in a powerfull, new computer processor that
cannot be manufactured on Earth and for which there is a market.
Processors can easily be brought to market in bulk, right? It's
pretty rare that an earth-based manufacturing facility delivers their
product to the market one at a time. So a company pays for one launch
to get their module to orbit; their module rendezvous with the MULE
backplane; and within a year or two they have developed this thin-
film technique which they use to manufacture this new processor. Now
will the resale value of one processor return what it cost to produce
it (which includes launch costs)? No. Will two or three or five or
ten? No. Will thousands and thousands? Yes.

> The moral of this story, is that a perfect protein crystal MAY not
> be ESSENTIAL to a product, thus one grown on Earth may do a
> sufficient job.

Currently, there is no way to mitigate the effects of gravity on
crystal growth. Period. Now perhaps we will find some way in the
future to magically render earth-based labs free from the affects of
gravity, but I seriously doubt it. Furthermore, perfect protein
crystals ARE IN FACT essential to some drug research - may not be the
only essential factor involved, but is very, very significant.

> Please don't gloss over this point. Basing a business plan on the
> assumption that somebody else can't do what you did unless they do
> it your way is prone with danger.

Not when we're talking about the effects of gravity - effects well
documented. You shouldn't gloss over that point, either.

> As I've already stated, perhaps you and I are just having a
> dialogue, and there is no serious business plan in the background.
> That's one thing, and I'm game . . I find it interesting, and I'm
> willing to suspend disbelief in order to move forward, but a
> business plan can't ask investors to suspend disbelief.

I don't really want you to suspend disbelief - I want to convince you
of what I am saying. As far as the business plan, see earlier remarks
for clarification.

> > Of course it is a general statement. Your suggestion that one
must
> > predict the future to make the case for this is just a little
> goofy,
> > if you ask me. Asserting that growth in the PC market will have a
> > positive collateral effect on other industries before the PC
> market
> > was anything more than a niche market would have been met with
the
> > exact same cynicism you espouse in these exchanges. Nonetheless,
> the
> > growth in the PC market has had a considerable impact on other
> > industries - this impact was not all foreseen.
>
> True it wasn't foreseen, but the investment in, and development of,
> the PC industry wasn't predicated on its impact on many other
> industries. It rose on its own merits.

And as I suggested above, investment in and development of space-
based R&D won't be predicated on its impact on other industries
either. We are tapping a small and undeveloped market - there's more
risk involved than if the market was well developed, but it's still
doable.

> You're stating that a benefit of MULE is its impact on other
> industries. I just don't see how such a broad statement is
> supportable, especially when a specific product or technology or
> even consumer use isn't specified.

I see now why you and I are arguing so much. Let's separate the
business plan from this discussion right now and think about this as
just an intellectual exercise.

> Now that you put it this way. Yes, I'll agree that competitors may
> now have more incentive to MULE up :) Conversely, they would also
be
> more reticent if their competitor met with R&D failure.

How can we define R&D failure? If research doesn't lead to
development, is that failure? Not necessarily. It depends partly on
why the research did not lead to development of a marketable product.
If it's because the market is too undeveloped and the cost wouldn't
justify development, that's not really failure in my opinion - that
happens all the time right here in earth-based markets. At some
point, cost of developing the product will come down, likely making
cost-effective production possible. And I also would argue that there
is value even in research that does not lead directly to development.

> > I have no problem with what you just said. In fact, I agree. I
do,
> > however, contend that research on the MULE will be cheaper than
> space-
> > based R&D has been in the past. I also contend that by reducing
> the
> > cost you potentially increase the size of your market.
>
> Cheaper in what way? The marginal cost of adding one more module.
> The average cost of placing a module after the MULE development has
> been expensed. The cost incorporating amortization of all expenses.
> Compared to a shuttle R&D mission. Compared to a SpaceHab mission
> which may have expensed its development by the time you're ready to
> launch.

You have already agreed that an unmanned research lab
could "drastically reduce cost". The word "cheaper" is just my
vernacular for that.

> Can you use existing launch systems? Do you need to develop new
> launch systems? If so, who pays for the development?

No, no new launch system. I maintain that if the backplane and
modules that make up the MULE cannot be orbited via existing launch
systems (ELVs), then the concept is untenable.

> Yes, if you do indeed reduce the price, I'll agree in principle
that
> you can potentially increase the market size.

Boy, we're doing good today!

> As I've already stated, I think your MULE plan has merit as a stand-
> alone venture. Your case is easier to make on that front.

Which is the best way to approach the business plan for the MULE - as
a stand-alone venture.

> As for it being a driver in the creation of orbital infrastructure,
> I'm skeptical, and looking for you to provide the case for it. I
> don't know what you can write to make your case. You're the one who
> believes it, you must have reasons to believe it, so I guess I'm
> looking for those reasons, rather than hope, to convince me.

I can't predict the future - all we have is hope. But I certainly
don't think it is incredible to speculate that increasing the amount
of space-based R&D can have a profound impact on the space industry
as a whole.

> All I can say in my defense is that I've abandoned many of the
ideas
> I've had about space development over the years as I've learned
more
> about all the different topics that touch on space dev. In their
> place I've incorporated other people's ideas into my own when they
> made a better case or invalidated my opinions and facts.

I have had to do the same. I don't see anything out there that comes
even close to providing the incentive for a more sustained,
consistent industrial presence in space (which to me translates into
orbital infrastructure). The MULE concept seems to me to be the only
economically viable means of achieving this - and the odds of it
doing so clearly aren't inspiring anyone but me (though I have had
considerably more success convincing people face-to-face of the
MULE's potential). I agree that developing the infrastructure to
support SPS development would be MUCH preferable - but considerably
less viable at this time. In my opinion, SPS will only be viable once
there is an established infrastructure in space to support it's
development. Until then, SPS will remain just another great idea
whose time has not yet come.

> > Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting
> the
> > space environment it might encourage additional applications.
That
> > doesn't make sense to you?
>
> Yes it does. The conditionals you've added make it possible.
> Consider: A might lead to B, or to C, or even to D. Thus if you
> invalidate option B, you could still have other outcomes. That's
> different than saying A leads to B. A leads to B is a more powerful
> and convincing statement to investors but only if you don't
> invalidate it.
>
> Sorry if I'm being picky. Really I am. It's just that definitive
> statements make me look at their validity more closely than
> conditionals. Nothing personal, I assure you.

I'm not sure what all that means, so I'll just take the first
sentence and run! We're making great progress.

> > That's a little silly. Bricks have no significant application in
> > space. The MULE does.
>
> My point was that to help the launch industry, the actual payload
> doesn't matter, as long as you launch something.

I should clear this up. I don't believe launching MULE components in
space will reduce launch costs - it adds little volume to current
launch manifests. But once the market for space-based R&D begins to
grow (and you and I both agree now that it is possible
by "drastically reducing cost") and competition increases.
Incrementally, over time, increased competition and activity in space
will result in reducing launch costs. It won't happen over night -
and certainly not at the rate we would like.

> > Let me ask you this:
> >
> > Have you ever heard of a company having success in an undeveloped
> > market?
> > Have you ever known such success to lead to greater competition?
> > Have you ever known competition to drive down cost?
> > Have you ever heard of increased competition and lower cost
> > encouraging market growth?
>
> Yes to all four questions. But I think you're on quicksand to take
> these general principles and conclude that they MUST apply to the
> MULE concept. They shouldn't form the basis of support for an
> argument.

Ok, tell me how a market opens up. Doesn't it quite often happen
because somebody takes the risk of developing an undeveloped market?
Doesn't it happen because of increased competition? Doesn't it happen
because of lower costs?

I don't find this all that speculative. This is how new markets are
developed all the time.

> Many things are possible in this Universe of ours. Many fewer
things
> are likely. And even fewer things are common.

I will support any, and I mean any, idea or suggestion that increases
the likelihood of developing space. The sooner the better - I agree.
Show me the way. Given the current situation and the current
impediments to space development, the MULE is the only thing I can
come up with that stands any chance at all.

> Cost is relative. If you take the cost of SPS and divorce it from
> the needed infrastructure, then my position is that it would be
> funded in a New York minute. If you had all the industries that
make
> steel, PV cells, transmitters, robotics, fuel, life-support, etc
etc
> already in orbit, and you just had to buy the supplies from the
> orbital suppliers and didn't have to finance all that
infrastructure
> on the back of SPS, then even the many billions of dollars spent
per
> SPS wouldn't phase financing authorities because they'd have an
> asset earning them billions of dollars. Slam dunk.

Absolutely! I agree with you 100%. I would add the same can be said
of lunar and Martian bases, asteroid/comet mining, space colonies,
interstellar missions, etc. WE MUST HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE!

But in the absense of that infrastructure is any of that stuff even
possible? I don't think so.

> I
> > believe a motivated industry/market will create the
infrastructure
> as
> > that industry/market grows. You seem to be saying that we need a
> > space project to provide enough of a return to fund the
> > infrastructure in it's entirety.
>
> Yes, I holding the position that there is a critical mass of
> necessary infrastructure required, otherwise many potential orbital
> industries are stillborne. They may be able to make a go of it, but
> some infrastructure they need isn't there, they can't afford to
> build it, thus their project doesn't go forward. A year later, in
> some other boardroom somebody else needs the same infrastructure,
> they see that it isn't there, and they kill their project.

Precisely! Yes. It is on that principal I began looking at the MULE
as a possible driver. It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but it CAN
work. Regardless, it's economically viable right now. SPS is not (not
until the infrastructure is developed). Even if the MULE drives
nothing beyond the space-based R&D market itself, it's still
successful. And at some point, as more and more research gets
conducted, surely we'd find some product exclusive to the space
environment. Now there's a driver for the development of space - a
cost-effective, marketable product.

> > > Seriously, just because you can exploit space profitably has no
> > > bearing on whether others can.
> >
> > That is simply untrue. That's like saying just because
Christopher
> > Columbus crossed the ocean doesn't mean anyone else can.
>
> You've got this backwords. If I flip a coin and get heads, that
> doesn't increase your odds of getting tails.

I think we cleared this issue up. Remember, I am not speaking of a
relationship between two disparate industries. You're right - the
ability to manufacture crystals in space has no bearing on a sausage
factory. But several industries have already been identified as
potential benefactors of space-based R&D - it is those industries
that I am speaking of. If the pharmaceutical industry makes a
significant breakthrough as a result of space-based R&D, it is not
that incredible to suggest that other industries that have been
identified as potential benefactors of space-based R&D would stand up
and take notice. In other words, success in one might lead to another
deciding they, too, should invest in some space-based R&D.

> I think I could grasp your point better if there was some substance
> to actual products. Despite the drawbacks of SPS it provides a
> product that I can analyze. MULE is predicated on too many "what
> ifs."

Only it's function as a driver is predicated on "what ifs". You have
admitted that the idea has merit as a stand-alone space venture. And
if SPS could be done as a stand-alone venture (in other words, didn't
require extensive in-space infrastructure) and wasn't sooooo
expensive, I would agree with you. And the same goes for almost every
other idea out there. Originally, my approach involved mining
asteroids instead of performing space-based R&D (in search of the
elusive space product). But because mining asteroids is too expensive
at this stage and likely unfundable in the absense of orbital
infrastructure, I have abandoned it in favor of the MULE.

> Please don't take offense, but a house of cards exists under only
> the best conditions. One bump of the table, a gust of wind, a truck
> going by out side, and it crumbles. MULE can also exist and also
> produce many wonderful products and profits, but there aren't any
> products or processes that can be identified now that mandate the
> launching of MULE. NSF is downplaying the market, SpaceHab isn't so
> successful that it is drawing attention from potential competitors
> who want a piece of the action. So, if everything cuts your way
then
> MULE is all that you say it can be, but I'm not seeing anything
that
> increases the odds in your favor. Potential is difinitely there,
but
> can you translate potential into reality. That's what the VC
> industry looks for.

Yes, I agree. As a driver the MULE is on shaky ground (I admit it -
are you happy? :). But as a stand-alone project it's considerably
more solid - less a "house of cards" as you say. But there is no
other potential driver that works under the status quo. Not SPS, not
asteroid mining, nothing. At least not that I can think of.

> > But if you bring with you a set of solar arrays, power storage
> units,
> > comm equipment, etc AND these "subsystems" have the capacity to
> > support multiple factories, you have SOME infrastructure. No more
> > than is needed to get started, but some.
>
> How is that different than every comm satellite having its own
> infrastructure.

Because the "infrastructure" (subsystems) onboard a satellite are
scaled for that satellite alone. Satellites aren't plug'n'play -
though they should be. The MULE uses a standardized interface to
provide a common-use infrastructural backplane that is both scalable
and extensible (it has to be for the MULE to be tenable, in my
opinion).

> Again, great for a stand alone project, but I
> wouldn't categorize those attached components as orbital
> infrastructure.

I don't really think of the backplane as being "orbital
infrastructure". My contention is that successful space-based R&D
leads to increased activity which in turn may lead to a higher demand
for orbital infrastructure.

> How does some non-MULE player make use of your
> subsystems?

Through the standardized interface - in other words, just like all
modules access the backplane.

Jack

Link To Post

Post ID:17535
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17535
BoK Link:[[Post:17535]]

# 17536 byvictoriatangoman on March 21, 2003, 3:30 a.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

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

The only thing
> that bothered me was your use of what I felt were inapplicable
> analogies to refute my contentions. One example is the island in
the
> pacific and how industry there would have no effect on other,
> completely unrelated industries. I am sorry, but I do not find
that
> to be a viable analogy for many reasons. The island doesn't offer
any
> unique advantage from any other Earth-based location. The space
> environment, however, does. There's no disputing that, right?

Not when you qualify it like you just did, but you initially wrote

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

That's so broad that I just thought it was wishful thinking.

> Furthermore, I wasn't arguing that one industry can or would
> influence another disparate industry. I was arguing that there are
> several industries that have already been identified as
potentially
> benefitting from space-based R&D. The pharmaceutical and materials
> manufacturing industries are two. And while the markets for each
are
> very different and while a new drug has no direct correlation to
> advances in materials manufacturing, they do share one common
> feature - the potential to benefit from space-based R&D.

So do a whole bunch of other industrial sectors. Are you really
trying to say that these two industries aren't disparate only
because they have a linkage through Space R&D?

> You also tried to compare commercial ventures to NASA - this is
> another analogy I feel is unfair. It may prove persuasive to the
> unwashed masses but you and I both know that NASA spending does
not
> provide a fair basis for comparison to the commercial sector. Nor
> does using SpaceHab, in my opinion. SpaceHab and my MULE concept
are
> not the same thing. Both are designed to provide a platform for
space-
> based research, but it's a little like comparing a Boeing 747 to
an F-
> 16 - I mean both fly, right? Using your companies below, A, B and
C,
> NASA is A, SpaceHab is B, and the MULE is C. The quality of the
> research doesn't suffer to the extent Company C's product does,
but I
> think you get the idea - Company C (my MULE) can enable space-
based
> R&D cheaper than either A or B.

There's so much I don't understand about your above point.

1.) You point out that SpaceHab and MULE aren't the same thing in
particular, but only share general features, much like the 747 and
the F-16 share similar features. You're counting on me to understand
the differences between the two planes, and I do, but you make no
effort to detail the differences between SpaceHab and MULE.

2.) You assert that MULE can perform more cheaply than SpaceHab or
NASA, but don't even provide any basis for that conclusion.

> Now we not only have the huge cost of SPS development AND the cost
of
> the infrastructure to support SPS development, we also have an
> information/knowledge vacuum. We both agree that SPS is unlikely
in
> the absence of the infrastructure to support it, and in my opinion
it
> is equally as unlikely that the infrastructure will be developed
> absent of this "body of knowledge" related to the field of space
> sciences.

But we don't both agree that the "body of knowledge" concerning SPS
is lacking. I happen to share the opinion of O'Neill, who in the mid
70's, said that the technology for SPS was pretty much available.
Since then, there has been much research and analysis on the whole
SPS design, construction and operation criteria. Thus, the
infrastructure not being constructed in orbit has nothing to do with
the "body of knowledge."

> Hmmm . . . how can we bridge the gap . . . hmmm? Oooh, I know. How
> about a commercial unmanned platform for research in the space
> environment? I know, the knowledge vacuum that has existed in
every
> science discipline has tradiitonally been filled by government-
> sponsored research. But I contend that some of that knowledge
vacuum
> can still be filled by research conducted in the commercial sector
> aboard a MULE or similar platform AND that there is value in that
> research - value to the space industry, value to humanity. Is that
a
> huge stretch?

It's not if you don't contest the premises supporting your
conclusion. But if you shine some light on the premise that basic
research will be conducted in orbit by the commerical sector, then
you have to look for evidence to back it up. I look about and don't
see much orbital commerically funded basic research from ESA, NASA,
or SpaceHab. What commerical research there is subsidized by
governments, or is more applied in nature than basic.

So, I can't buy into this crucial premise until you can provide
something to sway the opinion of doubters such as me. Without this
premise, your conclusion can't be supported.

> I agree, but we are a long way from that and surely an unmanned
> research laboratory in space would help bridge that gap - not
> completely, of course, but would be helpful.

Sure it would be helpful, but so would a number of other ventures.

> I just don't see how, though. How do we go from where we are now
to
> SPS? By your own admission we need the infrastructure first? Is
the
> infrastructure going to be developed because of the FUTURE
potential
> of SPS? If so, why hasn't it already?

:) :)

Look at the potential of mag-lev transit, hybrid cars, floating
airports, desalination plants, cybernetic implants, human genetic
engineering, etc.

They all have future potential, but I guess because they haven't
been implemented yet, then that invalidates their potential.

Or one closer to your tastes; MULE has potential but it hasn't yet
been implemented, thus it probably doesn't have potential. You don't
buy this line of reasoning, do you?

> But that's a start - the door is cracked, it's up to us to push it
> open the rest of the way. It's a heavy door and is likely going to
> require a lot of effort to open. But it can be opened, surely. It
> appears to me most other doors, if not all, are locked tight and
are
> likely to remain so until governments and/or industries are
motivated
> to unlock them.

So let me get this straight. SPS and other ventures, all of which
are unfunded, are locked tight until they become funded, but MULE,
which also isn't funded, isn't locked because . . . ?

> The MULE itself doesn't contribute directly to those things, no -
in
> that we can both agree. What I do contend, however, is that by
> DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-BASED
> R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME incentive
to
> develop the infrastructure. I have never claimed that the MULE was
> anything more than a potential catalyst for doing "more stuff" in
> space.

Well then I've completely misunderstood your whole argument.

I sounded off in the "Robber Barons" post that the best thing that
could be done in orbit is to start funding infrastructure
construction for all to use.

You came into the discussion and proposed that MULE could achieve
that goal. I just couldn't see how you could make that claim. Then
we got sidetracked into the merits of R&D. I don't dispute that
orbital R&D has value, but I don't see it laying down infrastructure.

> Here's the deal. The product of which he speaks is hung up, in
part
> at least, due to the high cost of producing ANYTHING in space
right
> now.

Um, don't you mean the hypothetical product. Even the expert
couldn't point to a product that MUST be manufactured in space. Then
he identified the launch cost as another problem, and concluded that
launch costs would come down long before a product is identified and
he made no causal connection between the two.

Reduce cost of accessing the space environment and you make
> producing ANYTHING in space more cost-effective. Right? Would you
> agree? Now, most people start with launch costs. But is there
> something in the rules that says you have to cut launch costs to
save
> money on space missions? Nope. So, the question becomes is there
any
> other way to reduce costs of space missions? Yes, by "clearly
> separating materials processing from manned flight operations."
> According to this expert, doing so can "drastically lower costs".
>
> So now I ask you: Is there any positive collateral affect possible
> from the drastic reduction of cost of doing research in space? Is
> there any way that could lead to something significant - provide
> incentive for developing the infrastructure to support further
> operations in space, for example?

Have you heard the expression that a rising tide lifts all boats? If
you lower launch costs to make orbital R&D more economically
feasible you also make other orbital endeavors more viable, thus
orbital R&D doesn't have a unique claim to orbital activity.

A corallary is that by reducing human involvement in an orbital
activity, you may lower the cost of performing that activity. Once
again orbital R&D doesn't uniquely benefit from this process.

> Well, that's a case I have to make at some time, but honestly I'd
> have to go back and reread the report to which I was referring. As
> best I recall, their problem with space-based R&D for the
commercial
> sector stems in large part from the fact that access to the
> microgravity environment using current methodologies is expensive.
> With a MULE it is less so.

You keep stating this, but you have to build the whole MULE device
and launch it, and pay for it. Your customers can take their
experimental module and place it into SpaceHab and not have to pay
for SpaceHab construction, or they can place it within the ISS,
which is already a sunk cost, and it can be operated robotically.
The astronauts present on the ISS don't have to tend to it, thus
their presence on ISS isn't billable to the experiment cost.
Further, NASA may want to subsidize launch costs for modules in
order to justify ISS, or to mollify their partner nations by
enabling a lot of research modules which don't have to be tended by
the caretaker astronauts.

How can you uncategorically state that MULE is less expensive?

> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Dr. Richard Crews, writes:
>
> That's sort of a good way of looking at it, actually -- although
most
> of the "travel" cost into and out of space is going to be for the
> weight of the packaging.
>
> But there are LOTS of things that are worth more than $1,000 per
> pound. A nice diamond is worth several hundred times that.
Highly
> refined crystals and certain pharmaceuticals (such as can only be
> made in a micro-gravity environment) come to mind off hand -- they
> must easily be worth more than a comparable weight of diamonds.
>
> Consider the value of a diamond. One carat = 200 mg, so a pound =
> 2,268 carats. So a diamond that is worth only $1,000/carat is
worth
> $453,000 per pound.
>
> And there are many esoteric substances that are worth far more
than
> diamonds.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, diamond isn't a manufactured product, and it's price is the
result of market price manipulation. But the good doctor is correct,
there are products that cost more than $1,000 per pound. The spice
Saffron is another, about $7/gram. I'd appreciate some examples of
the "many esoteric substances" because I can't think of too many,
and the volumes consumed. With this data you should be able to see
whether such expensive items can generate the gross revenues that'll
be needed to fund the MULE endeavor.

>
> After further consideration, here's my response:
>
> Production in space will have to rely on economies of scale -
likely
> more so than terrestrial industries. The value of the product must
> exceed the cost of production. Of course. Let's say a new thin-
film
> technique has resulted in a powerfull, new computer processor that
> cannot be manufactured on Earth and for which there is a market.
> Processors can easily be brought to market in bulk, right? It's
> pretty rare that an earth-based manufacturing facility delivers
their
> product to the market one at a time. So a company pays for one
launch
> to get their module to orbit; their module rendezvous with the
MULE
> backplane; and within a year or two they have developed this thin-
> film technique which they use to manufacture this new processor.
Now
> will the resale value of one processor return what it cost to
produce
> it (which includes launch costs)? No. Will two or three or five or
> ten? No. Will thousands and thousands? Yes.

If you think that building a SPS is a daunting task, consider
constructing a chip fabrication plant in orbit without any
infrastructure.

Don't confuse the cost of the research done on MULE with the large-
scale production of goods, especially goods that have to have all of
their raw materials launched from Earth, also don't assume that the
mass of the raw materials will used in their entirety in the fab
process. I mean, that 1,000 kg of sand launched into orbit won't
turn into 1,000 kg of high-tech chips, will it?

> How can we define R&D failure? If research doesn't lead to
> development, is that failure? Not necessarily. It depends partly
on
> why the research did not lead to development of a marketable
product.
> If it's because the market is too undeveloped and the cost
wouldn't
> justify development, that's not really failure in my opinion -
that
> happens all the time right here in earth-based markets. At some
> point, cost of developing the product will come down, likely
making
> cost-effective production possible. And I also would argue that
there
> is value even in research that does not lead directly to
development.

Yes, I've taken science classes, I too learned that when writing up
my lab report, that if the experiment failed, I still learned
something. But now in the real world, I haven't heard of one
scientist who built a career on a number of failed experiments. Nor
do I see scientific journals publishing a lot of articles on failed
experiments. Nor do I see corporations excusing a lot of failed
research efforts from their director of research, nor the stock
price going up (not including competitors) on the announcement of
failed research.

TangoMan

Link To Post

Post ID:17536
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17536
BoK Link:[[Post:17536]]

# 17537 byjdr7181 on March 21, 2003, 8:52 p.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

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

Before I respond to your specific comments below, I want to address
something. Despite my frustrations, this discussion has, I believe,
helped me to learn how better to explain the MULE concept. Many of
your refutations of my contentions have forced me to clarify my own
thinking. As I review our recent exchanges, I see numerous examples
of this.

1. The idea of separating the more speculative aspects of the MULE
concept (such as the potential for positive, collateral impact or
providing incentive for the infrastructuralization of space) from the
business plan was not considered until you forced me to do so by
showing me how speculative such suggestions really are and how
inappropriate speculation is in business plans. In truth, I doubt
such speculation would have made it into the business plan anyway -
but I am glad I see that now as opposed to later. It may make future
discussions more fruitfull.

2. I have had to clarify my position on the potential collateral
impact of space-based R&D on other industries - that's far too
general a statement. Specifically, there are industries that have
been identified as potential benefactors of such research and it is
within this group of industries I now limit the speculation - not
perfect, but certainly more palatable.

I am sure there other examples as well. My point is that it is
through this discussion that I have been able to correct certain
assumptions and strengthen certain claims - though I doubt you see it
that way.

> The only thing
> > that bothered me was your use of what I felt were inapplicable
> > analogies to refute my contentions. One example is the island in
> the
> > pacific and how industry there would have no effect on other,
> > completely unrelated industries. I am sorry, but I do not find
> that
> > to be a viable analogy for many reasons. The island doesn't offer
> any
> > unique advantage from any other Earth-based location. The space
> > environment, however, does. There's no disputing that, right?
>
> Not when you qualify it like you just did, but you initially wrote
>
> "Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
> ventures once some profitability is demonstrated?"
>
> That's so broad that I just thought it was wishful thinking.

You need to read more of the response, Tango. After you originally
caught me in that broad statement, I qualified it in much the same
way as above and you still refuted it.

Here is that exchange in it's entirety:

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

TANGO: 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.

JACK: 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.

TANGO: 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? :)

JACK: Of course the space environment has no bearing on a sausage
factory. Don't be rediculous. But a significant advance in the
pharmaceutical industry as a DIRECT result of access to the space
environment may suggest to someone in the materials manufacturing
industry that the space environment is viable. Not because there is a
direct relationship between these two industries, but because we all
know the potential impact of space-based materials manufacturing
could have on that industry - that POTENTIAL has been researched for
years. There is already a whisper - success in one industry known to
have great potential in space may up the volume a bit.

You'll notice that my second response above is almost identical to
the point I was making in my last email about your use of
inappropriate analogies. And although you now admit that when the
statement is qualified (by pointing out the significant difference in
environments between a Pacific island and space) it is tenable -
initially you did not and continued to refute it.

Furthermore, when I discuss the use of the space environment and it's
impact on research with advocates such as are in this email group -
well versed in the characteristics of that environment - the
uniqueness of that environment and the inability to reproduce that
environment in terrestrial labs is assumed. I mean, you know about
the space environment, correct? Clearly, such an assumption wouldn't
be made to potential investors nor would I make it if I were
addressing an audience unfamiliar with space, but to you in this
forum - I thought it appropriate.

> > Furthermore, I wasn't arguing that one industry can or would
> > influence another disparate industry. I was arguing that there
are
> > several industries that have already been identified as
> potentially
> > benefitting from space-based R&D. The pharmaceutical and
materials
> > manufacturing industries are two. And while the markets for each
> are
> > very different and while a new drug has no direct correlation to
> > advances in materials manufacturing, they do share one common
> > feature - the potential to benefit from space-based R&D.
>
> So do a whole bunch of other industrial sectors. Are you really
> trying to say that these two industries aren't disparate only
> because they have a linkage through Space R&D?

First. My use of the word disparate is meant only to distinguish
between those industries that have been identified as potential
benefactors of space-based R&D and those industries that have not.
Obviously, most if not all of the industries identified as potential
benefactors are in fact disparate industries with no linkage beyond
that potential.

Second. I am glad we agree that "a whole bunch of other industrial
sectors" "share . . . the potential to benefit from space-based R&D."
That is at least something.

None of that, however, refutes my claim that because these industries
do share this potential it is likely that any success one of these
industries has in space-based R&D could lead to other industries in
this group pursuing research in space related to their industry -
thus, the positive, collateral effect I have been eluding to. If
there is a viable refutation of this claim beyond semantics, please
do tell.

> > You also tried to compare commercial ventures to NASA - this is
> > another analogy I feel is unfair. It may prove persuasive to the
> > unwashed masses but you and I both know that NASA spending does
> not
> > provide a fair basis for comparison to the commercial sector. Nor
> > does using SpaceHab, in my opinion. SpaceHab and my MULE concept
> are
> > not the same thing. Both are designed to provide a platform for
> space-
> > based research, but it's a little like comparing a Boeing 747 to
> an F-
> > 16 - I mean both fly, right? Using your companies below, A, B and
> C,
> > NASA is A, SpaceHab is B, and the MULE is C. The quality of the
> > research doesn't suffer to the extent Company C's product does,
> but I
> > think you get the idea - Company C (my MULE) can enable space-
> based
> > R&D cheaper than either A or B.
>
> There's so much I don't understand about your above point.
>
> 1.) You point out that SpaceHab and MULE aren't the same thing in
> particular, but only share general features, much like the 747 and
> the F-16 share similar features. You're counting on me to
understand
> the differences between the two planes, and I do, but you make no
> effort to detail the differences between SpaceHab and MULE.

That's because I already have numerous times and in numerous places.
Here's some of the text from our previous exchange on this subject:

JACK: 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?

TANGO: Yes, SpaceHab is such a company and their performace isn't
burning up the stockmarket.

JACK: 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?

In your followup, you did not address my specific response above.
Instead you just mentioned the same issue at a different point in the
exchange:

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

TANGO: 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.

JACK: Let's say 10 companies decided to develop and deploy a
commercial space station. All ten would have access, all ten would
SHARE the cost of developing, deploying and maintaing that space
station. Now, let's say you own one of those companies - Tango, Inc.
Now, what would cost more, Tango, Inc. to pay to have their own
individual space station or for them to share the cost with nine
other companies?

JACK: And let me launch a preemptive strike:

JACK: I am not suggesting that you reduce the cost to a tenth of what
it would cost an individual company.
You cannot say that this commercial space station would cost ten
times what it would cost an individual company.

Your follow-up email did not address this at all. At another point,
the exchange went like this:

TANGO: 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.

JACK: No, I don't believe they are either. But nor have they been
able to provide much of a contribution to this field because of the
ISS cutbacks (I also understand that the space shuttle Columbia was
the only shuttle fitted for SpaceHab's modules - they're going to
have a tougher time now).

Another significant difference between SpaceHab and my MULE concept I
have repeatedly spoke of is cost. I am reserving the exchange we had
about separating space research from the manned space program as a
method of "drastically" reducing cost of such research for the next
statement.

> 2.) You assert that MULE can perform more cheaply than SpaceHab or
> NASA, but don't even provide any basis for that conclusion.

Not only have I repeatedly provided a "basis for that conclusion" you
agreed with it. Here's that exchange:

JACK: [quoting Roger Handberg] "A more likely way to DRASTICALLY
lower costs is clearly separating materials processing from manned
flight operations."

TANGO: Yes, I agree with you. Yes, I do see that a MULE could achieve
this goal.

JACK: Ok, so now I got you agreeing on a third point - that by
eliminating the need for a manned presence you will likely reduce the
cost of doing research in space. This is significant. Remember, we
all agree that reducing costs will likely result in some growth in
the market, making my plan even more viable. Yes?

No indication from you in the follow-up email that you disagreed with
me - you simply didn't address it directly. By the way, this is also
a good refutation of your claim above that I have provided "no effort
to detail the differences between SpaceHab and MULE." SpaceHab's lab
racks require man-tending at a minimum and outright manned presence
in most cases.

> > Now we not only have the huge cost of SPS development AND the
cost
> of
> > the infrastructure to support SPS development, we also have an
> > information/knowledge vacuum. We both agree that SPS is unlikely
> in
> > the absence of the infrastructure to support it, and in my
opinion
> it
> > is equally as unlikely that the infrastructure will be developed
> > absent of this "body of knowledge" related to the field of space
> > sciences.
>
> But we don't both agree that the "body of knowledge" concerning SPS
> is lacking. I happen to share the opinion of O'Neill, who in the
mid
> 70's, said that the technology for SPS was pretty much available.
> Since then, there has been much research and analysis on the whole
> SPS design, construction and operation criteria. Thus, the
> infrastructure not being constructed in orbit has nothing to do
with
> the "body of knowledge."

Ahh, but the "body of knowledge" you are referring to now is not the
same "body of knowledge" you originally implied. Let me cite you:

TANGO: 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.

JACK: You do not need to have that scientific talent in orbit to
evaluate the merits and potential returns from space-based R&D. In
this day and age, with networks and rapid communication, computers
and robotics, in-orbit presence is superfluous. This army of
engineers and scientists who must consider the ramifications of
gravity on a daily basis can do so from Earth. They don't have to be
in space.

TANGO: Seeing the army of talent that is used in product R&D and even
in basic engineering of structures leads me to conclude that a series
of garage startups are not going to be pumping out revolutionary
products. I look about and see engineers relying on Physical Handbook
type references all the time. No such body of knowledge exists for
the environment of space and the practice of engineering in space.
Does it? I'd love to read it if it does.

Your contention that the body of knowledge concerning SPS is
not "lacking" collapses under the weight of your own words: "No such
body of knowledge exists for the . . . practice of engineering in
space." SPS is a considerable engineering project - and you just
admitted we lack the body of knowledge to practice such engineering.
I would also hold that your assertion that constructing the
infrastructure "has nothing to do with the 'body of knowledge'" is
inconsistent with your statement as well.

You further contend that what body of knowledge does exist for SPS
exceeds that of microgravity research (or more generally, space-based
R&D). I dispute that. NASA has a Microgravity Research Program, a
Microgravity Science Division, Zero Gravity Research Facility, and
The Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Product Development Office
(a commercial space center). NASA has no specific division, facility
or office dicated to SPS research that I can discern. The only thing
I could find was the Space Solar Power Technology Advanced Research
and Technology program.

In addition, NASA has developed seventeen Commercial Space Centers.
Only two centers, the Center for Space Power (CSP) and the Center for
Space Power and Advanced Electronics, are doing anything related to
SPS. By contrast, eight of the seventeen centers are related to
space-based R&D directly: The Center for Advanced Microgravity
Materials Processing (CAMMP), BioServe Space Technologies, The Center
for Commercial Applications of Combustion in Space, Center for
Materials Solidification, The Center for Macromolecular
Crystallography, The Consortium for Materials Development in Space,
The Microgravity Automation Technology Center and The Space Vacuum
Epitaxy Center. Of the remaining seven centers, an argument could
easily be made that they have stronger ties to microgravity research
than to SPS.

There's also the National Center for Microgravity Research - the
National Academy of Sciences has a committe as part of the Space
Studies Board called the Committee on Microgravity Research - there
is no such committee dedicated to SPS or power from space. In my
quick cursory search of microgravity research, I also turned up the
Center for Microgravity Research and Applications.

Your response above seems to imply that the field of SPS is better
defined than that of space-based R&D. There can be no comparison -
the body of work related to space-based R&D easily outweighs that
done in relation to SPS. And that's just in America. Factor in
research done by ESA, Japan, Russia . . . it is literally
overwhelming in comparison.

> > Hmmm . . . how can we bridge the gap . . . hmmm? Oooh, I know.
How
> > about a commercial unmanned platform for research in the space
> > environment? I know, the knowledge vacuum that has existed in
> every
> > science discipline has tradiitonally been filled by government-
> > sponsored research. But I contend that some of that knowledge
> vacuum
> > can still be filled by research conducted in the commercial
sector
> > aboard a MULE or similar platform AND that there is value in that
> > research - value to the space industry, value to humanity. Is
that
> a
> > huge stretch?
>
> It's not if you don't contest the premises supporting your
> conclusion. But if you shine some light on the premise that basic
> research will be conducted in orbit by the commerical sector, then
> you have to look for evidence to back it up. I look about and don't
> see much orbital commerically funded basic research from ESA, NASA,
> or SpaceHab. What commerical research there is subsidized by
> governments, or is more applied in nature than basic.

Please feel free to browse any of the sites of the commercial centers
mentioned above for overwhelming evidence of just that. One glance at
NASA's extensive and multiple sites related to space-based R&D and it
is undeniable. As far as specific examples of successful commercial
research (applied, basic or otherwise) . . . I have already listed
six examples three times and two of those examples I used in a fourth
email. But here they are again:

Example 1 -- BioServe Space Technologies is working with Amgen to
study the effects of OPG, a natural human protein being developed for
the treatment of osteoporosis. BioServe developed a model that
incorporates aging mice with spaceflight. A BioServe scientist
determined that certain strains of aging mice demonstrate a
consistent pattern of bone loss. However, the time period it takes
to observe this loss presents a challenge for preclinical trials due
to the expense of administering a test drug and the reaction of
antibody development in mice towards human-based therapies. Space
flight provides an opportunity to observe changes on a 1-2 month time
period that would normally take 6-12 months on the ground.
[www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe/biomedicine.html]

Example 2 -- BioServe Space Technologies has examined the effects of
space flight on antibiotic fermentation processes. They have
demonstrated increases in antiobiotic production up to 200% over
ground-based controls. A more efficient fermentation process -- even
by a small percentage -- could potentially save millions of dollars
in production costs. They have also noted that the development of
drug resistance in pathogens is often significantly retarded in
microgravity.
[http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe/biomedicine.html%5d

Example 3 -- The Center for Macromolecular Crystallography (CMC)
located at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has used the low-
gravity environment of space to grow protein crystals for use in drug
design. The CMC has attempted to crystallize hundreds of proteins in
space, each with a potential product. One product that is working
toward market readiness is a treatment for influenza. Neuraminidase
is a protein crucial to the flu's ability to infect the body. The
CMC was able to grow neuraminidase crystals in space, leading to
structurally purer crystals and thus more accurate crystallographic
analysis. The resulting structural data led to improvements in a
neuraminidase inhibitor that began clinical trials in 1998. Another
product resulting from improved X-ray diffraction analysis of
crystals grown in microgravity is an inhibitor to Factor D. Factor D
is a naturally occuring protein that causes problems for heart attack
and stroke victims, and for heart surgery patients.
[http://microgravity.nasa.gov/pegBiot.html%5d

Example 4 -- The Medical Informatics & Technology Applications (MITA)
at Yale University has used the space environment to develop improved
commercial applications of medical informatics and telemedicine, and
enhanced electromechanical interfaces connecting a health care team
with patients. [http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm%5d

Example 5 -- The Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and Robotics
(WCSAR) in partnership with other organizations established that
microgravity stimulates the rate of Agrobacterium tumefaciens-
mediated transformation over 10-fold in soybeans. This method could
be useful in obtaining transgenic plants from recalcitrant crops.
The WCSAR has used similar techniques to produce plant metabolites
used for environmental decontamination, synthesis of antibiotics and
edible vaccines, and the producction of biodegradable plastic.
[http://wcsar.engr.wisc.edu/activities.html%5d

Example 6 -- The Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center in Houston, Texas is
developing new techniques to use the ultra-vacuum of space for
processing ultra-pure, thin-film materials for improving electronics
and computers. In space they have used a vacuum environment that is
up to 10,000 times more pure than the best vacuum chambers on Earth.
[http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm%5d

How is this even refutable? Despite repeatedly posting these examples
to illustrate my point, you ignored them and brought up the same
argument just in a different place - never in response to my using
these examples to refute this claim. And this is just six examples,
Tango. There are hundreds, literally hundreds of examples. Don't take
my word for it - do the research yourself.

> So, I can't buy into this crucial premise until you can provide
> something to sway the opinion of doubters such as me. Without this
> premise, your conclusion can't be supported.

Now, according to the previous paragraph, this premise you mention
is "that basic research will be conducted in orbit by the commerical
sector," but you then qualify this research by adding, "or is more
applied in nature than basic." So if the premise is whether the
commercial sector is willing to do ANY research, applied or
otherwise, then I think those six examples should make my contention -
there are more examples, though. If you want specific examples of
basic science only - if only basic scientific research will convince
you - let me know.

> > I agree, but we are a long way from that and surely an unmanned
> > research laboratory in space would help bridge that gap - not
> > completely, of course, but would be helpful.
>
> Sure it would be helpful, but so would a number of other ventures.

But most of them require some new technology or law or policy or are
too costly. The MULE is doable given the current situation - it
requires nothing new - and is likely more affordable (BY YOUR OWN
ADMISSION) than any other example you can cite.

> :) :)
>
> Look at the potential of mag-lev transit, hybrid cars, floating
> airports, desalination plants, cybernetic implants, human genetic
> engineering, etc.
>
> They all have future potential, but I guess because they haven't
> been implemented yet, then that invalidates their potential.

No, but the fact that they have not been implemented does likely
invalidate any claim to cost-effectiveness made on their behalf.

> Or one closer to your tastes; MULE has potential but it hasn't yet
> been implemented, thus it probably doesn't have potential. You
don't
> buy this line of reasoning, do you?

No, for very good reason - a reason you can't cite in other examples.
The technologies behind the MULE concept have only recently matured.
Computers, robotics, communication - these technologies have now
ripened to the point where we can maintain an unmanned,
automated/telecontrolled laboratory in Earth-orbit for the purposes
of conducting space-related industrial/commercial applied research or
government/university-sponsored basic research. If the technology
hasn't ripened to this point, then the MULE concept is untenable
right now.

> > But that's a start - the door is cracked, it's up to us to push
it
> > open the rest of the way. It's a heavy door and is likely going
to
> > require a lot of effort to open. But it can be opened, surely. It
> > appears to me most other doors, if not all, are locked tight and
> are
> > likely to remain so until governments and/or industries are
> motivated
> > to unlock them.
>
> So let me get this straight. SPS and other ventures, all of which
> are unfunded, are locked tight until they become funded, but MULE,
> which also isn't funded, isn't locked because . . . ?

No. That's not even close to what I was saying. Let's go back and
look at that line of dialogue in it's entirety - a little context
should help:

TANGO: . . . all these scientists on Earth haven't yet been able to
identify a single product that must be manufactured in orbit. The
best they've been able to do is to identify avenues of research.

JACK: But that's a start - the door is cracked, it's up to us to push
it open the rest of the way. It's a heavy door and is likely going to
require a lot of effort to open. But it can be opened, surely. It
appears to me most other doors, if not all, are locked tight and are
likely to remain so until governments and/or industries are motivated
to unlock them.

Now my remark didn't come close to responding accurately to what you
said, I admit. Let me clear that up now.

Your assertion that "scientists . . . haven't been able to identify a
single product that must be manufactured in orbit" is completely
false. Aerogel? Zeolyte crystals? That's two. Now, neither of them
can be produced in space cost-effectively - but that's not what you
are arguing in this specific instance. Cost-effective production is
not the same as whether a product has even been identified.

When I said, ". . . that's a start - the door is cracked," I meant
that (by your own admission) the fact that these scientists HAVE been
able to "identify avenues of research" is at least a start. When I
suggested that the "door to SPS" was locked, it wasn't because
scientists haven't identified avenues of research related to SPS or
that SPS wasn't possible or even desirable - I was referring to the
fact that most other ideas, and this most certainly includes SPS, are
so costly and under developed that they are untenable AT THIS TIME.

> > The MULE itself doesn't contribute directly to those things, no -
> in
> > that we can both agree. What I do contend, however, is that by
> > DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-
BASED
> > R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME incentive
> to
> > develop the infrastructure. I have never claimed that the MULE
was
> > anything more than a potential catalyst for doing "more stuff" in
> > space.
>
> Well then I've completely misunderstood your whole argument.

I'm getting that impression. :) And I'll happily assume full
responsibility for not better explaining myself or the MULE
concept . . .

. . . after I point out the fact that I have said nothing new:

JACK: I'm saying success will increase demand, demand drives down
cost, reduced cost equals increased activity.

TANGO: I'd really like for you to more fully detail your thinking
here.

JACK: I have never suggested that the return from microgravity
research alone could fund the infrastructure. I am merely suggesting
a way we can nudge the market to do it themselves.

TANGO: 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.

JACK: No, of course not. I am saying that microgravity research into
materials manufacturing, for example, would likely demonstrate the
industrial and economic viability of the space environment, thus
encouraging additional applications.

Later that same email:

TANGO: . . . how does launching a payload to the MULE help lay down
infrastructure?

JACK: Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of
exploiting the space environment it might encourage additional
applications. That doesn't make sense to you?

Again, later that same email:

TANGO: 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.

JACK: I am saying, as I have already said, that by demonstrating the
economic viability of space-based research ([and ultimately] the
viability of production in microgravity) that it can lead to further
development. This increased development of space will require some
infrastructure. The more we develop space the more infrastructure we
need. Absent of economic viabililty, I don't see anyone creating
infrastructure just in the hopes that a market will spring forth. The
infrastructure should grow as the market dictates.

> I sounded off in the "Robber Barons" post that the best thing that
> could be done in orbit is to start funding infrastructure
> construction for all to use.

To whit, I responded:

JACK: 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.

In your reply to my response (from which the above quote was taken),
you said:

TANGO: 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.

> You came into the discussion and proposed that MULE could achieve
> that goal. I just couldn't see how you could make that claim. Then
> we got sidetracked into the merits of R&D. I don't dispute that
> orbital R&D has value, but I don't see it laying down
infrastructure.

I have maintained the same premise from the beginning: by
DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-BASED
R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME incentive to
develop the infrastructure. I have never claimed that the MULE was
anything more than a potential catalyst for doing "more stuff" in
space.

Now, the last time I said that (just a few minutes ago, in fact) you
said, "Well then I've completely misunderstood your whole argument."

Previously, however, you had a different response:

JACK: Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of
exploiting the space environment it might encourage additional
applications. That doesn't make sense to you?

TANGO: Yes it does.

Sorry, I thought we moved past this point - I thought we were in
agreement. Where's the misunderstanding? If you can explain the
confusion I will attempt to clarify.

> > Here's the deal. The product of which he speaks is hung up, in
> part
> > at least, due to the high cost of producing ANYTHING in space
> right
> > now.
>
> Um, don't you mean the hypothetical product. Even the expert
> couldn't point to a product that MUST be manufactured in space.

So! That hardly suggests there isn't one. He just didn't speculate as
to what it might be. There's nothing sinister there. The only thing I
can gather from your comments above is that you are once again
questioning whether there can be such a product at all. If that's the
case, again, you and I have been through this already:

JACK: Let's say a product was developed or invented whose cost-
effective production is exclusive to the space environment.

TANGO: 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.

JACK: 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?

TANGO: No, I 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.

JACK: So gravity never effects production quality? Of course it does,
that's a well-established fact. You are contending that while
discoveries will take place all will be reproducable on Earth? Surely
you see that is not going to be the case nor will it likely be the
case most of the time.

TANGO: No, I'm just questioning the assumption that a space-
manufactured product will not have a terrestrial substitute. SOME
WILL, SOME WON'T (emphasis mine). The product that must be
manufactured in orbit may be the first, or the hundreth, out of the
gate. I have no clue which.

JACK: I agree. Some will, some won't. But, as I mentioned to Al
Globus over at spacesettlers@... (I have been forwarding this
discussion to them in the hopes of sparking more discussion), using
space-based R&D to demonstrate methodologies for Earth-based labs
also has value. If you can't figure out how to do something without
doing it in space first, hey, let's go to space.

Later . . .

JACK: And in anticipation of your next question, I say that because
the impact of gravity on Earth-based processes IS that profound. It
is just THAT significant.

TANGO: Yes, gravity is an unescapable force on the surface of the
Earth. No argument from me. I too have faith that some processes may
be developed that require the absense of gravity in order to operate.

> Then
> he identified the launch cost as another problem, and concluded
that
> launch costs would come down long before a product is identified
and
> he made no causal connection between the two.

Go back and reread it again. He said:

"A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower costs is clearly separating
materials processing from manned flight operations."

A more likely way? More likely than what? More likely than lowering
launch costs, that's what. He's saying one way to make space-based
R&D affordable is to separate materials processing from manned flight
operations.

As far as the "causal connection between" lowering launch costs and
production in space, this, too, has been covered between us:

JACK: 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?

[you remarked specific to my contention that discovery or invention
of such a product could lower lauch costs]

TANGO: 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?

JACK: 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?

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

JACK: Of course I am. Who on Earth would argue for any business on
the presupposition of failure? Yes space ventures fail and I have not
made a single, solitary guarantee, have I? I have merely suggested an
incremental path for the systematic development of space founded on
the potential of microgravity research. Is it really all that
terrible and incredible? Really?

I can't find any further reference to this part of the discussion.
Apparently, you chose not to respond on this issue further.

> Reduce cost of accessing the space environment and you make
> > producing ANYTHING in space more cost-effective. Right? Would you
> > agree? Now, most people start with launch costs. But is there
> > something in the rules that says you have to cut launch costs to
> save
> > money on space missions? Nope. So, the question becomes is there
> any
> > other way to reduce costs of space missions? Yes, by "clearly
> > separating materials processing from manned flight operations."
> > According to this expert, doing so can "drastically lower costs".
> >
> > So now I ask you: Is there any positive collateral affect
possible
> > from the drastic reduction of cost of doing research in space? Is
> > there any way that could lead to something significant - provide
> > incentive for developing the infrastructure to support further
> > operations in space, for example?
>
> Have you heard the expression that a rising tide lifts all boats?
If
> you lower launch costs to make orbital R&D more economically
> feasible you also make other orbital endeavors more viable, thus
> orbital R&D doesn't have a unique claim to orbital activity.

Read it again. I am not talking about lowering launch costs. I'll
repeat:

JACK: Reduce cost of accessing the space environment and you make
producing ANYTHING in space more cost-effective. Right? Would you
agree? Now, most people start with launch costs. But is there
something in the rules that says you have to cut launch costs to save
money on space missions? Nope. So, the question becomes is there any
other way to reduce costs of space missions? Yes, by "clearly
separating materials processing from manned flight operations."
According to this expert, doing so can "drastically lower costs".

I am not talking about lowering launch costs there - I am talking
about lowering the cost of doing research in space by "clearly
separating materials processing from manned flight operations."
Launch costs would presumably stay the same. It is by removing the
costly humans from the equation that you can make space research
affordable DESPITE the high cost of launch services. I do maintain,
however, that by reducing the cost of space research, you can
ultimately reduce launch costs. Instead of repeating myself, just
reread this message - it's up there somewhere.

> A corallary is that by reducing human involvement in an orbital
> activity, you may lower the cost of performing that activity. Once
> again orbital R&D doesn't uniquely benefit from this process.

True. Name other acitivities that can be made affordable by reducing
human involvement that are also technically feasible right now and
don't require a policy shift or new legislation. The problem is that
lowering "the cost of performing that activity" is but one hurdle -
there are several you have to jump. And the MULE might be just that
graceful.

> > Well, that's a case I have to make at some time, but honestly I'd
> > have to go back and reread the report to which I was referring.
As
> > best I recall, their problem with space-based R&D for the
> commercial
> > sector stems in large part from the fact that access to the
> > microgravity environment using current methodologies is
expensive.
> > With a MULE it is less so.
>
> You keep stating this, but you have to build the whole MULE device
> and launch it, and pay for it.

I have maintained from the beginning that if relying on automation
and robotics and sharing the cost of the MULE DOESN'T REDUCE THE COST
SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH then I would agree that the idea is untenable.
Of course you have to pay for the MULE - I never suggested it would
be free, merely that it would be less costly than current
methodologies - you agreed, remember. If not, please reread the
section of this email regarding Roger Handberg's remarks and your
followup remarks.

> Your customers can take their
> experimental module and place it into SpaceHab and not have to pay
> for SpaceHab construction,

How do they do that? How does SpaceHab get away with not having to
pay for their construction? How does the construction costs
associated with SpaceHab's racks get payed? Their construction costs
get paid the same way everyone else covers such costs - amortization.
Am I missing something?

> or they can place it within the ISS,
> which is already a sunk cost, and it can be operated robotically.

All of the ISS's capabilties related to research in space are
predicated on a manned presence - at an absolute minimum they require
man-tending. If it was really that simple our international partners
wouldn't have been all that upset over NASA budget cuts that resulted
in the ISS supporting fewer astronauts. They know that those extra
astronauts are NECESSARY in order to perform research on the station.
It's a fact! Research aboard the ISS on SpaceHab science racks CANNOT
BE DONE ROBOTICALLY. I mean I suppose we could add a few robotic
astronauts or something, but I don't think that's what you mean.

> The astronauts present on the ISS don't have to tend to it, thus
> their presence on ISS isn't billable to the experiment cost.
> Further, NASA may want to subsidize launch costs for modules in
> order to justify ISS, or to mollify their partner nations by
> enabling a lot of research modules which don't have to be tended by
> the caretaker astronauts.
>
> How can you uncategorically state that MULE is less expensive?

Let's go back to my specific remarks from previous emails:

JACK: 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 [as a catalyst] and should be dropped from further
discussion [as such]. 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.

More recently, I said:

JACK: Remember, for the MULE to be tenable it . . . must provide a
cheaper means for the private and public sectors to conduct research
in the space envionnment.

JACK (continuing): I think we can all agree that by distributing the
cost of the entire MULE system through multiple module owners, you
likely reduce the cost to the individual module owner conducting the
research. Again, that is speculation - I am no businessman (how could
you tell?) - but it is a logical conclusion. Until I am able to
provide stronger evidence than just logic, however, this, too,
remains unchecked.

My point here, Tango, is that I never uncategorically stated that the
MULE was less expensive - quite to the contrary. But I fully admit
that everything I am saying is predicated on that assumption. Read
the emails. If it doesn't prove significantly less expensive, it
should be dropped from further discussion. That has been my position
all along. I suspect, however, that by eliminating the need for a
human presence AND by distributing costs to multiple players the MULE
will, in fact, be less expensive. I can't absolutely guarantee it
right now and have said as much many times already.

> If you think that building a SPS is a daunting task, consider
> constructing a chip fabrication plant in orbit without any
> infrastructure.

Ok, now we're going somewhere. Please respond to this question:

Specifically, what infrastructure is required in space for a chip fab
plant to function and mass produce chips in orbit for delivery to
terrestrial markets?

I have an extensible, scalable infrastructural backplane that
provides the basics: thermal radiation, power, comm, etc. Everything
else the plant needs would have to be provided by the plant owner -
just like on Earth. I mean, when a terrestrial chip fab plant asks
the power company for power or the telephone company for
communications capabilities, they don't get chip fab plant equipment
as a bonus for signing up, right? That stuff still has to be paid for
by the chip fab plant owner(s).

And, remember, if the MULE's capacity is not extendible, not
scalable, then I am all for scratching the whole idea (well, still
good as a one-off). The MULE (more specifically, the MULE backplane)
has to be able to adapt - otherwise, the likelihood of it ever being
more than a stand-alone space venture is slight.

> Don't confuse the cost of the research done on MULE with the large-
> scale production of goods, especially goods that have to have all
of
> their raw materials launched from Earth, also don't assume that the
> mass of the raw materials will used in their entirety in the fab
> process. I mean, that 1,000 kg of sand launched into orbit won't
> turn into 1,000 kg of high-tech chips, will it?

I see nothing as of yet to suggest that the MULE cannot adapt itself
to production. I made that point in our first round of talks,
remember? Something like this, though this may prove more confusing:

--> research --> production
--> unmanned --> manned

Tango, I will review the substance of our exchange and post an email
detailing specific areas we have not come to agreement on. I feel
like in this email I have been able to demonstrate what I mean when I
say I just keep repeating myself. If you don't agree with something I
say, point it out - let's discuss it. But sometimes, you just abandon
that line of discussion until something comes up again to make it
relevant and start all over. Let's right this discussion. By your own
admission the MULE has merit - I just haven't been able to make the
case for the MULE as a potential catalyst to infrastructure. Right?

Jack

Link To Post

Post ID:17537
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17537
BoK Link:[[Post:17537]]

# 17538 byvictoriatangoman on March 22, 2003, 2:05 a.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

Impressive response. It must have taken you a lot of work to rummage
through all of our past postings and craft this response. I hope it
didn't take too much of your time, and I must say, that the quality
of your writing voice is much different with this response. It must
be the ability to see the whole picture rather than responding point
by point as the two of us have been doing.

It was a pleasure to read.

> > 1.) You point out that SpaceHab and MULE aren't the same thing
in
> > particular, but only share general features, much like the 747
and
> > the F-16 share similar features. You're counting on me to
> understand
> > the differences between the two planes, and I do, but you make
no
> > effort to detail the differences between SpaceHab and MULE.
>
> That's because I already have numerous times and in numerous
places.
> Here's some of the text from our previous exchange on this subject:
>
> JACK: 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?
>
> TANGO: Yes, SpaceHab is such a company and their performace isn't
> burning up the stockmarket.
>
> JACK: 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?
>
> In your followup, you did not address my specific response above.
> Instead you just mentioned the same issue at a different point in
the
> exchange:

I didn't address this question because we both have to edit what we
respond to in order to avoid ever-longer posts, but now that I see
that you were looking for a response, I'm happy to comply.

Yes, they would have to pay SpaceHab and NASA.

>
> JACK: Again, the cost of doing research on the MULE is less for
the
> individual company because that cost is shared among many
companies.
>
> TANGO: 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.
>
> JACK: Let's say 10 companies decided to develop and deploy a
> commercial space station. All ten would have access, all ten would
> SHARE the cost of developing, deploying and maintaing that space
> station. Now, let's say you own one of those companies - Tango,
Inc.
> Now, what would cost more, Tango, Inc. to pay to have their own
> individual space station or for them to share the cost with nine
> other companies?

There is a latin term used extensively in economic theory, ceterus
parabus, all things being equal. While a useful concept in trying to
grasp economic principles, it isn't too useful in real life economic
analysis, due diligence, or even policy work, because there are
numerous extenuating circumstances. In fact I can't personally
recall even one instance where I could compare competing schemes
where everything was equal.

So, considering this preamble, when you write that categorically
your MULE can perform a service more efficiently, I believe that
you're ignoring real-life constraints and competitor strengths, and
stressing the academic theory or the wishful thinking of a perfect
scenario inherent with a pet project.

One point for you to consider; if MULE, SpaceHab and ISS were
starting as blueprint ideas and competing equally then your
assumptions about cost allocation would hold true. But as part of
your due diligence you need to investigate your competition, and
with respect to SpaceHab, perhaps they've already amortized their
pod. Now that you enter the market, they may not have to charge for
it any longer. Now you've got an expense that they don't have to
cover. As for the man rating of your competition, I don't understand
why a MULE customer would have to design a module that performs the
research robotically and just receives power, heat dissipation, and
communication from the backpane, couldn't take that same design
expertise and design the same module, with its integrated robotics,
place it into ISS and just receive power, heat dissipation, and
communication from the ISS?

The question for the potential pod renter, is why go with MULE, Inc.
when SpaceHab may do it for less in order to starve your business,
and NASA may love to add a robotic R&D module as an additional
component to the ISS thus buying another constituency to support the
ISS, so they too may give you a cut rate?

> Ahh, but the "body of knowledge" you are referring to now is not
the
> same "body of knowledge" you originally implied. Let me cite you:
>
> TANGO: 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.
>
> JACK: You do not need to have that scientific talent in orbit to
> evaluate the merits and potential returns from space-based R&D. In
> this day and age, with networks and rapid communication, computers
> and robotics, in-orbit presence is superfluous. This army of
> engineers and scientists who must consider the ramifications of
> gravity on a daily basis can do so from Earth. They don't have to
be
> in space.
>
> TANGO: Seeing the army of talent that is used in product R&D and
even
> in basic engineering of structures leads me to conclude that a
series
> of garage startups are not going to be pumping out revolutionary
> products. I look about and see engineers relying on Physical
Handbook
> type references all the time. No such body of knowledge exists for
> the environment of space and the practice of engineering in space.
> Does it? I'd love to read it if it does.
>
> Your contention that the body of knowledge concerning SPS is
> not "lacking" collapses under the weight of your own words: "No
such
> body of knowledge exists for the . . . practice of engineering in
> space." SPS is a considerable engineering project - and you just
> admitted we lack the body of knowledge to practice such
engineering.
> I would also hold that your assertion that constructing the
> infrastructure "has nothing to do with the 'body of knowledge'" is
> inconsistent with your statement as well.

No, No, No . . . you're taking my concerns about a body of knowledge
with respect to innovation and creation of new science, new
engineering prinicples, and new product development in a unique
environment (SPACE) and applying it to a SPS structure that is not
subject to centripetal forces and use existing techonology, PV cells
or sterling engines, klystron tubes, and can be constructed with
1970s technology and engineering knowledge.

For a concise primer on SPS see:

http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm

For information on Japan's plan to launch a SPS testbed system, see:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/nasda_solar_sats_0
11029.html

Just a quick look at the NASA Glenn site, reveals:

http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/facilities/
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/concentrators.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/stirling.html

> You further contend that what body of knowledge does exist for SPS
> exceeds that of microgravity research (or more generally, space-
based
> R&D). I dispute that. NASA has a Microgravity Research Program, a
> Microgravity Science Division, Zero Gravity Research Facility, and
> The Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Product Development
Office
> (a commercial space center). NASA has no specific division,
facility
> or office dicated to SPS research that I can discern. The only
thing
> I could find was the Space Solar Power Technology Advanced
Research
> and Technology program.

I'll withdraw my overly broad statement about microgravity research,
because you are correct that there is indeed a lot of research
activity surrounding microgravity, and because almost every activity
in orbit can be classified as a subset of microgravity activity.

What I meant to write, and if you'll look at the context of my
criticism, you see that it would have been more appropriate, is the
body of knowledge concerning commerical research and product
development in orbit is easily surpassed by that of SPS. And that
has direct relevence to MULE, because as you pointed out all of
those NASA and other government centers are dealing with basic
science and it's unlikely that you'll entice a NASA Center to rent a
MULE slot when they have their own infrastructure already in place.
Nevertheless, I don't believe that this comparison adds anything to
our debate. It's like a my dad can beat up your dad argument.

One last point: SPS is a specific application, with very limited and
defined technical requirements and microgravity commerical R&D is
all encompassing, so the quantity of research that SPS has thus far
amassed will one day be surpassed by the multitude of distinct
research avenues pursued under the rubric of commercial R&D.

If you're really interested in SPS research, try to drag Arthur
Smith, Mike Combs, Charles Radley (where are you?) and some others
who frequent this list, into the discusssion. They have a wealth of
information at their disposal, and have provided interesting reading
for me.

> > Look at the potential of mag-lev transit, hybrid cars, floating
> > airports, desalination plants, cybernetic implants, human
genetic
> > engineering, etc.
> >
> > They all have future potential, but I guess because they haven't
> > been implemented yet, then that invalidates their potential.
>
> No, but the fact that they have not been implemented does likely
> invalidate any claim to cost-effectiveness made on their behalf.
>
> > Or one closer to your tastes; MULE has potential but it hasn't
yet
> > been implemented, thus it probably doesn't have potential. You
> don't
> > buy this line of reasoning, do you?
>
> No, for very good reason - a reason you can't cite in other
examples.
> The technologies behind the MULE concept have only recently
matured.
> Computers, robotics, communication - these technologies have now
> ripened to the point where we can maintain an unmanned,
> automated/telecontrolled laboratory in Earth-orbit for the
purposes
> of conducting space-related industrial/commercial applied research
or
> government/university-sponsored basic research. If the technology
> hasn't ripened to this point, then the MULE concept is untenable
> right now.

So, welcome to the club. Your MULE concept now has mature
technology, just like SPS, satellite refueling, and a number of
other concepts and all of these concepts haven't yet been
implemented. On a further note, I'm glad that you've rejected the
logic of the statement from which this paragraph derived.

> JACK: No, of course not. I am saying that microgravity research
into
> materials manufacturing, for example, would likely demonstrate the
> industrial and economic viability of the space environment, thus
> encouraging additional applications.
>
> Later that same email:
>
> TANGO: . . . how does launching a payload to the MULE help lay
down
> infrastructure?
>
> JACK: Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of
> exploiting the space environment it might encourage additional
> applications. That doesn't make sense to you?
>

> I have maintained the same premise from the beginning: by
> DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-BASED
> R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME incentive
to
> develop the infrastructure. I have never claimed that the MULE was
> anything more than a potential catalyst for doing "more stuff" in
> space.
>
> Now, the last time I said that (just a few minutes ago, in fact)
you
> said, "Well then I've completely misunderstood your whole
argument."
>
> Previously, however, you had a different response:
>
> JACK: Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of
> exploiting the space environment it might encourage additional
> applications. That doesn't make sense to you?
>
> TANGO: Yes it does.
>
> Sorry, I thought we moved past this point - I thought we were in
> agreement. Where's the misunderstanding? If you can explain the
> confusion I will attempt to clarify.
>

I'll try to explain the splitting hair point of difference.

I can agree with your statement below because it is sufficiently
general in allowing that one action MIGHT lead to another.
Possibilities are open. This statement can apply to MULE as well as
to other schemes and I think it's perfectly valid.

"If it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting the
space environment it might encourage additional applications."

I have more difficulty in accepting the statement below because you
posit a defined consequence and provide that there is indeed SOME
incentive created. I can invalidate your statement by allowing for
the successful operation of MULE, yet it doesn't produce any
commerically meaningful results, thus it doesn't encourage a
blossoming of orbital research & development. MULE operates
successfully by finding tenants so as to earn a profit and it
operates flawlessly, thus proving its basic viability (thus meeting
your goals) but it doesn't cause the results you specify.

"By DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-
BASED R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME
incentive to develop the infrastructure . . "

In the same light as the above statements, consider our dialogue
below. I'm agreeing that MULE has merit, but so do other schemes.
I'm just not sold that MULE is a unique venture or a driver of
future infrastructure development.

JACK: I agree, but we are a long way from that and surely an
unmanned research laboratory in space would help bridge that gap -
not completely, of course, but would be helpful.

TANGO: Sure it would be helpful, but so would a number of other
ventures.

> My point here, Tango, is that I never uncategorically stated that
the
> MULE was less expensive - quite to the contrary.

But you did, and I don't want to search through all of our postings,
but even in your last posting, to quote:

"Well, that's a case I have to make at some time, but honestly I'd
have to go back and reread the report to which I was referring. As
best I recall, their problem with space-based R&D for the
commercial sector stems in large part from the fact that access to
the microgravity environment using current methodologies is
expensive. With a MULE it is less so."

That's not conditional, it is in fact, quite uncategorical.

> JACK: 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?

I'm led to conclude that you believe that MULE is the cheaper, more
effective way that you refer to in the above quote.

> > If you think that building a SPS is a daunting task, consider
> > constructing a chip fabrication plant in orbit without any
> > infrastructure.
>
> Ok, now we're going somewhere. Please respond to this question:
>
> Specifically, what infrastructure is required in space for a chip
fab
> plant to function and mass produce chips in orbit for delivery to
> terrestrial markets?
>
> I have an extensible, scalable infrastructural backplane that
> provides the basics: thermal radiation, power, comm, etc.
Everything
> else the plant needs would have to be provided by the plant owner -
> just like on Earth. I mean, when a terrestrial chip fab plant asks
> the power company for power or the telephone company for
> communications capabilities, they don't get chip fab plant
equipment
> as a bonus for signing up, right? That stuff still has to be paid
for
> by the chip fab plant owner(s).

I'd love to answer your question.

I'll start at the beginning of the process as I foresee it.

You'll need some sort of docking bay into which the sand, or other
raw materials will be delivered.

While the sand is being delivered to the crystal growth section,
your docking bay will have to refit the pod to carry back the
finished product because they'll need extensive protection against
the forces of re-entry, and further, the pod must be cleaned of sand
to the standards of a clean room because grains of sand floating
around microprocessers will probably scratch a number of them. Where
do the trays and other refitting components come from? Are they
launched integrated but kept clean? Are they launched seperately?

I'll assume that a primary unique feature of the chip is the
crystalline structure of the substrate that can only be grown in
zero-g and that you won't just be making a melt, with a resulting
glassy product. This means that you can't just melt your sand, or
other raw materials, and create your boule by cooling the sand.

Thus, you need a crytal growth facility. This process needs a medium
in which the atoms will form into a crystal. You have the unique
advantage of containerless processing and thus avoid contamination
issues, but you still need a flux into which you'll have to create a
thermal gradient to facilitate growth.

Another assumption is that you'll pull the crystal, rather than have
it develop free form. This will allow you to control the form of the
resulting boule and thus ease the task of boule manipulation.

It'll be interesting how you would maintain the demarckation between
the flux and the boule absent gravity. But I'm sure that the R&D
process has solved this problem.

Next, you would take the boule and fabricate, or grind, it into a
uniform shape, to facilitate further automation. So, you'll have a
lot of crystal dust that won't fall to the floor. Thus you'll need a
vacuum intermingled around the grinding equipment, and air filters
to catch the crystal dust. Then you'll need to change the filters
and get rid of the dust.

Next, the boule goes through a bath to remove dust. Now the bath
medium must be cleaned and filtered.

Now the boule goes to the cutting facility. Here diamond saws would
cut uniform wafers. Again you have a dust issue and you have to
monitor the state of the diamond cutting surface, the motors driving
the saws, and the control equipment. I'm not sure how you'll handle
mechanical breakdowns in cutting equipment?

Next, using suction, each wafer will be picked up and stacked, but
you can't rely on gravity to keep the wafers in place, so there is
some other mechanism.

Once you have sufficient wafers to make a batch, then you'll send
them for a polishing in order to remove the imperfection of the
cutting process. Then a more thorough cleaning, this one involving
high-purity deionized water and various low-particulate chemicals.
Then the wafers are moved to a high temperature furnace and exposed
to approximately 1000 C and to ultra-pure oxygen in the oxidation
furnace. Under carefully controlled conditions a silicon dioxide
insulator film of uniform thickness will form on the surface of the
wafer.

Now I'm sure that an orbital chip plant will have a process
different than a silicon chip fab, so you'll have to pick and choose
what features you'll likely encounter. For the above, you'll also
need supplies of water, chemicals, and oxygen supplied, and the
waste captured, and either recycled or disposed of. If you chose to
recycle, the process must be so thorough so as to produce a product
of the same purity. Launch new raw materials or invest heavily in
recycling? Your choice.

Next your wafers move to the photolithography module. Here they will
be masked. On Earth, spin coating is used to apply a layer of light
sensitive film. Absent gravity, how will you get a uniform thickness
of the film applied? Then a microaligner aligns the wafer to a glass
mask through which an intense ultraviolet light is projected through
the mask.

Now the wafer moves to a process where the exposed film is
chemically washed away. Again, purity of chemicals is essential, and
again you have the issue of supply or recycle.

Next the wafer is baked so as to harden the remaining film.

Next it goes to another section and is exposed to a plasma discharge
to etch away the exposed surface of the wafer.

Next the wafer goes back to the bath section, and the baked on film
is removed.

Next it moves through quality control to inspect for defects that
may have occured in the process thus far.

With silicon wafers, atoms with one less or one more atom (boron and
phosphorus, respectively) are introduced in a chamber to the etched
areas so as to alter their electrical conductivity.

Now repeat the oxidizing, masking, etching and doping steps until
you've built up the devices called for in the chip architecture.

Now the backend must be fabricated. Using metal deposition, usually
5-7 layers, alternated with insulators. Again, new chambers, new
supplies, cleaning the deposition chamber between uses, cleaning
supplies, etc.

Next to the passivation section where the final insulating layer is
applied to protect the circuit from contamination.

Next, onto a new etching process where openings are etched to allow
for the top metal layer to be accessed by probes and wire
connections.

Now onto the QA section to test for electrical functionality.
Failure here means rejection, and waste.

Next, the wafer is sent to be sawed into individual chips.

Next to another QA section where the functionality is again tested
and where each chip is checked under a high power microscope to
check for defects. I guess you could do this through teleoperation
as long as you've provided for incredible bandwidth from the MULE to
your earth station.

Once passing inspection, the chips are assembled into a package that
provides contact leads for the chip. A wire bonding machine lays
down wires thinner than human hairs to the leads of the package.

Next a final test of the finished chip.

Lastly, packaging for orbital shipment. You've just completed a 30
plus day process (on Earth.)

(Did you notice how the verbiage got progressivley less in each
subsequent step :)

You'll be in luck if the only unique feature of this new chip is the
wafer. That way you can grow the thing in orbit and return it to
earth for further processing.

More troubling will be if the unique orbital features are at the two
ends of the fab process. Of course, cost minimization will be
analyzed, but you may have to have many Earth-capable process done
in orbit because you can't remove, or don't want to, the wafer in
mid process.

I think a chip fab in orbit is a GARGANTUAN undertaking if it
involves more than just the crystal growth. Many launches required
to deliver mundane materials like sand, bleach, oxygen, water,
filters, etc. Lot's of waste. Need for packaging material, etc.

Let's say your MULE is a billion dollar facility and each module
takes up 50 cubic meters. I can easily imagine, that a billion
dollar Earth-based chip fab would cost 20-50 billion dollars and
with all of those distinct sections in the fab process, the volume
of this plant would be much, much larger than the entire MULE.

I think you're overstating the ability of MULE to expand to
accomodate to be all things to all people. There is a concept called
optimization. For instance, the chip Fab would have internal
plumbing and heat dispersal equipment optimized for its process. In
fact, it may have an exothermic process supporting an endothermic
process, thus no need to dump the waste heat. No need to pipe it
along the backplane of the MULE to the radiators, when you can pipe
it out through the shortest route possible (if there's no backplane,
then you can have radiators right where the heat is created.)

The power supply, heat radiation, communications would be such a
small part of the total cost of a chip fab, that I'm not sure that
MULE savings, if they could be realized, would be incentive enough
to bring about a mating of the Fab and the MULE.

Let's right this discussion. By your own
> admission the MULE has merit - I just haven't been able to make
the
> case for the MULE as a potential catalyst to infrastructure.
Right?
>
> Jack

That's right. As a stand-alone venture it rises or falls on its
merits, but I for the life of me, can't see how it provides a basis
for orbital infrastructure.

Nice work on this post,

TangoMan

Link To Post

Post ID:17538
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17538
BoK Link:[[Post:17538]]

# 17539 byjdr7181 on March 24, 2003, 7:41 p.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

Sorry for the delay in responding. Been busy helping a friend strip
and paint a truck - all day for two days. I didn't want to start on a
response until I had enough time to really focus on it.

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
>
> Impressive response. It must have taken you a lot of work to
rummage
> through all of our past postings and craft this response.

I'm glad it came across well. It was a lot of work and rather time
consuming, but I thought it important to bring the debate back around
to ensure clarification of certain points and refocus the discussion
on the lingering issues not fully developed.

> I hope it
> didn't take too much of your time, and I must say, that the quality
> of your writing voice is much different with this response.

Well, there wasn't a lot of new information or dialogue in that
response so I will take that to mean that in this review of some of
our exchanges my writing voice was more clearly discerned. That's a
good thing - it may be difficult to identify an effective writing
voice when responding "point by point".

> It must
> be the ability to see the whole picture rather than responding
point
> by point as the two of us have been doing.
>
> It was a pleasure to read.

Glad to hear it. Steady progress is always good. Now let's see if I
can maintain this high standard.

> > > 1.) You point out that SpaceHab and MULE aren't the same thing
> in
> > > particular, but only share general features, much like the 747
> and
> > > the F-16 share similar features. You're counting on me to
> > understand
> > > the differences between the two planes, and I do, but you make
> no
> > > effort to detail the differences between SpaceHab and MULE.

> > In your followup, you did not address my specific response above.
> > Instead you just mentioned the same issue at a different point in
> the
> > exchange:
>
> I didn't address this question because we both have to edit what we
> respond to in order to avoid ever-longer posts, but now that I see
> that you were looking for a response, I'm happy to comply.
>
> Yes, they would have to pay SpaceHab and NASA.

And therein lies a HUGE difference between SpaceHab and the MULE and
why, specifically, I believe the MULE would be less expensive than
SpaceHab. If SpaceHab was providing the infrastructure to support
their racks (as opposed to riding the ISS "backplane") then the MULE
would have more significant competition, in my opinion.

I believe for the sake of these debates we should conclude that the
MULE would be the least expensive option available for space-based
basic and applied research and development. And I believe
this "assumption" is defendable. I just don't think we should spend
the time arguing it now. Let's move on to the bigger picture with
that assumption tucked neatly away. Obviously, it's cost-
effectiveness has to be more clearly demonstrated than I have done so
here.

> > JACK: Again, the cost of doing research on the MULE is less for
> the
> > individual company because that cost is shared among many
> companies.
> >
> > TANGO: 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.
> >
> > JACK: Let's say 10 companies decided to develop and deploy a
> > commercial space station. All ten would have access, all ten
would
> > SHARE the cost of developing, deploying and maintaing that space
> > station. Now, let's say you own one of those companies - Tango,
> Inc.
> > Now, what would cost more, Tango, Inc. to pay to have their own
> > individual space station or for them to share the cost with nine
> > other companies?
>
> So, considering this preamble, when you write that categorically
> your MULE can perform a service more efficiently, I believe that
> you're ignoring real-life constraints and competitor strengths, and
> stressing the academic theory or the wishful thinking of a perfect
> scenario inherent with a pet project.

If the MULE cannot perform space-based R&D more efficiently than
existing methodologies, if it is not cheaper than other
methodologies, then I would be the first in line advocating dropping
the concept from further consideration.

Let me expand on this. For the sake of these discussion, we should
assume the MULE to be cheaper and more efficient. First off, I am not
at a point where I can say definitively one way or the other.
Secondly, I believe the assumption to be logical based on the limited
facts at hand. Thirdly, if it can be aptly demonstrated that the MULE
does not significantly reduce cost and make doing such research more
efficient then the MULE should be dropped from serious consideration.
I'm not ignoring anything, Tango. I am just not there yet. I am
confident, however, that this assumption (assumed only for this
discussion) will play out in my favor in the end.

> One point for you to consider; if MULE, SpaceHab and ISS were
> starting as blueprint ideas and competing equally then your
> assumptions about cost allocation would hold true. But as part of
> your due diligence you need to investigate your competition, and
> with respect to SpaceHab, perhaps they've already amortized their
> pod. Now that you enter the market, they may not have to charge for
> it any longer. Now you've got an expense that they don't have to
> cover. As for the man rating of your competition, I don't
understand
> why a MULE customer would have to design a module that performs the
> research robotically and just receives power, heat dissipation, and
> communication from the backpane, couldn't take that same design
> expertise and design the same module, with its integrated robotics,
> place it into ISS and just receive power, heat dissipation, and
> communication from the ISS?

That's a little like saying to FedEX or UPS during their
startup, "How do you know the US Post Office won't add expedited
delivery service in an effort to prevent you from taking business
away from them?" I mean it's a valid point and all, but there are a
thousand little issues like that, all of which have to be addressed
in some way. But we're just having a little debate regarding the more
general issues the MULE addresses - give me more time to address
specifics.

This particular issue, however, does raise an important point - it
may be wise to elicit an official response from NASA before
finalizing a business plan to show VCs. If their response is
assuring, great. If not, we may have to reconsider the MULE project
entirely. Is that satisfactory? I know it doesn't directly refute
your concern, but it does set it aside for the moment.

> The question for the potential pod renter, is why go with MULE,
Inc.
> when SpaceHab may do it for less in order to starve your business,
> and NASA may love to add a robotic R&D module as an additional
> component to the ISS thus buying another constituency to support
the
> ISS, so they too may give you a cut rate?

I'll let my two para answer above hold for this as well. I understand
what you are saying, but I think it's a little early in the process
to expect me to answer this definitively.

> > Your contention that the body of knowledge concerning SPS is
> > not "lacking" collapses under the weight of your own words: "No
> such
> > body of knowledge exists for the . . . practice of engineering in
> > space." SPS is a considerable engineering project - and you just
> > admitted we lack the body of knowledge to practice such
> engineering.
> > I would also hold that your assertion that constructing the
> > infrastructure "has nothing to do with the 'body of knowledge'"
is
> > inconsistent with your statement as well.
>
> No, No, No . . . you're taking my concerns about a body of
knowledge
> with respect to innovation and creation of new science, new
> engineering prinicples, and new product development in a unique
> environment (SPACE) and applying it to a SPS structure that is not
> subject to centripetal forces and use existing techonology, PV
cells
> or sterling engines, klystron tubes, and can be constructed with
> 1970s technology and engineering knowledge.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the SPS is "not subject
to centripetal forces" - this seems to imply the MULE is? Explain.

Additionally, the MULE relies solely on existing technologies - this
is another one of those areas I have addressed. If the MULE is not
doable given currently available technology, it should be dropped
from further consideration.

And I don't understand how this lack of knowledge regarding
engineering in space does not apply to a structure the size of SPS.
Yes, the technology is there but it has never been integrated into a
space structure before, nor is there a comparable Earth-based SPS-
like application currently being utilized that I know of (wireless
communication doesn't use microwave). There are, on the other hand,
automated labs and telerobots currently in use in several different
industries right now on Earth - and there is synergy between these
two that has already lead to some application-specific integration).
The only challenge faced regarding the MULE is adapting these
technologies to the space environment (ok, that's a bit of an
oversimplification, but you get the idea).

> For a concise primer on SPS see:
>
> http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm

I have the Permanent book and read over the SPS section this last
weekend. I am familiar with SPS.

> For information on Japan's plan to launch a SPS testbed system, see:
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/nasda_solar_sats_0
> 11029.html
>
> Just a quick look at the NASA Glenn site, reveals:
>
> http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/facilities/
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/concentrators.html
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/stirling.html

All good links. I'll review more of the literature online as time
allows. Thanks for the references.

> > You further contend that what body of knowledge does exist for
SPS
> > exceeds that of microgravity research (or more generally, space-
> based
> > R&D). I dispute that. NASA has a Microgravity Research Program, a
> > Microgravity Science Division, Zero Gravity Research Facility,
and
> > The Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Product Development
> Office
> > (a commercial space center). NASA has no specific division,
> facility
> > or office dicated to SPS research that I can discern. The only
> thing
> > I could find was the Space Solar Power Technology Advanced
> Research
> > and Technology program.
>
> I'll withdraw my overly broad statement about microgravity
research,
> because you are correct that there is indeed a lot of research
> activity surrounding microgravity, and because almost every
activity
> in orbit can be classified as a subset of microgravity activity.

Hehehehe. Yeah, I know. I wasn't really being fair. But it sure was
nice to catch you in a broad statement easily refuted. A cheap point
is still a point. :)

> What I meant to write, and if you'll look at the context of my
> criticism, you see that it would have been more appropriate, is the
> body of knowledge concerning commerical research and product
> development in orbit is easily surpassed by that of SPS.

Maybe - I don't think it is that cut and dry. SPS is a singular
concept - commercial research and product development in space
encompasses such a huge array of disciplines - I just don't think
it's fair to dismiss the MULE based on this. I just don't find this
argument altogether relevant - certainly not that significant and in
no way persuasive.

> And that
> has direct relevence to MULE, because as you pointed out all of
> those NASA and other government centers are dealing with basic
> science and it's unlikely that you'll entice a NASA Center to rent
a
> MULE slot when they have their own infrastructure already in place.

That infrastructure that they tap consists of the ISS (ability to
perform such research has been significantly impacted by cutbacks),
shuttle flights (delayed probably another year at least), and Earth-
based methods (drop towers, parabolic flights, sounding rockets). My
point is that you are now making broad assumptions about the MULE's
ability to effectively compete in the existing market. My contention
is that it is entirely too early to draw such assumptions and that
for the sake of this discussion we should focus on the more general
issues - market size, effectiveness of research in space,
contributions of such research to Earth-based markets, ways of
sparking development of infrastructure in space, etc.

> Nevertheless, I don't believe that this comparison adds anything to
> our debate. It's like a my dad can beat up your dad argument.

Hey, don't be talking smack about my daddy! Yes, I agree - it's of
little consequence at this time.

> One last point: SPS is a specific application, with very limited
and
> defined technical requirements and microgravity commerical R&D is
> all encompassing, so the quantity of research that SPS has thus far
> amassed will one day be surpassed by the multitude of distinct
> research avenues pursued under the rubric of commercial R&D.

Yes, I agree. We are much closer on these issues than the point by
point debate would indicate.

> If you're really interested in SPS research, try to drag Arthur
> Smith, Mike Combs, Charles Radley (where are you?) and some others
> who frequent this list, into the discusssion. They have a wealth of
> information at their disposal, and have provided interesting
reading
> for me.

I think I will make a separate post regarding questions I have about
SPS's ability to effectively contribute to orbital infrastructure in
the absense of that orbital infrastructure. Of course, there are
other questions as well.

> > No, for very good reason - a reason you can't cite in other
> examples.
> > The technologies behind the MULE concept have only recently
> matured.
> > Computers, robotics, communication - these technologies have now
> > ripened to the point where we can maintain an unmanned,
> > automated/telecontrolled laboratory in Earth-orbit for the
> purposes
> > of conducting space-related industrial/commercial applied
research
> or
> > government/university-sponsored basic research. If the technology
> > hasn't ripened to this point, then the MULE concept is untenable
> > right now.
>
> So, welcome to the club. Your MULE concept now has mature
> technology, just like SPS, satellite refueling, and a number of
> other concepts and all of these concepts haven't yet been
> implemented. On a further note, I'm glad that you've rejected the
> logic of the statement from which this paragraph derived.

Yes, some concepts are doable now with existing technologies. I
contend that the MULE is a cheaper option now that could ultimately
lead to the funding of more expensive projects depending on it's
success. That contention IS based on supposition and conjecture - I
agree. Let's assume the MULE is cheaper for the sake of these
discussions. The actual cost of the MULE venture is very significant -
I don't mean to suggest it isn't. But I do believe my research and
work will demonstrate it is in fact cheaper and more effective (in
the near term) than other more costly projects.

> I can agree with your statement below because it is sufficiently
> general in allowing that one action MIGHT lead to another.
> Possibilities are open. This statement can apply to MULE as well as
> to other schemes and I think it's perfectly valid.
>
> "If it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting the
> space environment it might encourage additional applications."

I agree that this statement applies to any number of ventures.
Success in space is likely to breed more success (or at least more
activity, successful or otherwise) in space. The difference, in my
opinion is cost. I believe the MULE is one of the cheapest ways we
can begin laying the foundation of success in space in the near term.
I further believe we should assume this to be the case for the sake
of this discussion.

If I can demonstrate that the MULE is, in fact, more cost-effective
and significantly so, how much would that weigh in on your judgement
of the concept as a whole?

> I have more difficulty in accepting the statement below because you
> posit a defined consequence and provide that there is indeed SOME
> incentive created. I can invalidate your statement by allowing for
> the successful operation of MULE, yet it doesn't produce any
> commerically meaningful results, thus it doesn't encourage a
> blossoming of orbital research & development. MULE operates
> successfully by finding tenants so as to earn a profit and it
> operates flawlessly, thus proving its basic viability (thus meeting
> your goals) but it doesn't cause the results you specify.
>
> "By DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-
> BASED R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME
> incentive to develop the infrastructure . . "

Ok, I get your point about affirming a defined consequence as opposed
to a more general statement like above. However, I think I can clear
this up.

If a successful venture in space leads to additional activity in
space, surely we can agree that some of that "additional activity"
will also be successful. It stands to reason that if SUCCESS = MORE
ACTIVITY, then MORE ACTIVITY = MORE SUCCESS. Additionally, MORE
SUCCESS = EVEN MORE ACTIVITY and EVEN MORE ACTIVITY = EVEN MORE
SUCCESS.

Granted, that's not a guarantee, but it is at least a logical
progression, yes? One major catastrophe and I'm screwed, but that's
the risk of all space ventures right now, even SPS. Assuming you
agree with the above statement in principal, let's take it a step
further . . . at some point as activity in space grows we reach a
point where it will be more cost effective to provide some
infrastructure in support of the growing activity in space rather
than all support coming from Earth. Yes?

Perhaps the MULE alone can't enjoy so much success that it leads to
orbital infrastructure, but it could at least start the cycle of
success in space, right? Maybe we factor in other concepts and
ventures - the point is the more activity occurring in space the
greater the demand for orbital infrastructure and with infrastructure
comes much larger ventures requiring even more infrastructure. This
is what I meant when I said "by DEMONSTRATING the economic and
industrial viability of space-based R&D, you encourage increased
activity and provide SOME incentive to develop the infrastructure."
The key word is SOME.

> > My point here, Tango, is that I never uncategorically stated that
> the
> > MULE was less expensive - quite to the contrary.
>
> But you did, and I don't want to search through all of our
postings,
> but even in your last posting, to quote:

> I'm led to conclude that you believe that MULE is the cheaper, more
> effective way that you refer to in the above quote.

Yes, I said that - but I have explained it, too. I am making such
statements because for the sake of this discussion "cheaper"
and "more efficient" needs to be assumed. And, again, it is
defendable.

> > Specifically, what infrastructure is required in space for a chip
> fab
> > plant to function and mass produce chips in orbit for delivery to
> > terrestrial markets?
> >
> > I have an extensible, scalable infrastructural backplane that
> > provides the basics: thermal radiation, power, comm, etc.
> Everything
> > else the plant needs would have to be provided by the plant
owner -
> > just like on Earth. I mean, when a terrestrial chip fab plant
asks
> > the power company for power or the telephone company for
> > communications capabilities, they don't get chip fab plant
> equipment
> > as a bonus for signing up, right? That stuff still has to be paid
> for
> > by the chip fab plant owner(s).
>
> I'd love to answer your question.

One question about this whole chip fab plant tangent: The only part
of this particular chip fabrication process that I have identified as
having to occur in space is the thin-film process. Why not
manufacture as much of the chip as possible in Earth-based plant,
bundle and send the unfinished chip to the MULE module where the thin
film will be applied? Then bulk-return the chips back to the Earth-
based plant for the conclusion of the fab process. Is that not
possible? At what point in the fabrication process does a computer
chip become too fragile to withstand reentry, for example?

> I think you're overstating the ability of MULE to expand to
> accomodate to be all things to all people.

Possibly, but again for the sake of these discussions . . . wait,
what if I am not and you are underestimating the MULE's ability to
accomodate more than just research and development in space? Would
that change your opinion of the MULE's ability to affect and help
drive the demand for infrastructure in space?

> The power supply, heat radiation, communications would be such a
> small part of the total cost of a chip fab, that I'm not sure that
> MULE savings, if they could be realized, would be incentive enough
> to bring about a mating of the Fab and the MULE.

Good point. Clearly, there are industries or processes that are
unlikely to be more cost effective in a MULE module regardless and
likely would not be done in space until enough infrastructure was in
place to ensure a higher level of cost-effectiveness - if even then.
Perhaps a chip fab plant is one such example.

> Let's right this discussion. By your own
> > admission the MULE has merit - I just haven't been able to make
> the
> > case for the MULE as a potential catalyst to infrastructure.
> Right?
> >
> > Jack
>
> That's right. As a stand-alone venture it rises or falls on its
> merits, but I for the life of me, can't see how it provides a basis
> for orbital infrastructure.

Well, we've narrowed the discussion considerably. Onward, ho!

Jack

Link To Post

Post ID:17539
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17539
BoK Link:[[Post:17539]]

# 17540 byvictoriatangoman on March 28, 2003, 5:27 p.m.

Member since 2022-08-22

> And therein lies a HUGE difference between SpaceHab and the MULE
and
> why, specifically, I believe the MULE would be less expensive than
> SpaceHab. If SpaceHab was providing the infrastructure to support
> their racks (as opposed to riding the ISS "backplane") then the
MULE
> would have more significant competition, in my opinion.

You're pursuing a dangerous line of reasoning here. Be wary of
defining success by assuming process has to be done your way.
SpaceHab doesn't have to provide a backplane, it just has to offer a
solution to its customers that they're willing to pay for. How
SpaceHab solves its technical problems is their affair.

> I believe for the sake of these debates we should conclude that
the
> MULE would be the least expensive option available for space-based
> basic and applied research and development. And I believe
> this "assumption" is defendable. I just don't think we should
spend
> the time arguing it now. Let's move on to the bigger picture with
> that assumption tucked neatly away. Obviously, it's cost-
> effectiveness has to be more clearly demonstrated than I have done
so
> here.

If you'd like to remove this area of discussion that's fine. As for
it being defensible, I don't agree, unless we restrict discussion to
a hypothetical scenario that is constructed on a multitude of weak
premises.

> If the MULE cannot perform space-based R&D more efficiently than
> existing methodologies, if it is not cheaper than other
> methodologies, then I would be the first in line advocating
dropping
> the concept from further consideration.

I fear you'll never reach that conclusion because no evidence will
ever reach the stage of necessary and sufficient :) until the damn
thing is built.

I'm skeptical of the reality of your concept, and you've also
mentioned that you've had difficulty gaining other proponents in the
space discussion groups. Why this difficulty?

Your situation with MULE reminds me of the situation that David
Criswell faces. He wants to build solar plants on the moon and beam
the power back to Earth and has a devil of a time addressing the
criticism of why his scheme is better than SPS. Yet he persists in
his dream despite the facts and criticisms.

> Let me expand on this. For the sake of these discussion, we should
> assume the MULE to be cheaper and more efficient. First off, I am
not
> at a point where I can say definitively one way or the other.
> Secondly, I believe the assumption to be logical based on the
limited
> facts at hand. Thirdly, if it can be aptly demonstrated that the
MULE
> does not significantly reduce cost and make doing such research
more
> efficient then the MULE should be dropped from serious
consideration.
> I'm not ignoring anything, Tango. I am just not there yet. I am
> confident, however, that this assumption (assumed only for this
> discussion) will play out in my favor in the end.

OK, this assumption is off the table, but I fear your confidence,
absent any evidence, is based on faith and bravado.

> This particular issue, however, does raise an important point - it
> may be wise to elicit an official response from NASA before
> finalizing a business plan to show VCs. If their response is
> assuring, great. If not, we may have to reconsider the MULE
project
> entirely. Is that satisfactory? I know it doesn't directly refute
> your concern, but it does set it aside for the moment.

Good luck getting a bureaucracy to give you that official response.
I would bet that you'd never get it. By your above reasoning, that
puts your project into doubt. Why not save your self a lot of time
and energy and try to get such a response now and see how successful
you are. This way you might be able to find another project that has
more chance of success and one that could find a number of other
proponents to help you.

>
> That infrastructure that they tap consists of the ISS (ability to
> perform such research has been significantly impacted by
cutbacks),
> shuttle flights (delayed probably another year at least), and
Earth-
> based methods (drop towers, parabolic flights, sounding rockets).
My
> point is that you are now making broad assumptions about the
MULE's
> ability to effectively compete in the existing market.

Yes I am, because there really is no existing "commercial" market. A
business model that is premised on creating a market doesn't often
benefit from first mover advantage. Look at where VisiCalc is these
days to Lotus 123 and that in turn, to MS Excel.

The market that does exist is one of gov't and university research.
Almost all public money.

My contention
> is that it is entirely too early to draw such assumptions and that
> for the sake of this discussion we should focus on the more
general
> issues - market size, effectiveness of research in space,
> contributions of such research to Earth-based markets, ways of
> sparking development of infrastructure in space, etc.

Market size = not sufficient to warrant development of MULE.

Effectiveness of research in space = Still pretty much restricted to
basic research and funding for said research is still primarily
provided by gov't. As to effectiveness, the decisionmakers must
consider the other research efforts that could be funded without
having to support the costs associated with space. While a space-
based research project may have merit when considered in isolation,
in the real world there are always alternatives to consider. This is
where a number of space research efforts may fail to pass muster.

Ways of sparking development of infrastructure in space = We've
already batted this one around for a while; I don't see MULE being a
driver in this regard.

> Yes, some concepts are doable now with existing technologies. I
> contend that the MULE is a cheaper option now that could
ultimately
> lead to the funding of more expensive projects depending on it's
> success. That contention IS based on supposition and conjecture -
I
> agree. Let's assume the MULE is cheaper for the sake of these
> discussions. The actual cost of the MULE venture is very
significant -
> I don't mean to suggest it isn't. But I do believe my research
and
> work will demonstrate it is in fact cheaper and more effective (in
> the near term) than other more costly projects.

Again, we come to having to adopt this assumption. OK, but so many
concerns I have have to do with many different aspects of the
economic model of MULE and its efficacy. Until your work and
research actually demonstrate your contentions, there is little of
substance we can discuss without having to assume key unproven
assertions.

> I agree that this statement applies to any number of ventures.
> Success in space is likely to breed more success (or at least more
> activity, successful or otherwise) in space. The difference, in my
> opinion is cost. I believe the MULE is one of the cheapest ways we
> can begin laying the foundation of success in space in the near
term.
> I further believe we should assume this to be the case for the
sake
> of this discussion.

But the theme of the discussion concerns my critiqing MULE and you
addressing those critiques. If we assume away the critiques that
does a disservice to MULE and if frankly leading us nowhere.

> If I can demonstrate that the MULE is, in fact, more cost-
effective
> and significantly so, how much would that weigh in on your
judgement
> of the concept as a whole?

A whole lot because it would add substance to your argument. I'm
just not buying a whole bunch of your premises, thus there's no way
I can buy into your conclusions.

> Ok, I get your point about affirming a defined consequence as
opposed
> to a more general statement like above. However, I think I can
clear
> this up.
>
> If a successful venture in space leads to additional activity in
> space, surely we can agree that some of that "additional activity"
> will also be successful. It stands to reason that if SUCCESS =
MORE
> ACTIVITY, then MORE ACTIVITY = MORE SUCCESS. Additionally, MORE
> SUCCESS = EVEN MORE ACTIVITY and EVEN MORE ACTIVITY = EVEN MORE
> SUCCESS.

No, you've got to tighten up the logic of this argument. It is too
easily refutable.

>
> Granted, that's not a guarantee, but it is at least a logical
> progression, yes? One major catastrophe and I'm screwed, but
that's
> the risk of all space ventures right now, even SPS. Assuming you
> agree with the above statement in principal, let's take it a step
> further . . . at some point as activity in space grows we reach a
> point where it will be more cost effective to provide some
> infrastructure in support of the growing activity in space rather
> than all support coming from Earth. Yes?

No, it's not a logical progression. So I don't agree with the
statement and thus I can't proceed with you to the next step. I feel
that even if I could proceed that you're really overreaching on MULE
being a driver for infrastructure development. You're giving me
nothing of substance to buttress your points, only asking me to
adopt the same assumptions that your laboring under.

> One question about this whole chip fab plant tangent: The only
part
> of this particular chip fabrication process that I have identified
as
> having to occur in space is the thin-film process. Why not
> manufacture as much of the chip as possible in Earth-based plant,
> bundle and send the unfinished chip to the MULE module where the
thin
> film will be applied?

Launch stresses, radiation exposure, thermal environment,
contamination in removing components from fabrication in order to
launch them to orbit, landing stresses, and possibly a number of
other factors. It would be helpful if some one with more knowledge
than me could jump in to address this question.

Maybe all issues can be solved, maybe not, but I think the above
presents at least a rudimentary lists of concerns.

> > I think you're overstating the ability of MULE to expand to
> > accomodate to be all things to all people.
>
> Possibly, but again for the sake of these discussions . . . wait,
> what if I am not and you are underestimating the MULE's ability to
> accomodate more than just research and development in space? Would
> that change your opinion of the MULE's ability to affect and help
> drive the demand for infrastructure in space?

Would my underestimation of MULE's hypothetical abilities change my
opinion? No, it wouldn't.

I'm simply addressing your contentions, hypothetical as they are. If
you want to have others accept them they should be defensible. To
simply turn the question around and state that my skepticism is
unfounded and that MULE is indeed more robust than I assume, without
providing support is troublesome. You're the advocate of MULE, not
me. You're out to convince others of its merits. How can you ask
anyone to adopt the position that they are underestimating MULE
without at least giving them a reason to believe so?

I really don't see where we can go with this discussion if I have to
accept a number of assumptions, all of which undercut the efficacy
of MULE. I feel that you're just asking me to accept on faith that
MULE is all that you believe it to be. I'd be more inclined to
engage in a fruitful dialogue if you could address my concerns,
otherwise I fear we'll just be spinning our wheels. But I had fun
thus far :)

TangoMan

Link To Post

Post ID:17540
Full Link:http:\\OrbHab.com\forums\post\17540
BoK Link:[[Post:17540]]