Bootstrapping

--- In ssi_list@... "Colin Keizer"
> Hello Tangoman.
>
> This looks like as good a place as any to insert a bookmark. See
> below my spiel.
>
> For me, the biggest problem in this project definition is your
> goal.
>
> If your goal is to build infrastructure you just lost your
investors.

I beg to differ. Look, I'm no engineer nor am I a scientist and I
often yield in my opinions to those who have more specialized
knowledge, but I've spent my whole professional life dealing with
the funding of projects and I stand by my contention that a
sophisticated investment proposal that addresses the needs of the
consortium will not go unfunded. I'm not writing that my series of
posts is such a proposal but I can't let stand unchallenged your
above statement.

> They don't want to hear about infrastructure until AFTER they hear
> about the profits. Of course, this email group is all about
> infrastructure...(GRIN)

And you know this how? Was this the case with the Alaska pipeline,
North Sea Oil, Trans-Siberian pipleine, Ekati Diamond Mine in the
Arctic, the Lomas Bayas copper mine in the Chilean Atacama desert,
the world's largest nickel find at Voisey's Bay, Gulf of Mexico oil,
or Hibernia oil. These are all privately financed ventures, some are
stuck in the middle of nowhere, and they all had to lay down a lot
of infrastructure before they could even start to work on the
project that would make them their profits. Even as we debate this
there is in the works a pipeline to access the rich Caucasus oil
fields and believe me that project is also going to have to lay down
quite a bit of infrastructure to get to the point of just laying
pipe. Or how about a more simple example. You want to clear cut a
forest and sell all of the timber. Are you going to construct any
roads into that forest or just harvest the timber close to the
existing infrastructure that you're standing on?

> Let's take a look at the (strawman?) suggestion you make about 100%
> IDENTICAL PARTS. I actually like this idea a LOT! Just leave out
> the robots. If we can build 100% identical parts we can also
> build them with enough smarts to be able to rendezvous and link up
> to each other.

If you believe it to be a strawman, I'm happy to shift the debate to
a scenario of your choosing. No problem.

As to your comments above, I can go to a solar cell factory and pull
a whole bunch of solar cells from the bins, I'll put them on the
floor and issue the command "join" and watch them do what? Nothing.

OK, I put a rocket on each one and a control chip for guidance. Now
it's gotten very expensive with all of that redundant gear. Still
left unaddressed is the physical act of joining, so now each
component has to have mechanisms for connections. Once the
connection is completed, what good are those rockets, guidance
chips, software, joining mechanisms? And how about residual fuel
left over after joining, or worse yet, not enough fuel to complete
the joining or kill the velocity. For that matter, does each
identical component need radar so that it doesn't crash into another
component?

> I don't care whether that is automatic or telop.
>
> Better yet, why must the "proof of concept" SPS be a single,
> massive structure? That is so...1980s.

You've introduced the proof of concept issue. I'm not saying that
SPS needs to fulfill that role, I'm assuming that the concept has
been proven already and the work is underway to bring it about.

>>> >>>>
>
> Keep in mind that the technologies we will use to create SPS are
> currently very much in flux. Radical enhancements to solar
> photovoltaic conversion efficiency and radiation hardening may be
> only a few years away.
>
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-
> solar-cell.html
>
> Miniaturization of critical station-keeping ion engine technology
> and avionics technology also continue apace.
>
> In my opinion it would be a HUGE step in the right direction to
> design a "distributed" SPS made of individually launched modules
> that fit on cheap expendable boosters. I would be even happier to
> see modules so compact that they could be deployed with Leck
> Myraibo's laser launcher but that is probably a generation away.

I'm not really keen on going into a debate on merits of Earth
launched SPS. Others have laid on the case very well that that's a
non-starter, Mike Combs, Charles Radley, Arthur Smith, come
immediately to mind, as well as others. Search the archives for
their posts.

Also, do some simple math. I suggest taking the cost of the cheapest
launch vehicle, find out its payload mass, and derive a cost per kg.
Then go check out the new solar cells you've referenced for their
mass to power ratio. Then add on some additional mass for all of the
control gear that you advocate and come up with a price per kW/hr
completed. I'd be interested in the result :)

> Don't get hung up on infrastructure. If it is justified by the
> business requirements of a profitable venture it will happen. If
> it is not justifiable there may still be possibilities for
> profitable ventures.

First off, I'm not saying otherwise. Secondly, tell me whether you
agree with this statement: given sufficient demand for volume of
material in orbit, at some point the costs of developing those
resources in orbit will be lower than launching them from earth.

OK, I won't get hung up on infrastructure but I will eagerly await
your description of how to mine lunar and NEO resources, refine said
resources, fabricate them into products, transport them in orbit,
provide the energy required to achieve these tasks, etc without any
infrastructure at hand.

>
> Making investors rich by profitably exploiting space resources is
> the goal.
>
> Colin Keizer

OK, let's say I'm investing in you as a geologist. You go into the
woods with, let me be gracious here, your clothes and a hammer,
because we don't want to assume too much infrastructure hindering
your profit making ability. Months later, and I don't even know how
you've survived, you come back to me, you're all scraggily looking,
with a chunk of Hongshiite and tell me you've found a way to exploit
it profitably.

A whole bunch of your buddies are going out to your Hongshiite vein
with their own clothes and hammers and you'll all bring back as much
Hongshiite as you can carry. Some of your buddies are going to hunt
for your food, so you'll cut them in for an equal share.

Without a platinum refinery, that Hongshiite is pretty worthless to
me. Without huge amounts of electricity, a platinum refinery is
pretty worthless, without some type of fuel, the electric plant is
also pretty worthless, . . . you get the picture. What you see as
worthless infrastructure is really all part of the economic cycle,
with each component extracting value from the market it serves.

So let me ask you how will you make investers rich by profitably
exploiting space resources without any infrastructure?

TangoMan