What can we do?

> > It's a little difficult to justify any industry in space if it costs (the
> > oft-quoted) $10,000 per pound to reach LEO and beyond. Access costs of
> that
> > magnitude reduce almost every single idea economically prohibitive and
> > until access costs can be reduced very little progress will be made. Do
> you
> > not agree?
> >
>Difficult ? Yes. Impossible ? No.

Ok. If not impossible, then why hasn't it occurred? What is "industry"
waiting for?

>Space communications and Space Tourism make a profits even at these lift
>rates.

Space Tourism isn't making any profit.

> > The lack of a market has also been identified as a sticking point. No
> > market seems to equate to little progress on reducing access costs. I
> mean,
> > what makes more money for aerospace companies - a single RLV with it's
> > amortized costs or multiple ELVs that must built from scratch (and resold)
> > after each launch? If I am an aerospace company, what motivation do I have
> > to develop RLV's for a market that doesn't exist yet? I can rake in big
> > money making ELV after ELV for an already established market (primarily,
> > satellite deployment).
>
>You are ignoring the effects of competition between launch vehicle supliers.

No, I am not. That is far too much to infer from one short post.

>They are competing to reduce costs and steal market share
>from competitors.

ELV's are, but they do not provide the sort of heavy-lift capabilities
needed to truly provide the necessary access for industry in space.

>Right now the huge investment for building an RLV cannot be
>sold to private investors because there is not enough market data to support
>the need for one.

Which is what I said.

> > These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
> > that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.
> > Believe as you will, I don't see it happening.
> >
>What is your basis ?

Common sense.

>Given the fact that it is already
>profitable. It is simply a matter of how fast the market
>will expand.

Already profitable? I disagree. Both tourists (there have only been two in
America - there was also a Russian woman who responded to a radio
"contest"/advertisement and a Japanese reporter who hated his experience -
both went to MIR) paid US $20M to take one seat on the shuttle and go to
the ISS. $40M doesn't even come close to profitability. How much did each
shuttle launch cost? How much did it cost for the shuttle to be readied
between flights? How much did the ISS cost? Etc, etc. Not even close to
demonstrating profitability. Merely a theory extrapolated from Earth-based
adventure tourism.

And just how fast would the market have to expand, anyway? At $20M per
person, per flight, it certainly wouldn't expand very fast would it?

>If we extrapolate from existing markets it is that much easier
>to get venture capital. Investors like to see real numbers for
>an existing amrket, and realistic expectations for market
>expansion. Space tourism is an excellent candidate for this
>kind of pitch to VC's.

I agree. You might (heavy emphasis on might) get venture capitalists to
invest. That doesn't automatically translate into the bootstrapping most
proponents of space tourism contend.

> > To repeat my previous claim: 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. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
> >
>Me me me me me, I disagree, uhuh uhuh
>
>I believe services will open the high frontier, not manufacturing.

Services? For what? There's nothing there but a poorly planned, poorly
deployed, over-priced space station (that would take eons to pay for via
tourist industry), a bunch of debris, and satellites, mostly
communications. What service do you believe will open up the high frontier?

If you've read my MUOL posts, you know my answer to that question. Yes,
there are services that have the potential to open up the frontier. And
yes, services supporting a tourist industry can help. But it is not all
that. Manufacturing, in my opinion, has the greatest potential. Compare the
contributions to earth-based economies of manufacturing industries to
tourist industries and you'll see what I mean.

>Services such as tourism, communications, energy, remote
>sensing.

Oh, these services. Well, tourism is a joke, in my opinion, communications
satellites have been used for 40 years now and have done very little to
open the frontier, ditto for remote sensing, and as for energy, I can only
assume you mean SPS, right? Well, we need a lot more infrastructure in
place before large solar-powered satellites can provide energy to an energy
hungry world.

> > Assuming that to be true, and I do, how can we provide for the "invention
> > or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
> > significantly more favorable in the space environment" within the
> > constraints imposed by current circumstances? Can we do so using launch
> > systems currently available? Can we do so using only existing technologies?
> >
>As a matter of pure research you might be able to persuade
>a govt agency, eg. NASA, DARPA, NSF to give some funding
>to build some stuff, fly it and experiment.
>
>As for getting commercial funding ? Without some real
>numbers for market data, costs and stuff, there will be no
>investment forthcoming.
>
>At this point I think your best bet is to work with governments and
>academia on a pure
>research program. You do not seem to have the kind of
>hard financial data that commercial investors demand.

Baa, humbug! Translation: I disagree.

> > It was this thinking that lead to the MUOL concept I have described
> > previously (see Earth-Moon Network and MUOL threads). Regardless, what are
> > the requirements for realistic projects under current circumstances? As I
> > see it, there are three:
> >
> > 1. It must be able to utilize existing launch systems.
> > 2. It must be able to utilize existing technologies.
> > 3. It must be affordable.
> >
> > Right?
> >
>1) and 2) are a given for a commercial investor.

So, you're saying tourism will bootstrap space industry using existing
launch systems (US space shuttle) and existing technologies? Please explain
how tourism can be anything more than a footnote in the early history of
space exploration using the US space shuttle.

Jack