Space-Based R&D as a Catalyst for Space Development ( Robber Bar

> > No, I wasn't playing devil's advocate, but I was suspending my
> > disbelief and was, and still am, willing to accept your
proposition
> > that a product is developed in space and its cost effective
> > production is exclusive to the space environment. I have no
doubt
> > that new discoveries will take place in orbit, but their
production
> > only in orbit is where my skepticism is centered.

Jack, I read your whole post before I started this reply and I
sensed what I take to be some frustration on your part towards some
of my comments. I see that you have a passion for your ideas and I
don't mean to be offensive or blockheaded.

I do see the potential of your MULE concept but most of my comments
were motivated by seeking your clarification on some points you made
that I thought were overreaching, or trying to refute those same
broad statements. Those comments shouldn't be interpreted as taking
any value away from your concept.

I've worked with scientists, engineers and software engineers, and
I've noticed that sometimes they become so deeply embedded within
their visions that they can't see beyond the beauty of their
creations. My reading of your posts gives me the sense that as a
business plan (maybe I'm incorrectly assuming that this is a real-
world scenario you're proposing) you're relying on unsupported
assumptions and a lot of best case scenarios.

Perhaps our friction stems from my having reviewed many business
plans and having to critique them. I'm treating your plan with
serious consideration, hence the volume of our correspondence. Once
again, I do believe that your MULE concept has merit, but by
chipping away at you I want to see how well you support some
assertions that I don't buy.

Now onto business :)

>
> So gravity never effects production quality? Of course it does,
> that's a well-established fact. You are contending that while
> discoveries will take place all will be reproducable on Earth?

No, I'm just questioning the assumption that a space-manufactured
product will not have a terrestrial substitute. Some will, some
won't. The product that must be manufactured in orbit may be the
first, or the hundreth, out of the gate. I have no clue which.

Surely
> you see that is not going to be the case nor will it likely be the
> case most of the time.

Actually, I don't see either, and I have no basis to share your
conclusion about the frequency of occurance.

And in anticipation of your next question, I
> say that because the impact of gravity on Earth-based processes IS
> that profound. It is just THAT significant.

Yes, gravity is an unescapable force on the surface of the Earth. No
argument from me. I too have faith that some processes may be
developed that require the absense of gravity in order to operate.

>
> You do not need to have that scientific talent in orbit to
evaluate
> the merits and potential returns from space-based R&D. In this day
> and age, with networks and rapid communication, computers and
> robotics, in-orbit presence is superfluous. This army of engineers
> and scientists who must consider the ramifications of gravity on a
> daily basis can do so from Earth. They don't have to be in space.

Seeing the army of talent that is used in product R&D and even in
basic engineering of structures leads me to conclude that a series
of garage startups are not going to be pumping out revolutionary
products. I look about and see engineers relying on Physical
Handbook type references all the time. No such body of knowledge
exists for the environment of space and the practice of engineering
in space. Does it? I'd love to read it if it does.

Let me give you an example of what guides my thinking with respect
to this statement. To calculate the forces acting on a 10 storey
building on earth one would use a constant for the force of gravity,
but the same building in some habitat will have a noticable
variation in the centripetal forces acting over its height.

Consider fluid dynamics acting within a pipeline inside a refining
process. Now consider moving that fluid in a zero-g environment.

I think that when you have people trained in all of the nuances of
operating in zero-g, vacuum, radiation, etc, then innovation will
really flourish. People will be taught by experts, curriculms will
be specially designed, codes will be worked out, reference works
will be published, journals dedicated to science dealing only in
this new environment will disseminate the progress to a wide body of
specialists. I think that when these specialists know this new
environment as intimately as their Earth counterparts know theirs,
then things will really start hopping.

It's just a matter of efficiency. Sure, Earth-based people can learn
to operate in space, but when you compare the innovation that arises
from the army of earth-based engineering talent against a thousand
space specialists, the imbalance will be drastic.

>
> But for the record, my opinion of the above is:
>
> Your suggestion that there won't be a product whose production is
> exclusive to the unique environment of space, an environment that
can
> NOT be reproduced in it's totality on Earth, until there's an army
of
> engineers and scientists already in orbit to evaluate the research
> data is such an extreme exageratioin. I find it hard to believe
that
> you, an educated, intelligent person, truly think that is a
serious
> argument.

Actually I do. I'm playing the odds with that statement. I feel more
comfortble that the intellectual resources of a well trained large
cadre of specialists, well versed in their fields, will produce an
economically viable product that can find no substitute on Earth,
than such a product being developed early in the game by only a few.

I look at your position and think it is a long shot, and the odds
for mine are closer to even. But in your defense, long shots do win
the bet once in a while. Conversely, all these scientists on Earth
haven't yet been able to identify a single product that must be
manufactured in orbit. The best they've been able to do is to
identify avenues of research.

>
> > > Question: Why would the
> > > international participants be disappointed in that? I mean,
hey,
> > > there's no future in space-based R&D, right?
> >
> > They might be disappointed because the partners in ISS have
> > invested billions, they have researchers who have grants to
conduct
> > experiments and all of that money and time is sitting idle.
>
> Invested billions in research that has such little promise for any
> near-term returns? My God, they must be mad! And who in the world
> would give their researchers grants? It's so speculative and
stands
> little chance of contributing significantly to Earth-based markets.
>
> Seriously, you're making my case. Yes, they invested billions - to
> provide the infrastructure to support microgravity research oboard
> the ISS. And when that infrastructure was rendered moot by NASA
cuts
> they were mad. I'm sure they were mad that they spent all that
money,
> but why spend it in the first place if there's no merit to space-
> based R&D.

I'm not taking the position that space R&D has no merit. It does.
But I also don't take the position that the ISS country partners
invested in the station for purely R&D reasons. I think a large part
of had to do with national prestige, cooperation, wanting to have
astronauts from your nation, some members of national academies of
science wanting to be players in a new game, etc. The actual merit
of space R&D did have a role, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it
was the primary factor. I base this position on the preponderance of
press that I've read from ISS partner space agences that addressed
the other features of their ISS involvement, from the science
journals and their relative lack of orbital references, and lastly
from negative statements from some national academy of sciences that
said the monies spent ill served their scientific community. That
same comment was made about the Superconducting SuperCollider in
Texas. Of course, the scientists associated with it thought it was
the best thing since sliced bread, but others said it took a
disproportionate share of national R&D funding for too little gain.

>
> > But that said, the fact that there is research, or not, on ISS,
and
> > the value inherent in that research doesn't buttress your
> contention
> > that a product will be developed only in orbit and thereafter
> > manufactured only in orbit.
>
> No, you need to go back and reread that message. You're combining
> different arguments from different points. You originally were
> implying there was little, if any, value in space-based R&D
without
> extensive in-orbit infrastructure. Now that that contention has
been
> aptly refuted, you argue that even if there is value that doesn't
> translate into a product whose cost-effective production is
exclusive
> to the space environment. I never said it did. I was merely
refuting
> your apparent assertion that there is no promise of return from
space-
> based R&D absent of extensive infrastructure in space.

Wow, this is really getting interesting :) How did you refute
something I didn't advocate? I never asserted that there was no
value to orbital R&D, just that it isn't the driver for laying
orbital infrastructure. As for your second refutation, I also never
took the postion that you need infrastructure to conduct orbital R&D.

I think your MULE platform is a standalone project that adds nothing
to orbital refueling, life-support, refit, launch, shelter and other
infrastructure capabilities.

Are we in disagreement?

>
> There has been enough research in space to easily suggest there is
a
> great deal of promise in space-based production. I am NOT the only
> person on the planet who thinks so. Many people, much smarter than
I,
> agree.
>
> Roger Handberg, Director of the Center for Space Policy and Law,
> states in his book, "The Future of the Space Industry":
>
> "Materials process in a microgravity environment confronts
directly
> the competition of Earth-based products - a competition in which
> price and quality become a direct trade-off. For this reason,
> materials processing in space continues to be pursued but the
field
> awaits either a product that uniquely requires microgravity
> processing and is essential for some critical need (i.e., a life
> saving drug)

Mr. Handberg supports my point. The field awaits a product that even
this expert can't guess about. He's relying on faith that such a
product exists. Yes, I too have the same faith, but I won't argue
based on faith, and if I were the decisionmaker at a tech company I
wouldn't invest in a MULE compartment without having an idea of what
I wanted to produce. Most corporations don't do basic science -
that's usually funded by governments. Maybe after such science has
been done, then practical applications will come of it. That's when
I'd be willing to buy a MULE compartment. That's when my faith will
be buttressed by evidence and I'd at least be able to assign some
expected values to the outcomes of research and base the funding
decision on somethng a little more solid.

or else a significant decline in launch costs that
> reduces overhead expenses. The latter remains more likely than the
> former in the short term. . .

Don't you find this statement disheartening? Even this expert thinks
it's more likely to lower launch costs that it is to develop a
product unique to space.

A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower
> costs is clearly separating materials processing from manned
flight
> operations." (emphasis mine)

Yes, I agree with you. Yes, I do see that a MULE could achieve this
goal.

>
> Continuing, ". . . robotic missions presently allow longer time
> periods for materials to be processed in low-vibration
environments
> prior to return to Earth. The cost savings should make such
products
> more competitive in the marketplace. In addition, robotic
> missions . . . can be flown more frequently. This means that the
> products produced move from the the status of exotic rarities to
> commercially available ones, enhancing their price is likely to
> increase their use (a nicely circular relationship)."
>
> Now, having said that I will also tell you that I have read a NSF
> report stating there is no real market for commercial microgravity
> research. I disagree and I believe I can make the case. I may not
be
> able to make the case to you, but I don't think that has much to
with
> the merits of my argument or the logic I employ.

I don't hold myself up to be a paragon of wisdom. I'm sure that many
innovators can point to experts who said their accomplishments
couldn't be done. But why did NSF take a negative view, and on what
basis do you disagree with them?

Straying a little from the topic of MULE driver infrastructure
construction, I do want to bring up an issue that I've left
unstated, but nevertheless is in the background of my thinking in
all matters concerning orbital commerce. That issue has to do with
the cost/gram of the most expensive products on Earth and how any
orbitally manufactured product, or even mined or refined products,
would reflect the cost of retrevial from orbit. Would the products
have to be soft-landed? Would they splash into the ocean? Hard land
into a desert? Parachute? Let's say you're using an economical
Russian launch service and you're paying $1,000/lb. Look about and
see how many products sell for more than a $1,000 per pound.

With the above in mind, even if you're correct with respect to the
odds, and that these space-only products are more numerous than I
believe, how likely is it that you may devise a product but won't be
able to market it because of its expense?

> Pharmaceutical research in space is based largely on the creation
of
> pristine, near-perfect crystals (protein crystals, for examples)
that
> can NOT be duplicated in ANY gravity-affected environment. Can
your
> company produce protein crystals in Earth-based labs? Yes. But not
> like my company can in space. And it is that ability to create
> pristine crystals in microgravity that is most likely (and already
> has in some cases) going to lead to the medical breakthrough you
> hypothesize.

Let me give you a related real-world example that I was involved
with that has to do with crystal growth.

Company A is growing sapphire/ruby crystals via a flux process. This
process grows the crystals in a molten material over a period of
months within platinum crucibles. By maintaining a steady state
temperature but having a temperature gradient over the height of the
crucible a convection current is established within the flux and the
crystal nutrients slowly crystallize on the crystal. This is a very
expensive and time consuming process.

Company B sets out to compete but they use a different process. They
decide to employ what is called the Czochralski method which still
needs a noble metal container, but they use iridium (cheaper) and
they do a controlled pull out of the flux, resulting in an inferior
crystal, but one that is larger in size and one that is produced in
a shorter period of time.

Company C sees that the market is growing because of reduced price
for the end product. It sets out to perfect a third technique,
hydrothermal growth. Using autoclaves that contain pressures of
30,000 psi and tempetures of 600 C and also employing a temperature
gradient they produce greater quantities of product, much cheaper
than either Company A or B, but their product has crystal
dislocations and other imperfections.

Company C is doing much better than its two competitors.

The moral of this story, is that a perfect protein crystal MAY not
be ESSENTIAL to a product, thus one grown on Earth may do a
sufficient job.

>
> > If I have no research that can be done in orbit, and my
competitor
> > discovers something new, I won't all of a sudden find ways to do
my
> > research in orbit. One doesn't lead to the other.
>
> If a product is developed based on the exploitation of the unique
> environment of space (an environment that can NOT be completely
> reproduced in Earth-based labs), then if you want to compete with
> that product you won't have a choice. If it's exclusive to the
space
> environment, IT IS EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT. Please
don't
> claim you are willing to suspend disbelief in exclusivity then
argue
> against exclusivity.

You got me. OK, me bad. :)

>
> > Also, I'd be wary of basing my argument on the fact that my
product
> > could only be manufactured in orbit without proving it can't be
> done
> > on Earth. Proving a negative is difficult.
>
> Please, tell me how to produce crystals that are the same size and
> possess the same pristine characteristics of space-borne crystals
on
> Earth? If so, we got ourselves a great new business!

Please don't gloss over this point. Basing a business plan on the
assumption that somebody else can't do what you did unless they do
it your way is prone with danger.

As I've already stated, perhaps you and I are just having a
dialogue, and there is no serious business plan in the background.
That's one thing, and I'm game . . I find it interesting, and I'm
willing to suspend disbelief in order to move forward, but a
business plan can't ask investors to suspend disbelief.

>
> > > And I didn't say that work on industrial refining
> > > and fabrication processes would be boosted. But research in
those
> > > areas would likely be on-going and any advance in any number
of
> > > industries is likely to have a positive collateral effect on
the
> > > other industries.
> >
> > Too general a statement to support or refute. Any advance? Any
> > number of industries? Have a positive collateral effect on the
> > other industries? You say yes, I say no.
>
> Of course it is a general statement. Your suggestion that one must
> predict the future to make the case for this is just a little
goofy,
> if you ask me. Asserting that growth in the PC market will have a
> positive collateral effect on other industries before the PC
market
> was anything more than a niche market would have been met with the
> exact same cynicism you espouse in these exchanges. Nonetheless,
the
> growth in the PC market has had a considerable impact on other
> industries - this impact was not all foreseen.

True it wasn't foreseen, but the investment in, and development of,
the PC industry wasn't predicated on its impact on many other
industries. It rose on its own merits.

You're stating that a benefit of MULE is its impact on other
industries. I just don't see how such a broad statement is
supportable, especially when a specific product or technology or
even consumer use isn't specified.

> > > it is only logical that more people (industries/companies)
will
> > want
> > > to access the space environment.
> >
> > For me to accept your above conclusion, you can't just say it's
> > logical, you have to build the case through logic and let the
> > argument withstand attempts at invalidation.
>
> Are you saying that success in a given industry will not breed
> competition within that industry?

Now that you put it this way. Yes, I'll agree that competitors may
now have more incentive to MULE up :) Conversely, they would also be
more reticent if their competitor met with R&D failure.

Are you saying that success in one
> industry can't have a positive collateral effect on other
industries?

Not can't, but the connections are more tenuous than intra-industry
competition. Sure, anything can happen, but the odds are different
for the many instances of anything. You're describing such a rosy
scenario where one success leads to another, and I'm just pointing
out that things aren't always so rosey in real life.

> I have no problem with what you just said. In fact, I agree. I do,
> however, contend that research on the MULE will be cheaper than
space-
> based R&D has been in the past. I also contend that by reducing
the
> cost you potentially increase the size of your market.

Cheaper in what way? The marginal cost of adding one more module.
The average cost of placing a module after the MULE development has
been expensed. The cost incorporating amortization of all expenses.
Compared to a shuttle R&D mission. Compared to a SpaceHab mission
which may have expensed its development by the time you're ready to
launch.

Can you use existing launch systems? Do you need to develop new
launch systems? If so, who pays for the development?

Yes, if you do indeed reduce the price, I'll agree in principle that
you can potentially increase the market size.

> > Rather than take this defensive position, why not take a strong
> > offensive and show why things will turn out as you argue. Make
the
> > case so compelling that no one can refute it.
>
> Great! You tell me what you want to hear. What could I possibly
say
> to convince you? Are you sure you haven't already drawn your
> conclusions about this issue? Are you absolutely positive, no
doubt
> in your mind whatsoever, that there is something, anything, I
COULD
> say to change your mind?

As I've already stated, I think your MULE plan has merit as a stand-
alone venture. Your case is easier to make on that front.

As for it being a driver in the creation of orbital infrastructure,
I'm skeptical, and looking for you to provide the case for it. I
don't know what you can write to make your case. You're the one who
believes it, you must have reasons to believe it, so I guess I'm
looking for those reasons, rather than hope, to convince me.

All I can say in my defense is that I've abandoned many of the ideas
I've had about space development over the years as I've learned more
about all the different topics that touch on space dev. In their
place I've incorporated other people's ideas into my own when they
made a better case or invalidated my opinions and facts.

> > Further, my above comments apply here as well. Also, how does
> > launching a payload to the MULE help lay down infrastructure?
>
> Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting
the
> space environment it might encourage additional applications. That
> doesn't make sense to you?

Yes it does. The conditionals you've added make it possible.
Consider: A might lead to B, or to C, or even to D. Thus if you
invalidate option B, you could still have other outcomes. That's
different than saying A leads to B. A leads to B is a more powerful
and convincing statement to investors but only if you don't
invalidate it.

Sorry if I'm being picky. Really I am. It's just that definitive
statements make me look at their validity more closely than
conditionals. Nothing personal, I assure you.

>
> > For
> > that matter, you can launch bricks into orbit and thus help the
> > launch industry.
>
> That's a little silly. Bricks have no significant application in
> space. The MULE does.

My point was that to help the launch industry, the actual payload
doesn't matter, as long as you launch something.

> Let me ask you this:
>
> Have you ever heard of a company having success in an undeveloped
> market?
> Have you ever known such success to lead to greater competition?
> Have you ever known competition to drive down cost?
> Have you ever heard of increased competition and lower cost
> encouraging market growth?
>
> Now my answer to each of those is a resounding yes. If you agree
that
> the answer to all four is yes, but still don't see where I am
coming
> from, let me know. Maybe we should take this one step at a time.

Yes to all four questions. But I think you're on quicksand to take
these general principles and conclude that they MUST apply to the
MULE concept. They shouldn't form the basis of support for an
argument.

Many things are possible in this Universe of ours. Many fewer things
are likely. And even fewer things are common.

>
> > > I disagree based on the HUGE cost of SPS development. Once the
> > > infrastructure is in place, yes, absolutely. But to go from
the
> > > current space regime to SPS is a much larger, much more
> incredible
> > > leap in my estimation.
> >
> > Yes, but we're writing about development of orbital
infrastructure.
> > SPS is the rationale for the development, but MULE is just a
stand-
> > alone platform that isn't a driver for development. The HUGE
cost
> > goes hand in hand with development of infrastructure.
>
> No, I was speaking of the huge cost of SPS not the infrastructure.

Cost is relative. If you take the cost of SPS and divorce it from
the needed infrastructure, then my position is that it would be
funded in a New York minute. If you had all the industries that make
steel, PV cells, transmitters, robotics, fuel, life-support, etc etc
already in orbit, and you just had to buy the supplies from the
orbital suppliers and didn't have to finance all that infrastructure
on the back of SPS, then even the many billions of dollars spent per
SPS wouldn't phase financing authorities because they'd have an
asset earning them billions of dollars. Slam dunk.

I
> believe a motivated industry/market will create the infrastructure
as
> that industry/market grows. You seem to be saying that we need a
> space project to provide enough of a return to fund the
> infrastructure in it's entirety.

Yes, I holding the position that there is a critical mass of
necessary infrastructure required, otherwise many potential orbital
industries are stillborne. They may be able to make a go of it, but
some infrastructure they need isn't there, they can't afford to
build it, thus their project doesn't go forward. A year later, in
some other boardroom somebody else needs the same infrastructure,
they see that it isn't there, and they kill their project.

> > Seriously, just because you can exploit space profitably has no
> > bearing on whether others can.
>
> That is simply untrue. That's like saying just because Christopher
> Columbus crossed the ocean doesn't mean anyone else can.

You've got this backwords. If I flip a coin and get heads, that
doesn't increase your odds of getting tails.

> > You're taking for granted that there is a growing market for
space-
> > borne products. There isn't.
>
> No, I am merely suggesting there COULD be a growing market for
space-
> borne products. There is no market now because nobody is even
trying
> to produce anything in space. But there is a small market for
> research, a market that could be nurtured to grow. A growing
market
> for space-based research could lead to production - Earth-based
> research often leads to production, does it not?

I think I could grasp your point better if there was some substance
to actual products. Despite the drawbacks of SPS it provides a
product that I can analyze. MULE is predicated on too many "what
ifs."

Please don't take offense, but a house of cards exists under only
the best conditions. One bump of the table, a gust of wind, a truck
going by out side, and it crumbles. MULE can also exist and also
produce many wonderful products and profits, but there aren't any
products or processes that can be identified now that mandate the
launching of MULE. NSF is downplaying the market, SpaceHab isn't so
successful that it is drawing attention from potential competitors
who want a piece of the action. So, if everything cuts your way then
MULE is all that you say it can be, but I'm not seeing anything that
increases the odds in your favor. Potential is difinitely there, but
can you translate potential into reality. That's what the VC
industry looks for.

> > If I plunk you down in the desert, point out all that sand, and
> tell
> > you make a factory to make glass. Good luck using just your
hands
> > and no other infrastructure.
>
> But if you bring with you a set of solar arrays, power storage
units,
> comm equipment, etc AND these "subsystems" have the capacity to
> support multiple factories, you have SOME infrastructure. No more
> than is needed to get started, but some.

How is that different than every comm satellite having its own
infrastructure. Again, great for a stand alone project, but I
wouldn't categorize those attached components as orbital
infrastructure. How does some non-MULE player make use of your
subsystems?

Hopefully, not as offensive with this post :)

TangoMan