Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

> I never said it was a "necessary pre-condition". I said having
such an
> infrastructure in place would reduce the cost of individual
missions
> because it would eliminate their expense of having to integrate
> infrastructure subsystems. In eliminating this cost, space
industry could
> be made more fundable because the overall cost of the mission
would be less.
>

Ok, I think I see the point you're trying to make. The users of the
infrastructure would still have to pay for the use of the common
infrastructure in orbit, but they wouldn't have to dedicate a whole
set of infrastructure to just their mission.
Yes, that is correct.

I went back and read your posts about MUOL. If that is what you
propose for infrastructure, then I think we're talking in very
narrow terms of what infrastructure is, and which businesses would
find it useful.
In the near-term, yes. Start small so as to reduce up-front costs, but not so small as to render useless. But remember, the M in MUOL stands for modular - the MUOL can evolve . . . and grow!

I'll concede that MUOL, or one of its competitors,
would be useful infrastructure, but only in the very limited sense
of how a MUOL is to be used. I don't see how it would be useful for
industrializing the moon/asteroid, setting up a space transportation
system, building a habitat. Besides, where will all of the material
for the MUOL come from. Earth launched?
Because the MUOL is extensible - it can be expanded - it can evolve into much more than just an unmanned platform for research. I believe, if designed right research modules can be replaced with production modules that utilize the same infrastructure (the goal of product research is production, essentially). There is no reason, too, that habitation and life-support modules can't be developed to "plug" into the MUOL backplane. This would turn the MUOL into a manned space station. Additional modules can expand functionality and capacity; a backplane module, for example, can increase the MUOL's power output and comm bandwidth. The MUOL can grow and evolve into something much larger and more useful. By starting small and focusing on leasing space on the backplane for research, we make the project fundable up front; by designing the MUOL as a "modular" space systems platform, you provide an infinite variety of applications and the opportunity to grow as space industry grows.

As far as what material the MUOL is made of or where it will come from, there are options available, but, yes, it will be Earth launched. But the initial seed structure (seed module) should be small enough that it can be deployed in one launch using existing, cheap(er) ELVs.

Clearly, there are many details that need to be worked out and a lot of questions still need to be answered. But I think you get an idea of what I am talking about.

Also, a few questions about MUOL. I presume that there would only be
enough room for a fixed number of modules.
Possibly. The MUOL is extensible and therefore can support a growing population of modules.

What happens when modules
are to be replaced. Where does the old one go?
Depends. Does the company who owns the module (remember, they're just leasing the backplane connection from us for their infrastructure) need it? If not, it can probably just be deorbited and burn up in the atmosphere. Returning a module from LEO, while tricky, is certainly not prohibitive.

If you consider MUOL
to be infrastructure, then how does it help a space operation that
doesn't fit in module form but may be a refinery, or may be a
process that needs more power than all of the modules in the MUOL
combined?
Well, there may be situations where demand for the infrastructure exceeds the MUOL's ability to provide it. Situations like this have to be discussed further, I don't have a ready answer. I will say that the backplane can be extended, thus increasing power output and comm bandwidth, but how far it can be extended is hard for me to say at this early stage. Is it conceivably infinite? Probably not. But it could be that the "max" size/capacity is so great that reaching that point will be a non-issue. We will presumably outgrow the LEO MUOL at some point (in fact, that is the whole goal), hopefully prior to reaching max capacity. Hard to say, though. I have a lot of work to do on the concept, there's no doubt about that.

The sense I get from what you wrote about the MUOL is that
it will take standardized modules that are in a sense plug-ins.
That is correct, but there will be some flexibility.

It
would be of little use to processes that can't be fit into module
form.
Give me an example of a process that doesn't fit easily into module form. Most anything, I would think, could be accommodated. While the interface itself (the "plug", if you will) will be pretty standard, the method of "plugging in" could vary. Perhaps you just have a long "cord" running from the backplane connection to the "module" or whatever spacecraft is using the backplane. Wouldn't that solve the problem of a process not easily adapted to module form?

> Separating the two (the business and the infrastructure) reduces
the
> overall cost. By making the business more affordable, you increase
> fundability and therefore at least improve the potential for
profit. At the
> very least, you should be able to show a quicker ROI. There can be
> profitability without it being guaranteed up front. I never said
the
> businesses couldn't make money. I said it was difficult to get a
space
> business capitalized because it costs sooooo much up front.
reducing this
> up front cost increases the likelihood of being capitalized.

Yes, but the MUOL must still be capitalized. And they'll charge the
business for the right to plug their modules in for a fixed period
of time. And they'll still have to incur the fixed costs whether
they get the volume of modules plugging in or not. If not, then they
may try to amortize that fixed cost to the existing module holders.
If that MUOL is operating at half capacity, then the module holders
MAY end up paying their rental at a rate greater than bringing their
own modest infrastructure necessary to operate their module only.
The MUOL will never be operating at half capacity (unless we lose modules). It expands with the demand. We don't start with a fixed capacity backplane. Instead, we start with the seed structure and as demand begins to near the current max capacity, we extend the backplane to accomodate additional modules.

I don't see a way of escaping infrastructure costs.
There is no way to escape those costs, but hopefully by distributing the infrastructure costs to multiple users, we reduce the overall cost burden of that infrastructure on the individual user, thus making the mission more "affordable". That's the goal, anyway. Remember MUOL = Modules + Backplane; it consists of multiple companies, an Industrial Cooperative perhaps. The debt burden of the MUOL is distributed among all the users.

Clearly, I have a long, long way to go with this concept, but it makes real practical sense to me. I didn't come up with the idea. The premise has been around for a long time and Eric Hunting put this all together. But I think the idea has a lot of merit and I want to take it as far as I can. If at some point it becomes clear that it is impossible or impractical, then I drop it. Otherwise, I just keep going until I can't go any further or the MUOL is developed and deployed.

Jack