Digest Number 509

>
> I will debate your numbers later, the particular
> values do not matter for my argument..

Nor mine, which is why I freely admitted that they were without
substantiation, but the magnitude of scale that they refer to is
important. One pilot project will not earn a return sufficient to
amortize the broad infrastructure required to bring about the High
Frontier.

>
> Ron and yourself have dodged my central issue, so I
> will repeat it.
>
> We can calculate an ROI for SPS. It is large. I
> threw out 100:1 for no particular reason. It could
> be a lot larger, I am referring to the size of the
> world's energy market, not the ROI of a single SPS at
> L-1. The demo at L-1 by itself will not make a
> profit. But the huge industry it will spawn is the
> ROI.

I don't disagree with your proposition that a successful
demonstrator of the technology will indeed lower the barriers for
the next iterations of SPS, but the success of that endeavor
shouldn't be defined as a return on investment, which is a specific
financial definition.

I jumped into the debate because I felt I had an opinion I could
offer on the ROI issue that was raised.

Philosophically, I walk the road of compromise between your two
positions as I detailed in my 60 Easy steps post. I actually favor
both positions but at very distinct stages of orbital development,
do favor lunar development, don't favor the South Pole, and see
Ron's small lunar development as a necessary precursor to the first
L1 demonstrator project.

(as an aside, I know that my 60 Easy Steps post was long, but didn't
anybody (other than Charles) have ANYTHING to say about it or the
order of the steps. Geez I spent like a half a day writing that
novel in the hopes that others could offer their insights into
refining the critical path necessary for developing the High
Frontier.) Is there no interest in this type of minutae with regards
to the planning?

>
> What is the ROI for the boostrapping model ?

The answer to this question is dependent on one's definition of the
term "bootstrapping."

My understanding of ther term is that that the bootstrapping model
is dependent on each preceding step being profitable enough to
either fund the following step. A broader interpretation might
include removing enough uncertainty to warrant further investment
into the next step with the likely promise of future financial
rewards.

To use ROI as a criteria would restrict us to consider only the
first definition of the model, so the implication is that an ongoing
bootstrapping model must have a positive ROI.

No financier will embark on a project with returns forecasted 30 -
50 years in the future. The profit window must be on a near horizon,
but not necessarily an immediate horizon.

Other criteria should be used for the second definition of the model.

>I submit that it is zero, anybody care to defend a different
> number ?

I'll defend the position that it must be some value greater than
zero if the bootstrapping model, being dependent on the ROI
criterion, is to proceed to its next step.

OTH, if the criteria for success is to be a factor other than ROI,
then ROI can indeed be zero and the model can still proceed onwards.

I know, it may be nitpicking, but we should all understand the
common definitions of our favorite discussion topic :) If we're in
agreement on the definition and you feel that we're still
disagreeing as to the issues I'm more than happy to engage in a
dialogue with you or Ron, or to read your rebuttal to each other's
positions. Thus far the dialogue between you has been interesting.

TangoMan