Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

>
> I can't imagine anyone arguing the uselessness of a commercial LEO
> space station. Anyone on this list care to make a coherent argument
> AGAINST a commercial space station? I'm curious.
>

The case against a space station is that so far no space station has
created a revenue stream which amortized its development. So in the
case of simple commercial criteria, nobody has built a profitable space
station.
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there have only been three, right? One Russion, two American (technically, one American and one International). Since all have been done by government bureaucracies, infamous for their wasteful spending, I am stunned by the argument. I understand it, just disagree with it.

>> What is your definition of "useful" ?
>
> Useful: Being of use or service.
>

??? I have no idea what you mean.
Sorry. When I hit your series of questions, I turned into a bit of a smart mouth. I was just defining useful.

>
>> So what is your business plan?
>
> Don't have one.
>

Well, that kinda stifles the dicussion.
No, it shouldn't. Do you all have business plans? Truth is, I do have part of a business plan relating to the MUOL.

>> How do you propose to raise capital?
>
> I don't.
>

Oh.
Again, being a smart mouth. Can't tell you the way I might raise capital, but I or someone better equipped to do so will need to.

>> How do you propose to make money?
>
> The ability to make money in space is a foregone conclusion. It CAN be
> immensely profitable.
>
>> What are your markets?
>
> Don't have any.
>

?? You lost me.
Sorry. The answer should have been markets for what? The MUOL? Or are you asking generally?

>> Once you
>> have addressed these questions, then the type of infrastructure you
>> need
>> can be evaluated and will then become apparent.
>
> I disagree. It is this thinking that leads to the obvious conclusion
> that space business is too costly. Think of it this way: How many
> Earth-based business would we have today if every one of them had to provide their own infrastructure (transportation
> network, communications, power, etc)? Considerably fewer, right? The
> fact is they don't. The infrastructure to support these businesses is
> already in place. They share that infrastructure with all the other
> businesses and residents of the "neighborhood". And it was never about
> deciding what business they wanted to go into before deciding on what
> infrastructure was needed. What I am trying to glean from this
> community is the infrastructure that would be required in space to
> support businesses in space.
>

Nonsense. In the 1950 and 1960's oil companies spent billions and
billions of dollars creating infrastructure in the artcic wilderness, in
the deserts or Arabia and in the violent North Sea. In all these areas
infrastructure was non existent. They built fleets of ships, bought
fleets of aircraft, trucks, they built roads, they built airports, and
they built cities in the middle of nowhere. And the food was, and in
many cases still is, flown in. Much of the water is trucked in, or
drilled from wells thousands of feet below ground at a huge cost.

But despite all of these costs, the industry is extremely profitable.
There are exceptions, of course. But as a rule most companies are started where infrastructure already exists. While I am confident that space businesses can be and will be profitable, we can't guarantee that they will be so profitable as to support the huge start-up costs required to include the basic infrastructure needed to support the business.

> As it exists right now, yes, all the infrastructure for every mission
> (or "space business') has to be brought up as payload. This, to me, is
> the most fundamental problem. The only way to resolve that, it seems
> to me, would be to provide some of the basic infrastructure necessary
> so companies wanting to do business/research in space could better
> afford to do so. Am I being any clearer?
>

When the pilgrim fathers arrived in America there was no
infrastructure. It took many decades, a century or more, for the
colonies to be more or less profitable.
Yes, but they came to America for wholly different reasons than we are going to space. I don't think this analogy holds up under careful scrutiny. I really don't see the similarities.

> Take the MUOL concept I spoke of in the past: Place a backplane in
> orbit that provides the infrastructure needed to support some basic
> product research and development (the power, comms, etc.). Lease out
> space on the backplane for companies interested in doing research.
> They design and deploy a module and plug it into "our" backplane. How
> much money does the company save by not having to provide it's own
> power and communications subsystems? How much time and money is saved
> by not having to worry about orbit allocation? How many millions of
> dollars are saved by "sharing" the infrastructure of their
> "neighbors"?
>

We need to do a crtiical market analyses.
We need to do many analyses.

Which companies are interested in doing this research ? It has not
happened yet, and I not expect much in the forseeable future.
It hasn't happened because it costs too much to warrant what is essentially speculative research. We know it can be profitable, we just don't know how or in what way, necessarily. As far as who is interested in doing such research - how about pharmaceutical companies? Materials manufacturers? I believe, though I can't substantiate it at this time, there are numerous companies that would love to have an opportunity to do affordable product research and development in the special and unique environment of space.

Space tourism is our best best IMHO.
I strongly disagree with this commonly held contention, but that is one hornets nest I do NOT want to stir up.

>> Are you familiar with the O'Neill scenario ? It assumes that the
>> big
>> market is energy for Earth, then the infrastructue is designed to
>> service that market.
>
> Quite familiar with it, but I don't believe it to be practical. It
> would require Herculean political will and savvy to wrench the energy
> market from the OPEC nations. I don't see

Indeed. Something perhaps as drastic as thousands of lunatic religious
fanatics funded by tons of oil money, spreading around anthrax
everywhere, and blowing up radiological dirty bombs in major cities.

Pure fantasy I guess. Fortunately there is no chance of that
happening, right ?
Hehehe. No, no chance at all.

> that happening in the near future. Solar Power Satellites are an
> excellent idea and one that has my whole-hearted support. But I don't
> see it as realistic in the next 50 or so years.
>

Assuming we live that long. On the other hand, SPS could be an
important survival strategy. It could allow us to stop using oil, and
thereby shut down the lunatic fringe of the oil producers. Not to
mention put a stop to greenhouse gas emissions.
I think SPS should be a part of all long-range plans for space. It's a great idea and entirely doable. Just not practical in the near term.

Great comments!

Jack