>
> The point I took from Ian's example was that if you take the Chunnel
> to be a surrogate for orbital development, how would numerous
> actors, all showing up independently on the English or French
> shores, all digging willy-nilly to achieve some goal of their own
> actually complete the Chunnel. They'd dig for a few feet in some
> direction and then give up because there was no money in it for them.

That's not the appropriate analogy: the chunnel was impossible until
people had achieved similar but smaller goals. A whole bunch of people
digging was exactly what made the chunnel possible - they just weren't
digging along the shores of the English Channel. They were digging
under the Alps, under lesser bodies of water, and under cities. Many of
them did make significant money, proving two things: that it is
possible to make tunnels, and that it is possible to make money off
tunnels. Without the knowledge thus generated there would be nobody
willing to risk funding the chunnel (and indeed the fact that the
chunnel went over budget makes it less likely that the next ambitious
tunnel will be funded).

When it comes to raising money it's risk and the perception of risk
that matters. Both go down if the proposed project is only slightly
more ambitious than a similar project which is known to have succeeded.

......Andrew

>
> > The point I took from Ian's example was that if you take the
Chunnel
> > to be a surrogate for orbital development, how would numerous
> > actors, all showing up independently on the English or French
> > shores, all digging willy-nilly to achieve some goal of their own
> > actually complete the Chunnel. They'd dig for a few feet in some
> > direction and then give up because there was no money in it for
them.
>
> That's not the appropriate analogy: the chunnel was impossible
until
> people had achieved similar but smaller goals.

Actually it is - Here's my perspective.

Chunnel = Orbital economy;
Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with many
interlinked profit centers.

This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me if I'm
wrong.

Chunnel = orbital project;
Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.

In my analogy, all of those chunnel workers are pursuing their
individual projects with no guiding hand at work. Some will work to
a common goal, extending the distance of the Chunnel, while other
will set it back by dumping their waste dirt into the tunnel because
their tunnel is going in a different direction. Some will succeed in
their limited objectives, some will fail, but they'll do nothing for
the grand effort of extending the Chunnel from shore to shore which
is when they can expect the riches to flow. No riches will flow from
a tunnel that only goes underwater for a kilometer. That whole thing
or nothing is what is needed.

A whole bunch of people
> digging was exactly what made the chunnel possible - they just
weren't
> digging along the shores of the English Channel. They were digging
> under the Alps, under lesser bodies of water, and under cities.
Many of
> them did make significant money, proving two things: that it is
> possible to make tunnels, and that it is possible to make money
off
> tunnels. Without the knowledge thus generated there would be
nobody
> willing to risk funding the chunnel (and indeed the fact that the
> chunnel went over budget makes it less likely that the next
ambitious
> tunnel will be funded).

I see you're coming from a perspective of extension of techology,
but the Chunnel is a metaphor for an economy, not a project.

We're talking about the same metaphor but imparting different
meanigs in to it.

>
> When it comes to raising money it's risk and the perception of
risk
> that matters. Both go down if the proposed project is only
slightly
> more ambitious than a similar project which is known to have
succeeded.
>
> ......Andrew

But no one funds an "economy." That's why a coordinated effort is
required.

TangoMan

>>
>> That's not the appropriate analogy: the chunnel was impossible
> until
>> people had achieved similar but smaller goals.
>
> Actually it is - Here's my perspective.
>
> Chunnel = Orbital economy;
> Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
> Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with many
> interlinked profit centers.
>
> This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
> Chunnel = orbital project;
> Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
> Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.

This is where we disagree - I don't think any single project can serve
as a model for an economy. Every economy that has been run as a single
project has failed miserably. The only way for an economy to run
effectively is for there to be multiple independent players. There is
simply no way for a small group of people to absorb and analyze all of
the information needed to maintain the necessary dynamism. A single
project with a single goal can stay on track because there is only one
goal, and everyone is working towards it. Even so it is only possible
if the path is well enough trodden that most of the hazards are
understood - that way the people at the top can focus their attention
on the novel hazards and leave the familiar ones in the hands of
specialists. Unfamiliar hazards mean no specialists, which means the
people running the show have to deal with everything. This causes
information overload and project failure.

For a model of an economy we have to look to an economy, not a project.
A possible candidate might be some subset of the global economy, such
as information technology, or transportation.

If you look at the way transportation has developed in capabilities, a
lot of things which were only novelties (analogous to suborbital
tourism) turned out to be key enablers of later developments. Early
flight was a novelty, but it developed into a major industry. Bicycles
were toys initially, then they became a major form of transportation,
and helped to develop technologies that went into motor cars and
airplanes. Now very few people take bikes seriously as transportation
(umm... except for the majority of the world's population, that is :-)

The key thing about an enabling technology as part of an economy is
that it is not an end in itself, and does not necessarily lie along a
linear path to the final destination. All that is necessary is that
some subcomponent be enabling to some other application, the way
lightweight high efficiency drive mechanisms from bicycles were to the
Wright flyer.

......Andrew

>
> >>
> >> That's not the appropriate analogy: the chunnel was impossible
> > until
> >> people had achieved similar but smaller goals.
> >
> > Actually it is - Here's my perspective.
> >
> > Chunnel = Orbital economy;
> > Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
> > Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with
many
> > interlinked profit centers.
> >
> > This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me if
I'm
> > wrong.
> >
> > Chunnel = orbital project;
> > Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
> > Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.
>
> This is where we disagree - I don't think any single project can
serve
> as a model for an economy.

Neither do I.

Every economy that has been run as a single
> project has failed miserably.

Examples?

The only way for an economy to run
> effectively is for there to be multiple independent players.

That is exactly my point.

There is
> simply no way for a small group of people to absorb and analyze
all of
> the information needed to maintain the necessary dynamism.

Very true. That's why these bootstrapping ventures don't lead
anywhere. They're all single projects, they don't interact, they
don't create dynamism and specializtion.

A single
> project with a single goal can stay on track because there is only
one
> goal, and everyone is working towards it. Even so it is only
possible
> if the path is well enough trodden that most of the hazards are
> understood - that way the people at the top can focus their
attention
> on the novel hazards and leave the familiar ones in the hands of
> specialists. Unfamiliar hazards mean no specialists, which means
the
> people running the show have to deal with everything. This causes
> information overload and project failure.

And this is where the diversity of an orbital economy trumps the
single project visions of bootstrapping which will run into
unfamiliar hazards, because as you said you shouldn't expect any
project to go with no unknowns and no risk.

>
> For a model of an economy we have to look to an economy, not a
project.
> A possible candidate might be some subset of the global economy,
such
> as information technology, or transportation.
>
> If you look at the way transportation has developed in
capabilities, a
> lot of things which were only novelties (analogous to suborbital
> tourism) turned out to be key enablers of later developments.
Early
> flight was a novelty, but it developed into a major industry.
Bicycles
> were toys initially, then they became a major form of
transportation,
> and helped to develop technologies that went into motor cars and
> airplanes. Now very few people take bikes seriously as
transportation
> (umm... except for the majority of the world's population, that
is :-)
>
> The key thing about an enabling technology as part of an economy
is
> that it is not an end in itself, and does not necessarily lie
along a
> linear path to the final destination. All that is necessary is
that
> some subcomponent be enabling to some other application, the way
> lightweight high efficiency drive mechanisms from bicycles were to
the
> Wright flyer.
>
> ......Andrew

All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
interlinked to a greater economy. Bicycles and airplanes served
functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.

TangoMan

All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
interlinked to a greater economy. Eventually...
Bicycles and airplanes served
functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.
Not initially. They were rich people's play things. Penny farthings were probably the olden time equivalent of the Segway. It's always like that. People come up with something, and everyone goes: "it's cool- but what's it really for?" Computers, lasers, bicycles, aeroplanes, cars, the internet; just about every modern invention. The popularity comes later.

You're just doing exactly the same thing with space tourism.
TangoMan

>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not the appropriate analogy: the chunnel was impossible until
>>>> people had achieved similar but smaller goals.
>>>
>>> Actually it is - Here's my perspective.
>>>
>>> Chunnel = Orbital economy;
>>> Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
>>> Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with many
>>> interlinked profit centers.
>>>
>>> This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me if I'm
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Chunnel = orbital project;
>>> Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
>>> Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.
>>
>> This is where we disagree - I don't think any single project can serve
>> as a model for an economy.
>
> Neither do I.

I don't understand how this squares with your analogy above between the
Chunnel and an orbital economy.

> There is
>> simply no way for a small group of people to absorb and analyze all of
>> the information needed to maintain the necessary dynamism.
>
> Very true. That's why these bootstrapping ventures don't lead
> anywhere. They're all single projects, they don't interact, they
> don't create dynamism and specializtion.

Which bootstrapping ventures are you referring to?
>
> All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
> interlinked to a greater economy. Bicycles and airplanes served
> functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.

The only ET resource utilization ideas that have a hope of success are
those that are interlinked to a greater economy, namely earthbound
economies. There is no way for the whole to be constructed all at once,
independent and self-sufficient. It must necessarily grow out of the
earthbound economy. The network of connections will initially be with
earth based industry, and only later will there be interconnections
between space based (or space-oriented) businesses.

......Andrew

>
> > All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
> > interlinked to a greater economy.
>
> Eventually...

No, initially. They weren't created in isolation. They used steel
from mills, which got its ore from mining concerns. They got the
rubber for the tires from rubber farms. The bicycle tinkerers didn't
scoop up dirt with their hands conjure up a fire, melt iron out of
the dirt, palant their rubber trees and harvest the rubber . . .
they were part of a larger economy.

>
> > Bicycles and airplanes served
> > functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.
>
> Not initially. They were rich people's play things. Penny
farthings were
> probably the olden time equivalent of the Segway.

Nobody said, "hey there's an empty continent over there. Won't it be
a great idea to go there so we can build bicycles and airplanes. All
we need to do is mine for ore, refine it, get rubber, build engines,
build glassworks for the cockpits, drill for oil so we can lubricate
parts. We can be the whole economy. That'll be so 23 skidoo."

Bicycles and airplane manufacturers acted as consumers of industrial
supplies and fashioned them into products that they could sell. I'll
repeat myself "Bicycles and airplanes served functions within the
whole rather than acting as the whole."

It's always like that.
> People come up with something, and everyone goes: "it's cool- but
what's
> it really for?" Computers, lasers, bicycles, aeroplanes, cars, the
> internet; just about every modern invention. The popularity comes
later.

I don't dispute this analysis.

>
> You're just doing exactly the same thing with space tourism.

Yes, but it doesn't help the venture that follows it and needs to be
in space. It doesn't consume any space resources. It doesn't need
space infrastructure. It can exist just as a prolonged ride in a
spaceship. A ship in the desert, isolated from all around it. It'll
be a novelty, that's for sure. Someone will be making money with it.
People will be enthralled. It'll help bootstrap the next venture -
no, this last statement is far, far weaker than the others I just
pointed out.

TangoMan

> >>> Actually it is - Here's my perspective.
> >>>
> >>> Chunnel = Orbital economy;
> >>> Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
> >>> Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with
many
> >>> interlinked profit centers.
> >>>
> >>> This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me
if I'm
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Chunnel = orbital project;
> >>> Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
> >>> Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.
> >>
> >> This is where we disagree - I don't think any single project
can serve
> >> as a model for an economy.
> >
> > Neither do I.
>
> I don't understand how this squares with your analogy above
between the
> Chunnel and an orbital economy.

The Chunnel wasn't a constructed by a monolithic organization. It
had a general contractor and scores and scores of subcontractors.
The general was the prime mover and the subs profited at their
specialties.

Most projects in orbit will be designed to serve the specific market
which the sponsoring organization is most familiar with. They will
bring their expertise to bear but may find it daunting to tackle all
of the ancillary aspects with which they have absolutely no
experience.

In an economy, there are multiple players, each with their own
expertise and specialized equipment. In a project there is one
player. One player doesn't interact with anyone (in space) therefore
there is no economic gain (in space.)

The Chunnel contractor didn't know how to do everything. The scope
of the project was beyond their ability to handle inhouse. Even if
they could have done it, they have profited by employing the
expertise and efficiency of the subs who are better, faster and
cheaper at their narrow and dedictated specialties.

Chunnel employed many separate players = orbital economy employs
many separate players. The Chunnel is the metaphor for an orbital
economy.

Something in orbit that requries a coordinated effort that can pull
many different economic players from Earth into orbit, where they
can profit from their expertise and know that there will be someone
to hire them, buy from them, sell to them, etc will make a lasting
economy because the risk is minimized.

Build a station, a hotel, an orbital tower, a chip factory, a
pharmaceutical plant, a military platform, a Mars vessel
construction dock, and yes, SPS, and you have the start of an
economy that can grow and adapt in the future. The enterprises that
follow don't need to be able to do everything because there will be
other specialty actors in the game.

I won't even go into the aspect of wealth creation from money flows
that occur strictly in orbit.

Have I been able to sufficiently convey the point and erase some of
the confusion?

>
> > There is
> >> simply no way for a small group of people to absorb and analyze
all of
> >> the information needed to maintain the necessary dynamism.
> >
> > Very true. That's why these bootstrapping ventures don't lead
> > anywhere. They're all single projects, they don't interact, they
> > don't create dynamism and specializtion.
>
> Which bootstrapping ventures are you referring to?

Sorry, I was spitting these responses out so quickly earlier today.
Sloppy on my part. Bootstrapping ventures, simply by being properly
defined as bootstrapping ventures, would have to lead to other
opportunities. What I meant to say was that stand-alone ventures
that don't economically interact with other players will have a
tougher time getting off the ground and if they do, will likely add
little value to ventures that follow them. They'll exist as part of
a terrestrial economy, be physically present in orbit, but add
nothing to an orbital economy. Think of North Sea Oil Platforms. If
Britain didn't get any tax revenue from them, if they were built in
Norway and staffed entirely by Norway, but were located in British
waters, then how are they helping Britain, how are they part of the
economy, how do they help support the industrial infrastructure in
Britain? They don't. They also don't help bootstrap the British Off-
Shore industry. But they will make money.

> >
> > All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
> > interlinked to a greater economy. Bicycles and airplanes served
> > functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.
>
> The only ET resource utilization ideas that have a hope of success
are
> those that are interlinked to a greater economy, namely earthbound
> economies. There is no way for the whole to be constructed all at
once,
> independent and self-sufficient. It must necessarily grow out of
the
> earthbound economy. The network of connections will initially be
with
> earth based industry, and only later will there be
interconnections
> between space based (or space-oriented) businesses.
>
> ......Andrew

Is anyone out there getting even an inkling of what I'm trying to
convey? Are you all being a good devil's advocate and trying to get
me to nail it down because you understand the economic principles
involved and you just want me to fill in the blanks. Or am I not
making sense to you at all?

How much detail do you want on the economic development process? I
can start jargonizing and getting into the economic nitty-gritty but
considering the dearth of responses to previous economic topics I've
raised I doubt that would be a popular strategy on my part. I try to
keep it as general as I can but that does handicap me in my
arguments. I've got loads of journal articles and texts from my
doctoral days that I could offer as support for my points.

Just think why aluminum smelters aren't closer to their primary
markets or closer to their ores. Why chip fabs aren't built in the
Gobi desert.

I'm not saying that a whole economy is necessary and must spring
into existence at once. Yes, the economic activities will be
intricately tied to those of Earth, but economic activity isn't
solely defined as a final buyer and seller relationship. There exist
relationships that support the process that leads to the final end
user. The value chain. Wealth will flow from Earth to orbit when
orbit has something to offer Earth. Do you really think that every
economic transaction in orbit must have a terrestrial presence? Why?

Here is a simple economic activity flowchart (in words): Boeing
builds a NEO mining vessel and sells it to Broken Hill Mining Co.
They subcontract its operation to pilots from Quantas. They arrive
at the NEO and BH miners get to work. They bring back ore and
volitiles. They sell the liquid ammonia and methane and water to
Dupont, who break it down and refines it into different chemicals.
They in turn sell CO2, N2, O2, as well as fertilizer to Cargill so
that the orbital greenhouses can grow food. Cargill sells the food
to everyone else. BH sells it's platinum to Johnson Matthey, which
transports it back to Earth with the United shuttle. Broken Hill
sells the iron to the orbital operations of US Steel and the
aluminum oxide to ALCAN. US Steel and Alcan in turn sell their metal
to fabricators which make the products into a hotel, an orbiting
tower, a SPS, a communications array, etc. These enterprises sell
their services to Earth in the form of tourism, communication, and
energy. Now it becomes so much simpler for the smaller ventures to
establish themselves. Someone thinks that they can make money
growing cotton in space? Hey, try it. Maybe someone will buy it to
make clothes. What are they risking? They don't have to mine,
refine, or transport anything. If they want air, food, water,
quarters, trasnportation, energy, well there's someone already there
to provide them with these goods/services and which they have no
expertise in anyway. They become free riders!

If the above example is too complex in scope then reduce it to food,
water, energy, air, waste disposal. Now if you're a crystal grower,
a hotel operator, a fancy-shmancy new fangled computer chip company,
then you don't have to deal with these issues because you can pay
someone else who specializes in them. Therein lies the chrysalis of
your orbital economy. These actors are interlinked and interacting.
They are creating wealth from their interactions. Some transactions
may involve a terrestrial buyer/seller but some will not. Some
interactions will be so localized that they'll never interact with
Earth. They will be completely dependent on the success of their
fellow orbital players for their own success. They'll fall somewhere
in the middle of the value chain.

What I've described needn't be in the realm of fantasy. All that is
needed is a prime driver. One-off ventures don't get us there.
Bootstrapping will need critical mass and development will be
stymied until it is achieved, if ever.

Yes, you are right that the orbital economy must grow out of the
terrestrial economy, just as the fur economy of the New World grew
out of the demand Europe had for fur, just as the Tea & Spices
economy of India grew out of the demand Europe had for tea and
spices. But just as those economies were linked to the dominant
market, they also spawned small-scale domestic markets which grew
into much more.

The cod fishery in the Grand Banks as practiced by the 16th Century
Portuguese didn't do much for the economy of Newfoundland, but it
did bring wealth to Portugal. Did it help bootstrap the economic
development of Newfoundland? No. It was an isolated project that did
nothing for Newfoundland's economic development because it didn't
interact at all with other players in the New World. That's the
same as sub-orbital and orbital tourism that visit orbit. Lots of
passengers going there, but no reason to stay and develop. If they
do want to develop, there is no one else to rely on for skills and
services that you don't possess. For many ventures, substitutes will
be a cheaper alternative than having to embark on all of those
ancillary processes just to support your primary expertise.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I'm not saying no money can be made in space. It will be done one
day, but while profit in space is a necessary precursor to further
development, in and of itself, it isn't sufficient. An orbital
economy will require orbital interactions and one-off (even
profitable ones) projects don't provide that.

TangoMan

>
> > All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
> > interlinked to a greater economy.
>
> Eventually...

The bicycle tinkerers didn't
scoop up dirt with their hands conjure up a fire, melt iron out of
the dirt, palant their rubber trees and harvest the rubber . . .
they were part of a larger economy.
Hey, guess what? Space inhabitation won't do that either; not initially. That requires big factories and that comes later.
Yes, but it doesn't help the venture that follows it and needs to be
in space. Yes it does, it's a necessary stepping stone. You've got to learn to walk before you can fly.
It doesn't consume any space resources. Not initially, no. However it's cheaper once you get past a certain scale of operation (and NOT before) to use in situ resources. We need a way to get over that hump. Space tourism is the most likely route we have right now.
It doesn't need space infrastructure. Wrong. Hotels, space transport- once orbital flights are more routine, people may well want to visit the moon for example. That needs shielded transportation. Then there's food production. Do you really want to launch all the food from the ground all the time? It's expensive.
It can exist just as a prolonged ride in a spaceship. Yes. That's an advantage; initially, because it's initially cheaper, but as you scale things up, it's more expensive to do it that way; and that fact is also an advantage, because businesses love saving money.
TangoMan

> Hey, guess what? Space inhabitation won't do that either; not
initially.
> That requires big factories and that comes later.

I don't assert it will. All I'm sserting is that some economic
activity in space that leads to transactions between two space
actors will form the nucleaus of an orbital economy and assist in
the bootstrapping process.

Any enterprise that produces and can sell energy, or refines
volities into gases, can sell to customers who come to orbit later
in the game. They don't have to be dedicated to the project that
spawned them. In fact I think it would be more efficient if there
was a seperation of control between the originating project and such
ancillary services. Then the ancillary services could sell to the
highest bidder and the greatest utility could be achieved. If they
are captive to the originating enterprise, then while newer ventures
might be more economically efficient, they's still face a dilemma
when the services they require aren't available because they are
dedicated to an obsolete process that got to orbit first.

>
> > Yes, but it doesn't help the venture that follows it and needs
to be
> > in space.
>
> Yes it does, it's a necessary stepping stone. You've got to learn
to
> walk before you can fly.

What can I say? There's a big difference between one thing preceding
another and the precedent acting as the cause.

Orbital tourism may come about before ISRU but that doesn't mean it
will directly act towards bringing about ISRU. The causality has too
many alternate paths to follow here for your argument to hold water.
Your path is only one of many that may lead to ISRU.

> > It doesn't consume any space resources.
>
> Not initially, no. However it's cheaper once you get past a
certain
> scale of operation (and NOT before) to use in situ resources.

Yes, I don't disagree.

We need a
> way to get over that hump. Space tourism is the most likely route
we
> have right now.

Space tourism may start with humble beginnings and proceed to
greatness and it is just as likely that it may stay a humble
endeavor.

SPS has huge capital costs and faces substitute price competition.

PGM enterprises face unknown NEO mapping and sampling, extraction
technology, and delivery questions.

If you accept only the rosiest projections for your favored scenario
and apply the most stringent conditions on other prospects, then of
course you can make favorable claims because you lack evidence and
are relying on Faith.

>
> > It doesn't need space infrastructure.
>
> Wrong. Hotels, space transport- once orbital flights are more
routine,
> people may well want to visit the moon for example. That needs
shielded
> transportation. Then there's food production. Do you really want
to
> launch all the food from the ground all the time? It's expensive.

This is shifting the question in order to score a point. I've
already written that a hotel will have unique orbital needs and
could have a very valued position in the bootstrapping process. The
question had to do with orbital jaunts that just go into space to
make some orbits and then return.

Hotel requirements for shielding and food could also serve other
late-comers to orbit and would reduce their need to provide those
services themselves. There's your interlinkages. There's your start
of an orbital economy.

TangoMan

> >>> Actually it is - Here's my perspective.
> >>>
> >>> Chunnel = Orbital economy;
> >>> Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
> >>> Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with
many
> >>> interlinked profit centers.
> >>>
> >>> This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me
if I'm
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Chunnel = orbital project;
> >>> Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
> >>> Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.
> >>
> >> This is where we disagree - I don't think any single project
can serve
> >> as a model for an economy.
> >
> > Neither do I.
>
> I don't understand how this squares with your analogy above
between the
> Chunnel and an orbital economy.

The Chunnel wasn't a constructed by a monolithic organization. It
had a general contractor and scores and scores of subcontractors.
The general was the prime mover and the subs profited at their
specialties.

Most projects in orbit will be designed to serve the specific market
which the sponsoring organization is most familiar with. They will
bring their expertise to bear but may find it daunting to tackle all
of the ancillary aspects with which they have absolutely no
experience.

In an economy, there are multiple players, each with their own
expertise and specialized equipment. In a project there is one
player. One player doesn't interact with anyone (in space) therefore
there is no economic gain (in space.)

The Chunnel contractor didn't know how to do everything. The scope
of the project was beyond their ability to handle inhouse. Even if
they could have done it, they have profited by employing the
expertise and efficiency of the subs who are better, faster and
cheaper at their narrow and dedictated specialties.

Chunnel employed many separate players = orbital economy employs
many separate players. The Chunnel is the metaphor for an orbital
economy.

Something in orbit that requries a coordinated effort that can pull
many different economic players from Earth into orbit, where they
can profit from their expertise and know that there will be someone
to hire them, buy from them, sell to them, etc will make a lasting
economy because the risk is minimized.

Build a station, a hotel, an orbital tower, a chip factory, a
pharmaceutical plant, a military platform, a Mars vessel
construction dock, and yes, SPS, and you have the start of an
economy that can grow and adapt in the future. The enterprises that
follow don't need to be able to do everything because there will be
other specialty actors in the game.

I won't even go into the aspect of wealth creation from money flows
that occur strictly in orbit.

Have I been able to sufficiently convey the point and erase some of
the confusion?

>
> > There is
> >> simply no way for a small group of people to absorb and analyze
all of
> >> the information needed to maintain the necessary dynamism.
> >
> > Very true. That's why these bootstrapping ventures don't lead
> > anywhere. They're all single projects, they don't interact, they
> > don't create dynamism and specializtion.
>
> Which bootstrapping ventures are you referring to?

Sorry, I was spitting these responses out so quickly earlier today.
Sloppy on my part. Bootstrapping ventures, simply by being properly
defined as bootstrapping ventures, would have to lead to other
opportunities. What I meant to say was that stand-alone ventures
that don't economically interact with other players will have a
tougher time getting off the ground and if they do, will likely add
little value to ventures that follow them. They'll exist as part of
a terrestrial economy, be physically present in orbit, but add
nothing to an orbital economy. Think of North Sea Oil Platforms. If
Britain didn't get any tax revenue from them, if they were built in
Norway and staffed entirely by Norway, but were located in British
waters, then how are they helping Britain, how are they part of the
economy, how do they help support the industrial infrastructure in
Britain? They don't. They also don't help bootstrap the British Off-
Shore industry. But they will make money.

> >
> > All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
> > interlinked to a greater economy. Bicycles and airplanes served
> > functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.
>
> The only ET resource utilization ideas that have a hope of success
are
> those that are interlinked to a greater economy, namely earthbound
> economies. There is no way for the whole to be constructed all at
once,
> independent and self-sufficient. It must necessarily grow out of
the
> earthbound economy. The network of connections will initially be
with
> earth based industry, and only later will there be
interconnections
> between space based (or space-oriented) businesses.
>
> ......Andrew

Is anyone out there getting even an inkling of what I'm trying to
convey? Are you all being a good devil's advocate and trying to get
me to nail it down because you understand the economic principles
involved and you just want me to fill in the blanks. Or am I not
making sense to you at all?

How much detail do you want on the economic development process? I
can start jargonizing and getting into the economic nitty-gritty but
considering the dearth of responses to previous economic topics I've
raised I doubt that would be a popular strategy on my part. I try to
keep it as general as I can but that does handicap me in my
arguments. I've got loads of journal articles and texts from my
doctoral days that I could offer as support for my points.

Just think why aluminum smelters aren't closer to their primary
markets or closer to their ores. Why chip fabs aren't built in the
Gobi desert.

I'm not saying that a whole economy is necessary and must spring
into existence at once. Yes, the economic activities will be
intricately tied to those of Earth, but economic activity isn't
solely defined as a final buyer and seller relationship. There exist
relationships that support the process that leads to the final end
user. The value chain. Wealth will flow from Earth to orbit when
orbit has something to offer Earth. Do you really think that every
economic transaction in orbit must have a terrestrial presence? Why?

Here is a simple economic activity flowchart (in words): Boeing
builds a NEO mining vessel and sells it to Broken Hill Mining Co.
They subcontract its operation to pilots from Quantas. They arrive
at the NEO and BH miners get to work. They bring back ore and
volitiles. They sell the liquid ammonia and methane and water to
Dupont, who break it down and refines it into different chemicals.
They in turn sell CO2, N2, O2, as well as fertilizer to Cargill so
that the orbital greenhouses can grow food. Cargill sells the food
to everyone else. BH sells it's platinum to Johnson Matthey, which
transports it back to Earth with the United shuttle. Broken Hill
sells the iron to the orbital operations of US Steel and the
aluminum oxide to ALCAN. US Steel and Alcan in turn sell their metal
to fabricators which make the products into a hotel, an orbiting
tower, a SPS, a communications array, etc. These enterprises sell
their services to Earth in the form of tourism, communication, and
energy. Now it becomes so much simpler for the smaller ventures to
establish themselves. Someone thinks that they can make money
growing cotton in space? Hey, try it. Maybe someone will buy it to
make clothes. What are they risking? They don't have to mine,
refine, or transport anything. If they want air, food, water,
quarters, trasnportation, energy, well there's someone already there
to provide them with these goods/services and which they have no
expertise in anyway. They become free riders!

If the above example is too complex in scope then reduce it to food,
water, energy, air, waste disposal. Now if you're a crystal grower,
a hotel operator, a fancy-shmancy new fangled computer chip company,
then you don't have to deal with these issues because you can pay
someone else who specializes in them. Therein lies the chrysalis of
your orbital economy. These actors are interlinked and interacting.
They are creating wealth from their interactions. Some transactions
may involve a terrestrial buyer/seller but some will not. Some
interactions will be so localized that they'll never interact with
Earth. They will be completely dependent on the success of their
fellow orbital players for their own success. They'll fall somewhere
in the middle of the value chain.

What I've described needn't be in the realm of fantasy. All that is
needed is a prime driver. One-off ventures don't get us there.
Bootstrapping will need critical mass and development will be
stymied until it is achieved, if ever.

Yes, you are right that the orbital economy must grow out of the
terrestrial economy, just as the fur economy of the New World grew
out of the demand Europe had for fur, just as the Tea & Spices
economy of India grew out of the demand Europe had for tea and
spices. But just as those economies were linked to the dominant
market, they also spawned small-scale domestic markets which grew
into much more.

The cod fishery in the Grand Banks as practiced by the 16th Century
Portuguese didn't do much for the economy of Newfoundland, but it
did bring wealth to Portugal. Did it help bootstrap the economic
development of Newfoundland? No. It was an isolated project that did
nothing for Newfoundland's economic development because it didn't
interact at all with other players in the New World. That's the
same as sub-orbital and orbital tourism that visit orbit. Lots of
passengers going there, but no reason to stay and develop. If they
do want to develop, there is no one else to rely on for skills and
services that you don't possess. For many ventures, substitutes will
be a cheaper alternative than having to embark on all of those
ancillary processes just to support your primary expertise.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I'm not saying no money can be made in space. It will be done one
day, but while profit in space is a necessary precursor to further
development, in and of itself, it isn't sufficient. An orbital
economy will require orbital interactions and one-off (even
profitable ones) projects don't provide that.

TangoMan

> We can boil it down to two possibilities. A) Something that already
> has a presence in the Terrestrial economy and which is known to exist in
> greater quantity or to be more easily manufactured in space. As of yet,
> there is no gold in space, and we have found no zero-gravity silk.

But remember the terrestrial economy is a lot more than mining
and even manufacturing. Look at the largest sectors of economic
activity - for example from the US Census Bureau Economic Census
numbers: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html

Manufacturing, with a payroll of $572 billion in 1997, is the
biggest sector; Health care and social assistance comes next
at $378 billion; next come finance and insurance, retail trade,
wholesale trade, and professional, scientific and technical services,
each in the $200 to $300 billion range. Mining is actually one
of the smallest payroll areas, at $20 billion/year, and sales are
not so large either; that may be in part because our highest-cost
resources (oil in particular) are imported, rather than mined in the US.
But still, there's a lot more to the economy than mining...

Within manufacturing, the highest payroll and sales areas are
transportation equipment (cars, trucks, aerospace), computer
and electronic products, machinery and fabricated metal products,
and (esp. in sales) chemicals and food.

We probably won't be manufacturing cars in space any time soon;
anything involving complex chemical or mechanical processes seems
difficult to imagine in an early space industrial center. But
who really knows? The economic census at least gives you a picture
of what people are willing to pay for right now...

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > We can boil it down to two possibilities. A) Something that
already
> > has a presence in the Terrestrial economy and which is known to
exist in
> > greater quantity or to be more easily manufactured in space. As
of yet,
> > there is no gold in space, and we have found no zero-gravity
silk.
>
> But remember the terrestrial economy is a lot more than mining
> and even manufacturing. Look at the largest sectors of economic
> activity - for example from the US Census Bureau Economic Census
> numbers: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html

You're touching upon a very important point here, IMHO, of course.

Take it further, to it's next step. What are the implications if the
majority of an economy doesn't consist of mining?

How much of an economy consists of domestic, rather than
international, transactions?

See my sketchy analysis, with a startling population proposal, in:

> Manufacturing, with a payroll of $572 billion in 1997, is the
> biggest sector;

Domestic and international markets served.

> Health care and social assistance comes next at $378 billion;

Domestic market entirely.

> next come finance and insurance,

Domestic and international markets served.

> retail trade, wholesale trade,

Domestic market entirely.

> and professional, scientific and technical services,
> each in the $200 to $300 billion range.

Domestic and international markets served.

> Mining is actually one
> of the smallest payroll areas, at $20 billion/year, and sales are
> not so large either; that may be in part because our highest-cost
> resources (oil in particular) are imported, rather than mined in
the US.

Take a longitudinal look at the significance of metals recycling in
the economy and run it against mining's market performance.

> But still, there's a lot more to the economy than mining...

Absol-darn-tootly!

> Within manufacturing, the highest payroll and sales areas are
> transportation equipment (cars, trucks, aerospace), computer
> and electronic products, machinery and fabricated metal products,
> and (esp. in sales) chemicals and food.

All of which share either characteristics inherent to American
strengths, or are not amenable to economic transport because of
time, expense or mass issues.

> We probably won't be manufacturing cars in space any time soon;

HEH! Didn't Pluto Nash have a car manufactured in space?

> anything involving complex chemical or mechanical processes seems
> difficult to imagine in an early space industrial center.

Especially if faced with terrestrial substitutes or if the industry
must be supported by an orbital domestic market.

> But who really knows?

I sure wish "who" would show up on this list and share his wisdom.

The economic census at least gives you a picture
> of what people are willing to pay for right now...
>
> Arthur

The questions that your post spawns are for me, how critical is an
orbital domestic market and that we shouldn't count on any exports
for which there is a terrestrial source or substitute.

So what lesson do we learn from these facts that you've brought
forth?

TangoMan

> We can boil it down to two possibilities. A) Something that already
> has a presence in the Terrestrial economy and which is known to exist in
> greater quantity or to be more easily manufactured in space. As of yet,
> there is no gold in space, and we have found no zero-gravity silk.

But remember the terrestrial economy is a lot more than mining
and even manufacturing. Look at the largest sectors of economic
activity - for example from the US Census Bureau Economic Census
numbers: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html

Manufacturing, with a payroll of $572 billion in 1997, is the
biggest sector; Health care and social assistance comes next
at $378 billion; next come finance and insurance, retail trade,
wholesale trade, and professional, scientific and technical services,
each in the $200 to $300 billion range. Mining is actually one
of the smallest payroll areas, at $20 billion/year, and sales are
not so large either; that may be in part because our highest-cost
resources (oil in particular) are imported, rather than mined in the US.
But still, there's a lot more to the economy than mining...

Within manufacturing, the highest payroll and sales areas are
transportation equipment (cars, trucks, aerospace), computer
and electronic products, machinery and fabricated metal products,
and (esp. in sales) chemicals and food.

We probably won't be manufacturing cars in space any time soon;
anything involving complex chemical or mechanical processes seems
difficult to imagine in an early space industrial center. But
who really knows? The economic census at least gives you a picture
of what people are willing to pay for right now...

Arthur