Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

> > 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).
>
>It's very easy to say "if designed right, then this will work" but
>it's much more difficult in practice to achieve this perfect state.

This is simply a case of me trying too hard to choose my words carefully.
Let me put it more emphatically: If it can't be designed so that research
modules can be converted to or replaced with production modules, then the
idea won't work and should be scratched (at least from my perspective). I'm
not at a point where I can state it is absolutely going to be the case. But
nor do I believe anyone can say just as absolutely that it is not possible.

>With respect to swapping research modules with production modules, I
>don't think I would be too happy if my company placed a research
>module into this MUOL, and the research module "next door" was
>replaced with a production module. Let's just assume it was as easy
>as a straight swap. Now I may have massive vibration effecting my
>module because of the production process. I have heat and waste
>discharge issues, there'll be material delivery and product
>discharge to contend with.

Clearly this is an issue and not one I have overlooked in anything but my
very cursory overview of the concept you are commenting on here. Is it
absolutely impossible to design a way for those concerns to be mitigated?

>This approach is too simple in its
>premise to be realistic. It's like saying "I've wired my house for
>electricity, so now I can use any electrical appliance anywhere."
>Good luck using your stove (running on 240V) on your bathroom
>outlet. The devil is in the details and you often times can't design
>systems to be universally adaptable. That is the danger of simply
>ignoring issues with a statement like "if we design it right . . "

"if we design it right" was a poor choice of words. Please don't dismiss
the idea based on my inability to adequately articulate the concept. The
devil is indeed in the details. In fact, when I first did a website to
promote the (very) general concept I have apparently so poorly described
here, that was the very motto prominently displayed in the upper left hand
corner of every page.

Details aren't being left out in the manner you seem to subtly suggest
here. They are being left out because this is all very new and recent and
young. I am not at all convinced that there is anything completely
prohibitive about any of these issues. Challenging, yes. Prohibitive, no.
Does this concept have a long, long, long, long way to go? Of course it does.

>There is no reason, too, that habitation and
> > life-support modules can't be developed to "plug" into the MUOL
>backplane.
>
>Same criticism as above. I'm sure there are lots of reasons. Wishing
>won't make it so.

I'm not wishing. It's just a simple statement - a goal of the MUOL. Again,
are you prepared to state that this concept is absolutely unworkable? No
merit whatsoever?

> > 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.
>
>Why can't the Hubble telescope grow into something much larger and
>more useful.

Because it was never designed to be anything more than a space telescope.
The MUOL will be designed for much more than a single purpose.

>Or for that matter, the other satellites up there. I'm
>sure we could marry them into one big useful platform. You see, just
>because I wrote this doesn't make it any more likely to happen.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that I said it would happen because
I said it would happen?

>I
>didn't give you any reason why it is plausible and what engineering
>details have been solved to make my proposition become reality.

Well, gee, if the standard of posting an idea to this board is that you
have to have engineering specs in hand, I guess there's not much point in
being subscribed to it. It is a rough, general overview of a concept still
in its infancy. And you criticize it because I haven't accounted for every
single little detail?

>Let
>me go further with this analogy. If the hubble telescope
>was "designed right", we could block off the tube, fill it with
>atmosphere and live in it, but still use it as a telescope. It just
>has to be "designed right." Easy for me to say, but I dare to
>venture a guess that the unlucky engineer who actually is given the
>task of "designing it right" will quit the moment he's given the
>task. I don't mean to sound insulting, and I fear that I may be
>coming across that way, but I think that this group has a lot of
>people committed to furthering the goal of space settlement and we
>can all help the goal by employing peer review. It's something I
>went through in my doctoral program, and what scientists go through
>for the entirety of their careers. I think our collective
>understanding would be helped immensely if our proclamations were
>defensible. "Designed right" becomes a whitewash.

God, will I ever live down that poor choice of words. Again, saying "if it
is designed right" has no relevance to the concept itself. It only goes to
my description of the concept. You see that, right. You aren't talking
about the MUOL there. You are talking about my description of the MUOL.

> > 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.
>
>So, I can buy into the seed module being earth launched, and even
>modules that follow, but at some point doesn't it behoove the
>promotors of this scheme to try to lessen the expense of launch by
>developing orbital manufacturing capabilities.

Yes, that's what I said before. Convert or replace research modules with
production modules.

>That's the major
>trade-off for the space development advocates.
>
> > 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.
>
>Yes, I do.
>
> > 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.
>
>Not so fast there partner. Design paramters influence most
>everything you come across in life. It's not always so easy to
>extend infrastructure. As an example, look at your home's electrical
>system. The fusebox can only handle so much load. If you want to run
>some type of industrial process in your basement you might max out
>your fusebox. So, perhaps it becomes a simple matter of just
>upgrading. But if that isn't enough, then you need to bring more
>power in from the powerline. And if that isn't enough, then you need
>to upgrade the power coming down the line. You might be talking
>about step down transformers, etc. Again, my point is along the
>lines, that it is very simple to say "we'll just expand" and it's
>very hard to actually achieve it.

Understood. Again, I didn't say "we'll just expand" because "we'll just
expand". I said it because I had no idea what standard you were going to
apply to this general overview. I'll rephrase and you tell me if this is
better: A goal of the MUOL is that we will be able to expand. If not, the
idea may very well be untenable.

>If your MUOL, has an electrical generating capacity of 20 MW, and
>all of the internal electrical transmission systems are designed to
>distribute that power at 240 V, then you're going to have a hard
>time accomodating users who need 10,000 V power to refine lunar
>ores.

By the time we are refining lunar ore, there will be whole different
systems handling that process. I seriously doubt the MUOL would be doing that.

>Or, your cooling and radiating system can only disipate X
>amount of waste heat, and now one of the modules wants to run a
>crystal growth experiment in zero-g, and the flux in which the
>crystals will be growing will be at a temeprature of 2,000 C.
>Where's that heat going to go? It may completely disrupt the whole
>MUOL system.

All of this, I agree with absolutely. If it disrupts the system, yes. Some
of this can be "predicted" within certain limitations, some of it can't (I
would suppose). We are so early in this project, that to dismiss it based
on the potential problems with it now would be, in my mind, irresponsible.
The idea has merit and I just want to pursue it until it has been
determined to my satisfaction that the idea does not have merit or cannot
be done.

>Same concerns with bandwidth, life-support, radiation shielding,
>etc. The initial design parameters may limit the MUOL to an optimum
>configuration, and by adding more capacity you'll be experiencing
>diminishing returns, and no "designing right" magic bullet can
>reverse the trends.

Absolutely. I agree with you again. There will probably be such an optimum
configuration and clearly that config would need to be determined to some
degree of accuracy before hand. If it was determined at that point that the
config limited the MUOL too much (in other words, would render the MUOL TOO
ineffective), the idea should be dropped from further consideration and
discussion. And I sincerely hope it will be dropped from discussion in this
forum after your response to this (if you respond to this).

> > >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
>
> >From what I've been able to gather from your postings on the MUOL
>concept, I don't think it's a magic bullet.

I swear I do not recall ever saying it was the magic bullet. I do however
believe that the single most important breakthrough for advancing the
development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY product whose
cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in the space
environment. And I believe that providing a platform for product research
and development in space would be a good idea and that is what I believe
could lead to increased production and a growing and thriving space industry.

Jack