I think the ability to perform those tasks just as easily in orbit as on
earth will facilitate the movement of families to orbit rather than strictly
pioneers. If a Medical Researchers doing work that requires zero-g has a
spouse that is a computer programmer would not that person be more willing
to do this work if their spouse was allowed to go along without having to
quit working? Once a few families begin the movement it will start to snow
ball into wholesale settlement.

Kent

My vision of a large Island Three style habitat is a place accommodating
a few million people and being a place where people will want to live.
If I was a gambling man I would bet that Earth of the future will be a
more crowded, contentious, polluted place with a demand for resources
(particularly energy) outstripping supply.

Perhaps the initial economic raison d'etre of the habitat will be
building SPS and other habitats, but much of this activity will be, as
all industrial activity will likely be at some future date, automated.
What are people (besides the few that are actually involved in habitat
and SPS development) to do? They will participate in a terrestial
economy that will be largely an information and services economy.

The habitat, being a desireable place to live, will attract the richest
and the smartest. Perhaps habitat managers or venture capitalist will
recruit the brightest to this "new world" to join think tanks and
cutting edge development labs. The habitat may offer the very best full
immersion virtual reality sites, or specialized AI software.

> If I was a gambling man I would bet that Earth of the future will be
> a more crowded,

How is it likely that Earth is going to having higher population
densities than a Habitat?

> What are people (besides the few that are actually involved in
> habitat and SPS development) to do?

That's a very good question.

> They will participate in a terrestial economy that will be largely
> an information and services economy.

Just because you pose a good question doesn't mean that there is an
answer for it that strengthens the case for Habitats.

The costs of living in a Habitat will be greater than on Earth, so too
will the material deprivations and the lack of geographic mobility.
The offset will be the novelty factor and the wonder of life in orbit.

A stock analyst or a programmer will have to compete with their
terrestrial competitors. Someone living in Bangladesh will be able to
undercut someone living in Tokyo or New York, and they in turn will be
able to undercut someone living in orbit.

To be able to compete the orbital information worker will have to
lower their standard of living in orbit to a level below what they
would require on Earth. The personal trade-offs of significantly lower
standards of living in orbit in order to experience the novelty will
have to be weighed against a middle class lifestyle that the same
workplace skill could deliver somewhere on Earth.

> The habitat, being a desireable place to live, will attract the
> richest and the smartest.

Who says?

> Perhaps habitat managers or venture capitalist will recruit the
> brightest to this "new world" to join think tanks and cutting edge
> development labs.

How will these cutting edge development labs get all of their hi-tech
equipment into orbit? Why would they go to the trouble of launching
all of that gear into orbit when it would be cheaper to set up the lab
somewhere on Earth? The less expense there is in getting a product
developed the quicker the path to profitability.

> The habitat may offer the very best full immersion virtual reality
> sites, or specialized AI software.

Why can't these be offered more cheaply on Earth?

TangoMan

>
> Why can't these be offered more cheaply on Earth?
>
> TangoMan

TangoMan, as usual, made some very good arguments about economics in his
reply to this thread. The value of an economicly viable solution cannot
be over stated but at the same time one has to be sure that it is
relevant. Let's take the case of a L5 colony. Is there really a
relationship between information worker man-hours in the L5 and
information worker man-hours on the Earth? Without a direct correlation
that cannot be a valid comparison.

Earth:
Buys food, housing, energy from global market.

L5:
Food, housing, and energy are supplied by L5 resources under the
assumption that the L5 is capable of being self sufficient otherwise it
is a dead end anyway. Within the L5 value may or may not be assigned to
commodities. Energy may not be assigned a value except that it will
obviously be tracked for system maintainance reasons. Common food
staples may not be assigned a value and the same for housing.
Earth news and entertainment may not have much bearing on those living
in an L5.

In short the L5 is NOT integrated into the global market and therefore
trying to measure L5 wage values against Earth values may be totally
meaningless.

If a persons basic needs are satisfied by just living in an L5 then
higher level fulfillments are required as exchange for labor. Higher
level fulfillments tend to be mental and difficult to define value for.
Trying to relate labor value in an L5 with Earth wages may be meaningless.

Mitchell James
www.InnerTransit.org

>
>>making interaction between habitat residents and Earthbound
>
> residents > easier which has implications in an integrated information
> economy.
>
> I'm not quite clear on what exactly you're envisioning here. Some
> people have floated the proposal that orbital habitats will be a
> nirvana for information workers doing contract work for clients on Earth.
>
> I don't buy those scenarios, because I go by the rule of thumb that
> anything that can be done on Earth can be done cheaper than in oribt.
> Orbital Habitats will excel in specializing in goods and services that
> cannot be done on Earth. I don't see guys sitting around coding all
> day in orbit being a competitive nitch compared to guys sitting around
> and coding all day in Mumbai.

I can see a niche. One huge problem with using guys in Mumbai is the
lack of real time ability to talk to them. Conference calls are
inconvenient for one party, if you need to work in real-time one of you
is going to be toiling at night.

A given habitat could adjust their work routine to lockstep with their
client without the problems a similar team in Mumbai would. You don't
always need or want this but it could be a selling point or worth the
extra expense.

Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport

brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967

Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks

Victoriaman,

I have always appreciated your posts and respected your obvious grasp of
economic issues. I realize that in a debate on economics I will
inevitably emerge out of the losing end. However, I will attept to
clarify my view.

My point that the Earth is going to be a more crowded place is in
reference to the Earth of today and not the habitat. Why would people
want to live on the habitat? If the Earth is plagued with some 10
billion souls by mid-century, the majority of which will be living in an
impoverished, degraded environment, one can imagine the attraction of a
habitat with a tailored environment, unlimited energy, political
stability, perfect weather and a short commute. I can't imagine that
the habitat will be anything other than an energetic frontier filled
with bright, creative people.

The likelyhood that the habitat might support higher living densities
than many places on Earth won't be a detraction. If population density
was the dominant factor in people's choices of where to live there
wouldn't be any large cities. Large cities are exciting, energetic
places which attract people as will the habitat.

My saying that habitat residents will participate in a terrestial
economy was not necessarily an attempt to strengthen the case for a
habitat, but simply a projection of what is likely. If the habitat is
capable of attracting the most adventurous and the brightest, these
people will create information services that are novel and unique which
will likely not be in direct competition with the drudgery of coding
software in Bangalore, for example. The easy and everyday tasks are
likely to be automated regardless. The information economy will be a
competition of new ideas and entertainments. It won't matter whether
you live in New York, Rio, Tokyo, or O'Neill City.

How will cutting-edge habitat development labs get all their hi-tech
equipment into orbit? We need to assume that if there is to be a
habitat of some 10 million souls at some point in the future,
transportation costs will be such that 3 shuttle flights of 300 people,
over a 30 year period (or something similar) will be practical from an
economic standpoint. If such a transportation infrastucture exists the
transportation of specialized equipment to the habitat won't necessarily
be a intractable problem.. I can't tell you how transportation costs
will become practical (other that it is hard to imagine NASA being at
the forefront of such an acheivement) ... I am just trying to envision
an end result.

On the other hand, there is a trend towards flexible manufacturing
processes which facilitate low volume, customized goods. I envision the
habitat having quite an advanced, large scale manufacturing capability,
being tooled to construct SPS and other habitats but also able to
facbricate sophistated, customized tools.

I have to admit that I don't fully understand your argrument that if
things can be done more cheaply on Earth they will be done there.
Although that may appear to be the case over a long period of time (like
the migration of industrial capacity to emerging industrial nations),
over a short period of time imbalance seems more the rule.

Whether it will be cheaper to establish development labs or create novel
full immersion VR or AI software on some location on Earth as opposed to
the habitat is not of central importance. The sky-high living costs in
New York City for example, doesn't stop it from being one of the premier
centres of financial services. It doesn't seem to matter that the cost
of living is cheaper in Cairo and perhaps Cairo could undercut New York
if wished to get into the financial services market.

The financial expertise and practices have gravitated to places like New
York, London and Tokyo and people there keep innovating their products
or offer a critical mass of services which shuts out competition. When
unique services are offered that people want, they will pay the going
price, no matter their origin, until someone else comes along with a
cheaper price.

The point is that in my vision of the habitat, it will not necessarily
be saddled with an insurmountable economic disadvantage that will
preclude it from participation in a terrestrial econcomy. I think it is
obvious that the habitat will never compete with the Istanbul Brick Co.
by peddling bricks made from lunar regolith. However, in an information
economy knowledge and ideas are worth more than materials. In fact, the
habitat might have knowledge and creative ideas in spades which might
provide a decided advantage. For example, as compared to Earth
jurisdictions, the habitat will likely be more advanced in areas such as
recycling and waste management. There will be a ready market down at
the bottom of the gravity well for this expertise.

>
> > If I was a gambling man I would bet that Earth of the future will be
>
> > a more crowded,
>
> How is it likely that Earth is going to having higher population
> densities than a Habitat?
>
> > What are people (besides the few that are actually involved in
> > habitat and SPS development) to do?
>
> That's a very good question.
>
> > They will participate in a terrestial economy that will be largely
> > an information and services economy.
>
> Just because you pose a good question doesn't mean that there is an
> answer for it that strengthens the case for Habitats.
>
> The costs of living in a Habitat will be greater than on Earth, so too
>
> will the material deprivations and the lack of geographic mobility.
> The offset will be the novelty factor and the wonder of life in orbit.
>
> A stock analyst or a programmer will have to compete with their
> terrestrial competitors. Someone living in Bangladesh will be able to
> undercut someone living in Tokyo or New York, and they in turn will be
>
> able to undercut someone living in orbit.
>
> To be able to compete the orbital information worker will have to
> lower their standard of living in orbit to a level below what they
> would require on Earth. The personal trade-offs of significantly lower
>
> standards of living in orbit in order to experience the novelty will
> have to be weighed against a middle class lifestyle that the same
> workplace skill could deliver somewhere on Earth.
>
> > The habitat, being a desireable place to live, will attract the
> > richest and the smartest.
>
> Who says?
>
> > Perhaps habitat managers or venture capitalist will recruit the
> > brightest to this "new world" to join think tanks and cutting edge
> > development labs.
>
> How will these cutting edge development labs get all of their hi-tech
> equipment into orbit? Why would they go to the trouble of launching
> all of that gear into orbit when it would be cheaper to set up the lab
>
> somewhere on Earth? The less expense there is in getting a product
> developed the quicker the path to profitability.
>
> > The habitat may offer the very best full immersion virtual reality
> > sites, or specialized AI software.
>
> Why can't these be offered more cheaply on Earth?
>
> TangoMan
>
education

History of space My first Space exploration

--- In ssi_list@... Mitchell James

> L5:
> Food, housing, and energy are supplied by L5 resources under the
> assumption that the L5 is capable of being self sufficient otherwise
> it is a dead end anyway.

> In short the L5 is NOT integrated into the global market and
> therefore trying to measure L5 wage values against Earth values may
> be totally meaningless.

Mitchell,

Here are my unstated premises:

-The basics of food, housing and energy will be supplied from orbital
sources.
-A local economy will develop.
-An export/import economy will develop.
-Pricing levels and degrees of spread between products on Earth will
not necessarily translate directly to a Habitat's economy.
-A person's needs go beyond the basics. Many of the goods will not be
able to be manufactured economically in orbit until there is
sufficient population to warrant new undertakings.

So, if you need heart medication, it's likely that it might be able to
be manufactured on from a small batch process in orbit with IP
licensing fees paid back to Earth. However, if you need a CPU,
motherboard, hard drive, and LCD monitor then we're looking at massive
capital costs to establish factories in orbit and we may not have the
market size to warrant a return on investment.

If prices are transparent then you'll find some goods to be
extraordinarily expensive because they come from Earth, but other
goods will be really cheap, such as energy, perhaps food, perhaps
local clothes, etc.

How this price rationalization will play out is a great game of
speculation.

I do think that there will be a misappropriation of human resources by
doing in orbit that which can be done on Earth. We will certainly need
tailors, butchers, gardeners, bricklayers, agronomists, weavers, etc
in orbit, but the architecture of orbital homes may be done by people
on Earth who are versed in Habitat building codes.

I guess if I had to describe my assumptions it would be that those who
have to be in orbit will do well and those who have to compete against
terrestrial suppliers will have a harder time.

I have trouble rationalizing an Orbital economy that simply replicates
much of what we do on Earth, with the obvious exception of SPS
provision. As an economy grows organically, I think the export growth
will develop from industries that have to be in orbit. Right now there
is very, very little R&D devoted to vacuum environments, variable
gravity environments, and radiation environments because they are
either expensive to create on Earth or simply impossible. In orbit,
they'll be free for the taking, so to speak. No products have yet been
identified that can be developed in orbit and I think that this is the
case because compared to commerical R&D budgets, space R&D is
miniscule and misapplied. Put thousands of researchers into orbit,
because they have to be there, let them loose and direct them to
concentrate their research towards the unique conditions present in
orbit, and not trying to beat Intel with a better CPU chip that can be
manufactured on Earth, and we'll see marketable, and profitable
products being developed. If a product needs a high quality vacuum,
radiation bombardment and zero-gravity, there's no way they're going
to build that on Earth.

TangoMan

Ron,

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your points.

> I have to admit that I don't fully understand your argrument that if
> things can be done more cheaply on Earth they will be done there.

I hope that my response to Mitchell addresses this point.

> The sky-high living costs in New York City for example, doesn't stop
> it from being one of the premier centres of financial services.

This has a lot to do with Wall Street growing organically, and being
being a planned development. There are also powerful network effects
at work.

I expect that both of these forces will be at work in orbit, but
focused on unique orbital goods and services. Whole new sectors of the
economy will likely develop.

TangoMan

Two final comments.

1. I agree that once the habitat and the mental talent that resides
there is established, organic economic growth will spawn industries
suitable to the resources on hand. My suggestion of an burgeoning
information technology industry is due the fact that cerebral horsepower
is the main component of production rather than materials and the
habitat should be a unique position to compete in that marketplace.
What makes silicon valley unique is not because it has cheap sources of
silicon but because it has a unique critical mass of skilled, educated
workers who want to live in California. Perhaps this suggestion suffers
from a limitation of my imagination and like you suggest, industries
that we can't even imagine will emerge.

2. I think that the big disconnect in my vision and what you see is
because I am extrapolating technology trends into some distant future
where material costs trend towards zero and intellectual costs toward
100%. However, due to an accelerating Kurzweillian growth trend this
distant future may be nearer than many are willing to concede.

RE L5

Besides the resources and potential products and services space can offer earth and utilize for its own good, we need to keep a constant link to earth for a long time.

Barring a sudden serious world-wide Dark Age, science and technology on earth will for some time far exceed anything spacers have if you only factor in the population of earth and therefore from that the greater likelihood of more discoveries that we could possibly use in R&D resulting in upgrades, improvements, medicines, new products, etc.

Permissions/specifications can be sent to us and much of the specifics thereby made in space as is possible thus reducing or eliminating the need to launch anything regarding the item.

If you examine each major population expansion into new areas of the world
you will find no valid in place business case for that expansion (excluding
any gold rushes). The movement of people into the New World was done more so
by people willing to pay for the change of scenery. One supposed way that
the Virginia Company was to recoup the costs of the Jamestown settlement was
making glass for export back to England. There is no way you could make
glass in a far off land, ship it across the ocean and say it is going to be
cheaper than anything made in England. However that did not stop Jamestown
from producing and shipping a lot of glass.

The same goes for the Westward expansion of the country. About the only way
to make money on that expansion was in getting people there and bringing
supplies to them. Although huge economies developed in the places settled in
ways that no one could have imagined prior to the settlement. The expansion
was mostly done by people willing and able to pay the expenses and endure
the hardships for the change of scenery and the adventure.

The same is likely going to happen with the High Frontier. Right now the
costs to orbit are such that only those that can cough up $20 million for a
short ride can afford it. However we know that launch costs will continue to
drop. At some point it is likely that people will be able to pay to move to
an orbital location. This will create markets for the companies that provide
transportation, developers, etc.

The economies that fuel the labor market will develop in place based on the
people that are there. Some of these will likely be traditional types of
businesses that are able to be provided via telecommuting. Others will be
yet to even be imagined as possible.

Just my $0.02!

Kent

Good observation, Kent.

But, as you know, it was sometimes more than just a change of scenery and the thirst for adventure to cause folks to risk their lives crossing hazardous terrain, seascapes, and oceans.

Some wanted to find a better place than where they were and thought the trip might take them there. Some wanted to escape religious persucution. Some were would-be land/city developers, entrepreneurs, and business folks.

I'm betting this is not any Historical replay though. It's not just "high" up there, it's a NEW frontier with a lot of virgin resources.

It might turn out to be much bigger and much more serious and urgent than anything experienced in the past.

We really don't know for sure.

But I'm salivating and expect others will as well.