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?

But all of those stations were designed without profitability as a
criterion. Therefore, there was no lack of profitability.
>
> > > 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.

Nothing is free in life. If I read you correctly, you're trying to
have businesses avoid the cost of infrastructure, but even on earth
those costs must be paid for, and in the case's of companies having
to put in place their own infrastructure, those costs were paid for
in their entirety by the company. As for the oil companies being
guaranteed a profit, that's not really the case. They are taking a
risk with theie shareholder's capital and will only have success if
they remain on budget, get the whole North sea drilling
infrastructure in place without cost overruns and pump enough oil to
pay for the cost of setting everything up. Otherwise, they wouldn't
get involved in the project.

Now, here are a few examples of projects which are feasible.

1.) With enough of these Tito/Shuttleworth/Bass flights we may see a
growing interest in torism. Already, the vomit comet flights, which
though expensive for most of us, are cheap compared to space flight,
and they are showing a positive upside in terms of market growth.
Some Japanese companies are planning hotels in space. When some
comany figures the market is ripe, they'll invest 20 billion dollars
into constructing an orbiting hotel and contract with a launch
provider for x number of launches per year to get their guests to
the facility.

2.) If the greenhouse effect continues to cause havoc with global
weather patterns, causing huge disaster insurance payouts, lost
productivity, loss of life and we factor in the destabilizing effect
of middle eastern politics and the growing stranglehold on world
finances that they will enjoy with our ever increasing dependence on
their oil . . . then the Kyoto accords, the technological
sophistication of electric cars (hydrogen fuel cell powered), the
political unpopularity of nuclear power, and the need to increase
electrical power generation to fuel the electric cars but finding no
existing way of increasing power generation while reducing noxious
emissions will drive the political decision makers and the business
decision makers to look at Solar Power Satellites. This cannot be a
half measure. It will be like opening up the North Sea to drilling,
but many times over. The NEED, and the HUGE PROFIT, of the SPS, will
put into play hundred of billions to a trillion dollars (I saw a
report that the ISS is up to 92 billion dollars) to get those SPS
built because the profit from them will be immense, and the
political ramifications will also be huge, ranging from a
realignment of global power structures away from the mid east, to
environmentalist lobbies, to new industrial development spurred on
by the now cheaper electrical power.

Once that power is available, I'd expect to see numerous
desalinization plants dotting the California coast to provide power
to the people who decide they want to live in a desert (go figure!),
a proliferation of fuel cell technology, or some other means of
using electrical power to replace gasoline powered vehicles.

You see, the electrical market will be many times larger than the
North Sea oil market, thus the investment in getting SPS going may
be entered into with a good chance for profit.
>
> > >> 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.

The analogy that's being made is that of FRONTIER, not why people
settled the frontier. Of course the reasons for going to space today
will be different than the reasons the pilgrims settled the New
World. But both frontiers present OPPORTUNITY. That's the key.
>
> > >> 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.