Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

> 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

No, there have been many more than that.

>From the USSR/Russia: Seven in the Salyut series (two of which failed),
plus Mir, makes 8
Ok. But still, all government controlled and ran. The lack of profitability was due more to their management and purpose than to the potential of space stations to make money, wouldn't you agree?

> 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

So the oil industry is a trivial exception ?
Never said anything like that, Charles.

C'mon, it is a pretty darn big portion of the global economy.
Of course it is, but that is almost completely irrelevant. The fact is that they have a guaranteed market. They are virtually guaranteed a high enough profit margin to warrant the additional up-front costs of adding infrastructure needs. Space industry does not have that. And unless we can:

1. Guarantee high profitability (to warrant the added expense of bringing all necessary infrastructure);
2. Reduce launch costs so that the added expense of that infrastructure is less conspicuous; or
3. Separate the two (the business and the infrastructure) so that the infrastructure is in place in space and therefore not a part of the start-up costs of the business,

. . . then we will never get anywhere. What other factors could reduce the cost of doing business in space? It is entirely possible (darn right probable) that I missed a factor or two. Nonetheless, the point remains. It costs too much at this time to do business in space and we can either sit around and wait for that cost to drop or we can move forward with some way of reducing it now. I believe #3 is both practical and possible and can make doing business in space affordable and profitable. I have a long way to go to proving that, but surely you would agree that if the infrastructure existed in space to provide the business with its power and communication and other needs, the cost of starting that business would be significantly reduced and possibly make funding such a business more manageable.

>> 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.
>

The similarities are obvious.
No they aren't, Charles. Perhaps if we were pilgrims that would have some relevance. Perhaps if we were escaping religious persecution, that would be relevant. We're not, it's not.

>> 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.
>

If you give the space away for free, probably there is a non-zero
market. But not enough to make a profit in the forseeable future.
You have no way to substantiate that at all. Are you saying nobody is interested in doing research in space? I can't substantiate my contention that it could be profitable, either. But until it can be reasonably demonstrated that it is NOT profitable, I will continue researching the possibility.

> 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.
>

Practical ? In what sense ? It is certain technologically feasible.

It is simply a matter of money. As long as society remains blind to the
true costs of fossil fuels then of course it will not happen.
And as long as society remains blind, SPS remains impractical in the near term. That is all I meant. We don't have to get caught up arguing every minor point just for the sake of disagreeing, Charles.

I have been enjoying our discussion so far, but I am sensing a sharpening edge to your replies. I apologize if I have said anything that was offensive in some way. We merely disagree on some things. It's no big deal. Is it?

Jack