Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

> >But they do, all the time. The first farmers to start farming in
> >the Ohio valley just went there and started farming, building
> >infrastructure as they went.
>
> Come on, now. Back then infrastructure consisted of a railroad track if you
> were lucky. They farmed and built their infrastructure as they went because
> there was NO other option nor was there all that much to the infrastructure
> they "developed". These days 90% or more of all start-ups in the 1st world
> piggy-back on existing infrastructure. And this has been the case now for
> more than a generation.

If you're talking about frontiers, the right comparison is other
frontiers, not highly developed areas. If explorers and risk takers
in times past had insisted on infrastructure before trying to make
a go of it in undeveloped areas, we'd all still be living in Africa :)

> >Ditto oil exploration in Alaska, or
> >on the continental shelf. Ditto again for gold miners in the Yukon
> >or California. The infrastructure follows after the pioneers
> >have already started to make money.
>
> That was then. That thinking is gone for the most part.

I suggest that is part of the problem. Too many people thinking that
you need government handholding to get anything done. If governments
start working to develop the infrastructure it's going to be bogged
down in pork and bureaucratic empire building.

> They didn't have a
> choice. The financiers of today do and choose to finance companies that
> either (a) use existing infrastructure or (b) virtually guarantee high
> profitability (thus warranting the added expense of including
> infrastructure in their start-up). Space businesses can neither guarantee
> high profitability nor piggy-back on existing infrastructure.

Yet. The road ahead is long and fraught with difficulties, but we can
make a go of it if we follow intelligent approaches, and make many starts.
Most space startups will fail, as has most ventures attempting to make
a profit on a new frontier. Since VCs are so gunshy about taking real
risks, it seems logical to seek other sources of funding. The best bet
appears to me to start small and work slowly up, with each step funding
the next. The initial steps that are most promising right now are
suborbital tourism and suborbital imaging.

> Yeah, I've heard this argument many times. But I have also been privy to
> other, equally compelling arguments. Like it's the lack of a market that
> keeps launch costs high.

The two are fundamentally connected at the most basic level. Any
significant reduction in launch costs will create new markets, and any
significant increase in demand (i.e. from new markets) will reduce
launch costs. IMO the most promising approach is to incrementally
follow a path of small improvements in each area. Any other approach
requires very large risks, and in the end of the day risk is the
critical factor in developing new markets, not money. If the risks
can be managed, new markets can be developed. Note that managing
risks doesn't mean eliminating them, or even keeping them small -
it means knowing what they are and making plans accordingly. Oil
exploration is very high risk, but the risks are understood, so
people are willing to invest money based on a risk/reward analysis.
Currently the environment for space development is such that it's
not possible to make a credible risk assessment, so there is no
way to even begin a risk/reward analysis. If government intervention
were to take place anywhere, the most promising would be in the
area of risk management, such as providing insurance for high risk
ventures.

......Andrew

Andrew Case
acase@... |