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

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"

> 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.

Let me first say that in rereading my post before I sent it I
seriously considered editing it to soften some of the rough edges.
Ultimately I decided not to do that because I felt it was important
to convey my initial reaction to your refutations. The only thing
that bothered me was your use of what I felt were inapplicable
analogies to refute my contentions. One example is the island in the
pacific and how industry there would have no effect on other,
completely unrelated industries. I am sorry, but I do not find that
to be a viable analogy for many reasons. The island doesn't offer any
unique advantage from any other Earth-based location. The space
environment, however, does. There's no disputing that, right?
Furthermore, I wasn't arguing that one industry can or would
influence another disparate industry. I was arguing that there are
several industries that have already been identified as potentially
benefitting from space-based R&D. The pharmaceutical and materials
manufacturing industries are two. And while the markets for each are
very different and while a new drug has no direct correlation to
advances in materials manufacturing, they do share one common
feature - the potential to benefit from space-based R&D. If one
industry that has been identified as a possible benefactor of space-
based R&D experiences success in space, I do not think it is
incredible of me to suggest that their success could impact one of
the other industries that have been identified as potential
benefactors, i.e., could provide some incentive for them to begin or
expand their own space-based R&D efforts.

You also tried to compare commercial ventures to NASA - this is
another analogy I feel is unfair. It may prove persuasive to the
unwashed masses but you and I both know that NASA spending does not
provide a fair basis for comparison to the commercial sector. Nor
does using SpaceHab, in my opinion. SpaceHab and my MULE concept are
not the same thing. Both are designed to provide a platform for space-
based research, but it's a little like comparing a Boeing 747 to an F-
16 - I mean both fly, right? Using your companies below, A, B and C,
NASA is A, SpaceHab is B, and the MULE is C. The quality of the
research doesn't suffer to the extent Company C's product does, but I
think you get the idea - Company C (my MULE) can enable space-based
R&D cheaper than either A or B.

> 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.

Well, I apologize if I let my frustrations get the better of me. I
feel like I have been able to hold my own in this discussion, but
when what I feel to be unfair analogies are used to disprove my
contentions I do get a little defensive. I have said many times that
the case for space-based R&D is difficult to make. I don't believe
the use of unfair analogies to disprove the potential of the concept
is appropriate among space advocates. The fact that these analogies
were drawn at all suggested to me there was more to it than just
trying to get clarification. I apologize if I misread your
intentions. I contend that the use of these "bad" analogies to refute
someone's contentions discourages innovation among space advocates
and other proponents for the peaceful use of space.

> 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.

Ok, let's separate the business plan from this discussion. Many of
the points I am making with you would not only prove unpersuasive to
investors, but could ruin any chance of getting the MULE financed.
The points I am trying to make with you are more to encourage general
support for the idea from other space advocates. For example, a
business plan is not an appropriate forum for speculation - I would
never suggest a positive collateral impact on other industries from
space-based R&D except when indicated by solid data. The business
plan should present the MULE as a stand-alone business with the
ability to provide an appropriate return to investors. But if I were
trying to appeal to other space advocates (like I am here) and more
generally, society at large (after a lengthy discussion of the merits
of space use in general) suggesting such collateral impact might
prove persuasive in winning more wide-spread support of the idea.

> 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.

That was my initial take on your responses. Shooting holes in my
ideas and forcing me to rethink or reword my contentions to make them
more palatable is a good thing - thank you. It was only once
analogies were being drawn that I felt were unfair that I got a
little frustrated.

> Now onto business :)

Indeed!

> > 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.

I agree. Some will, some won't. But, as I mentioned to Al Globus over
at spacesettlers@... (I have been forwarding this discussion
to them in the hopes of sparking more discussion), using space-based
R&D to demonstrate methodologies for Earth-based labs also has value.
If you can't figure out how to do something without doing it in space
first, hey, let's go to space.

> 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.

Too late - you already said, "some will, some won't". :)

Seriously, you don't think some products are likely to be exclusive
to the gravity-free environment of space? You don't see the impact of
gravity on Earth-borne processes as being that profound? I know you
do - see below.

> 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.

Yippeeee! That's a hell of a start. Now let's see if I can take this
argument to the next level.

> > 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.

The MULE can't be a garage startup, I agree. But there is nothing to
say that that army of talent can't evaluate the research data from
the ground. Also, the MULE doesn't have to employ this army - that is
at the discretion of the individual module owners. I would think they
would have their own in-house talent reviewing the data and directing
further research. And much of the data borne of space-based R&D may
be made available publicly, openning up analysis to a much wider
audience from a broader spectrum of disciplines.

> I look about and see engineers relying on Physical
> Handbook type references all the time.

Would "Space Mission Analysis & Design" (SMAD) and it's companion
volume, "Reducing Space Mission Cost" qualify? I have both setting on
my desk right now. Both are highly technical and were written by a
flock of engineers and scientists. They are thick, heavy volumes. One
breaks down the mission design process step-by-step and covers almost
everything you can think of related to designing a space mission and
the other covers cost estimation and reduction methodologies.

Now, having said that I will agree that much more work is required to
build on the existing volumes of information related to space
missions.

> 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.

There is in fact such a body of knowledge, but the field is
considerably less developed than physics or chemistry. No argument
there. But again, I say you're making the case for the MULE. Again,
let's compare it to SPS.

Now we not only have the huge cost of SPS development AND the cost of
the infrastructure to support SPS development, we also have an
information/knowledge vacuum. We both agree that SPS is unlikely in
the absence of the infrastructure to support it, and in my opinion it
is equally as unlikely that the infrastructure will be developed
absent of this "body of knowledge" related to the field of space
sciences.

Hmmm . . . how can we bridge the gap . . . hmmm? Oooh, I know. How
about a commercial unmanned platform for research in the space
environment? I know, the knowledge vacuum that has existed in every
science discipline has tradiitonally been filled by government-
sponsored research. But I contend that some of that knowledge vacuum
can still be filled by research conducted in the commercial sector
aboard a MULE or similar platform AND that there is value in that
research - value to the space industry, value to humanity. Is that a
huge stretch?

BTW, this lack of knowledge is why I support an aggressive manned
space program. To me this is the one area we should be most concerned
with - human's ability to survive and thrive in space.

> 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.

I agree, but we are a long way from that and surely an unmanned
research laboratory in space would help bridge that gap - not
completely, of course, but would be helpful. Begin small and gow it
incrementally at a rate the market can absorb. The sooner there is a
commercial lab in space and the longer that lab is in space and the
more the market grows (and, thus, the lab and amount of research
conducted therein), the more rapidly we are able to fill that info
void.

> 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.

Again, I agree. I would say we have one hell of a great start on
that, though. There are many schools with Aerospace Engineering
departments - one down the street from me is University of Texas in
Austin.

> > 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 disagree with some of your assumptions. I, too, "feel more
comfortable that the intellectual resources of a well-trained large
cadre of specialists" are more likely to "produce an economically
viable product that can find no substitute on Earth." However, I
disagree that such a talent pool doesn't already exist. I maintain
that these specialists can be employed from the ground. As I said,
with advances in computers, robotics and communications, there is no
reason why such a talent pool can't be employed by the MULE (which
might be preferable) or the individual module owners.

> I look at your position and think it is a long shot, and the odds
> for mine are closer to even.

I just don't see how, though. How do we go from where we are now to
SPS? By your own admission we need the infrastructure first? Is the
infrastructure going to be developed because of the FUTURE potential
of SPS? If so, why hasn't it already? We both fully admit that SPS is
unlikely to be developed until that infrastructure is in place and at
this stage there is little incentive for either governments or
industries to develop that infrastructure or to develop SPS (an even
bigger political hot-potato). And you've now thrown a whole new
wrinkle into this scenario, complicating it even further. As you have
eluded, we lack the knowledge base to just dive right into orbital
infrastructure/SPS construction. There is a lot of work ahead of us.
I believe the MULE is a great way to start addressing some of these
issues. Remember, for the MULE to be tenable it has to:

1. Not rely on any new infrastructure (hard - new technologies; or
soft - new policy or laws) - in other words, the MULE must be doable
given the current impediments to space development.
2. The MULE must be fundable - can't cost too much.
3. The MULE must provide a cheaper means for the private and public
sectors to conduct research in the space envionnment.

I am confident the MULE is doable given the current issues with space
development. The MULE requires no new technologies, no new policy or
law, nothing. It is doable right now. So I have scratched #1 off.
Check.

Funding the MULE? Yikes! I believe it can be developed and deployed,
but a strong case on behalf of the potential for space-based R&D must
be made - that's going to be tough. It also can't cost an arm and a
leg to develop/deploy nor can the return on investment be delayed
beyond more than seven years (and that's stretching it a lot). So for
the MULE to be fundable, it needs to be low-cost (let's keep some
perspective - low-cost space missions are still expensive) relative
to other funded commercial space missions and it must be able to
provide a more traditional return on investment (3-5 years is
optimum, 5-7 may be doable, any longer and you're likely in trouble).
I do think both of those conditions can be met, but that is
speculation and as you have repeatedly said, I need more than
speculation to sale this to VCs. So #2 is unchecked at this time.

I think we can all agree that by distributing the cost of the entire
MULE system through multiple module owners, you likely reduce the
cost to the individual module owner conducting the research. Again,
that is speculation - I am no businessman (how could you tell?) - but
it is a logical conclusion. Until I am able to provide stronger
evidence than just logic, however, this, too, remains unchecked.

As I have said in the past, I have seen nothing to suggest the MULE
isn't possible and nothing to suggest the MULE can't make a
significant contribution to what we all want - an orbital
infrastructure to support on-going, long-term space missions. The
MULE can do this by demonstrating the ecomonic and industrial
viability of space-based R&D. SPS is the tip of the iceberg - with an
infrastructure in place you can toss in lunar and Martian outposts,
asteroid/comet mining missions, space colonies, interstellar
missions, etc. Everything we ever wanted to happen in space can once
the infrastructure is in space to support them.

> 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.

But that's a start - the door is cracked, it's up to us to push it
open the rest of the way. It's a heavy door and is likely going to
require a lot of effort to open. But it can be opened, surely. It
appears to me most other doors, if not all, are locked tight and are
likely to remain so until governments and/or industries are motivated
to unlock them.

> 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.

Neither am I - I was just exagerating to make the point. I do
believe, however, that their ISS investment leaned heavily toward
space-based research for good reason.

> 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.

And that's an argument that can only be made if your project is
dependent on "national R&D funding". There will always be those
people who no matter what evidence is provided, no matter how strong
an argument you make will always say it is a bad idea. The key is to
make your argument strong enough to drown out the noise of the
naysayers. That is what I hope our exchanges will do - strengthen my
arguments (though I would settle on weakening yours ;).

> > 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.

I got the impression you were certainly implying as much. Seeing the
value in orbital R&D is a good restart to this discussion.

> As for your second refutation, I also never
> took the postion that you need infrastructure to conduct orbital
R&D.

That's two . . . we're on a roll!

> 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?

The MULE itself doesn't contribute directly to those things, no - in
that we can both agree. What I do contend, however, is that by
DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-BASED
R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME incentive to
develop the infrastructure. I have never claimed that the MULE was
anything more than a potential catalyst for doing "more stuff" in
space.

> 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.

We do know of some practical applications - the hang-up is in
their "cost-effective production" not the application. If, and I
agree it's a BIG if, the MULE can provide cost-effective ACCESS to
the space environment then perhaps production, too, becomes cost-
effective. Regardless, there is a small, undeveloped market for
research in space.

> 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.

Now, that's MY point. Tap the small, undevelop market for space-based
R&D - and since it is likely to cost less aboard my MULE than other
available means, that market is likely to grow ever so slightly. Then
once "such science has been done" I'll call you and others like you
who've been waiting for the completion of that research and see if
perhaps you are more willing to do some R&D in space yourselves. :)

> 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.

No, because of what he says next:

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

Here's the deal. The product of which he speaks is hung up, in part
at least, due to the high cost of producing ANYTHING in space right
now. Reduce cost of accessing the space environment and you make
producing ANYTHING in space more cost-effective. Right? Would you
agree? Now, most people start with launch costs. But is there
something in the rules that says you have to cut launch costs to save
money on space missions? Nope. So, the question becomes is there any
other way to reduce costs of space missions? Yes, by "clearly
separating materials processing from manned flight operations."
According to this expert, doing so can "drastically lower costs".

So now I ask you: Is there any positive collateral affect possible
from the drastic reduction of cost of doing research in space? Is
there any way that could lead to something significant - provide
incentive for developing the infrastructure to support further
operations in space, for example?

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

Now, in case someone is reading this and is not sure of what "goal"
he is referring to, let me repeat (I feel it is vaguely important):

"A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower costs is clearly separating
materials processing from nanned flight operations."

Ok, so now I got you agreeing on a third point - that by eliminating
the need for a manned presence you will likely reduce the cost of
doing research in space. This is significant. Remember, we all agree
that reducing costs will likely result in some growth in the market,
making my plan even more viable. Yes?

I also contend that if you distribute the overall cost of the MULE
across all participants (those accessing the MULEs infrastructural
backplane) you further reduce cost to the individual.

> 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?

Well, that's a case I have to make at some time, but honestly I'd
have to go back and reread the report to which I was referring. As
best I recall, their problem with space-based R&D for the commercial
sector stems in large part from the fact that access to the
microgravity environment using current methodologies is expensive.
With a MULE it is less so. If the MULE cannot reduce cost
significantly, then I, too, will find the concept untenable.

> 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.

As far as orbital retrieval, quoting again from Roger
Handberg: "Automated payload retrieval from orbit remains a tricky
operation with failure a distinct possibility but the technology has
been used extensively and successfully over a long time period."

As far as your last two statements, the backplane would pay it's
launch cost by leasing space to module owners (remember, backplane +
modules = MULE). The launch costs related to the modules themselves
would have to be absorbed as part of the cost of doing research
(unlikely cost-effective) or absorbed by the MULE (more likely due to
distribution of cost).

Give me some time with this one. I don't think this is a reasonable
refutation, but let me do some research and see if I can combat it
more effectively. I have forwarded this to my editor for additional
input. I'll let you know what he thinks. . . .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr. Richard Crews, writes:

That's sort of a good way of looking at it, actually -- although most
of the "travel" cost into and out of space is going to be for the
weight of the packaging.

But there are LOTS of things that are worth more than $1,000 per
pound. A nice diamond is worth several hundred times that. Highly
refined crystals and certain pharmaceuticals (such as can only be
made in a micro-gravity environment) come to mind off hand -- they
must easily be worth more than a comparable weight of diamonds.

Consider the value of a diamond. One carat = 200 mg, so a pound =
2,268 carats. So a diamond that is worth only $1,000/carat is worth
$453,000 per pound.

And there are many esoteric substances that are worth far more than
diamonds.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After further consideration, here's my response:

Production in space will have to rely on economies of scale - likely
more so than terrestrial industries. The value of the product must
exceed the cost of production. Of course. Let's say a new thin-film
technique has resulted in a powerfull, new computer processor that
cannot be manufactured on Earth and for which there is a market.
Processors can easily be brought to market in bulk, right? It's
pretty rare that an earth-based manufacturing facility delivers their
product to the market one at a time. So a company pays for one launch
to get their module to orbit; their module rendezvous with the MULE
backplane; and within a year or two they have developed this thin-
film technique which they use to manufacture this new processor. Now
will the resale value of one processor return what it cost to produce
it (which includes launch costs)? No. Will two or three or five or
ten? No. Will thousands and thousands? Yes.

> 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.

Currently, there is no way to mitigate the effects of gravity on
crystal growth. Period. Now perhaps we will find some way in the
future to magically render earth-based labs free from the affects of
gravity, but I seriously doubt it. Furthermore, perfect protein
crystals ARE IN FACT essential to some drug research - may not be the
only essential factor involved, but is very, very significant.

> 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.

Not when we're talking about the effects of gravity - effects well
documented. You shouldn't gloss over that point, either.

> 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.

I don't really want you to suspend disbelief - I want to convince you
of what I am saying. As far as the business plan, see earlier remarks
for clarification.

> > 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.

And as I suggested above, investment in and development of space-
based R&D won't be predicated on its impact on other industries
either. We are tapping a small and undeveloped market - there's more
risk involved than if the market was well developed, but it's still
doable.

> 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.

I see now why you and I are arguing so much. Let's separate the
business plan from this discussion right now and think about this as
just an intellectual exercise.

> 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.

How can we define R&D failure? If research doesn't lead to
development, is that failure? Not necessarily. It depends partly on
why the research did not lead to development of a marketable product.
If it's because the market is too undeveloped and the cost wouldn't
justify development, that's not really failure in my opinion - that
happens all the time right here in earth-based markets. At some
point, cost of developing the product will come down, likely making
cost-effective production possible. And I also would argue that there
is value even in research that does not lead directly to development.

> > 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.

You have already agreed that an unmanned research lab
could "drastically reduce cost". The word "cheaper" is just my
vernacular for that.

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

No, no new launch system. I maintain that if the backplane and
modules that make up the MULE cannot be orbited via existing launch
systems (ELVs), then the concept is untenable.

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

Boy, we're doing good today!

> 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.

Which is the best way to approach the business plan for the MULE - as
a stand-alone venture.

> 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.

I can't predict the future - all we have is hope. But I certainly
don't think it is incredible to speculate that increasing the amount
of space-based R&D can have a profound impact on the space industry
as a whole.

> 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.

I have had to do the same. I don't see anything out there that comes
even close to providing the incentive for a more sustained,
consistent industrial presence in space (which to me translates into
orbital infrastructure). The MULE concept seems to me to be the only
economically viable means of achieving this - and the odds of it
doing so clearly aren't inspiring anyone but me (though I have had
considerably more success convincing people face-to-face of the
MULE's potential). I agree that developing the infrastructure to
support SPS development would be MUCH preferable - but considerably
less viable at this time. In my opinion, SPS will only be viable once
there is an established infrastructure in space to support it's
development. Until then, SPS will remain just another great idea
whose time has not yet come.

> > 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.

I'm not sure what all that means, so I'll just take the first
sentence and run! We're making great progress.

> > 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.

I should clear this up. I don't believe launching MULE components in
space will reduce launch costs - it adds little volume to current
launch manifests. But once the market for space-based R&D begins to
grow (and you and I both agree now that it is possible
by "drastically reducing cost") and competition increases.
Incrementally, over time, increased competition and activity in space
will result in reducing launch costs. It won't happen over night -
and certainly not at the rate we would like.

> > 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?
>
> 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.

Ok, tell me how a market opens up. Doesn't it quite often happen
because somebody takes the risk of developing an undeveloped market?
Doesn't it happen because of increased competition? Doesn't it happen
because of lower costs?

I don't find this all that speculative. This is how new markets are
developed all the time.

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

I will support any, and I mean any, idea or suggestion that increases
the likelihood of developing space. The sooner the better - I agree.
Show me the way. Given the current situation and the current
impediments to space development, the MULE is the only thing I can
come up with that stands any chance at all.

> 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.

Absolutely! I agree with you 100%. I would add the same can be said
of lunar and Martian bases, asteroid/comet mining, space colonies,
interstellar missions, etc. WE MUST HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE!

But in the absense of that infrastructure is any of that stuff even
possible? I don't think so.

> 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.

Precisely! Yes. It is on that principal I began looking at the MULE
as a possible driver. It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but it CAN
work. Regardless, it's economically viable right now. SPS is not (not
until the infrastructure is developed). Even if the MULE drives
nothing beyond the space-based R&D market itself, it's still
successful. And at some point, as more and more research gets
conducted, surely we'd find some product exclusive to the space
environment. Now there's a driver for the development of space - a
cost-effective, marketable product.

> > > 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.

I think we cleared this issue up. Remember, I am not speaking of a
relationship between two disparate industries. You're right - the
ability to manufacture crystals in space has no bearing on a sausage
factory. But several industries have already been identified as
potential benefactors of space-based R&D - it is those industries
that I am speaking of. If the pharmaceutical industry makes a
significant breakthrough as a result of space-based R&D, it is not
that incredible to suggest that other industries that have been
identified as potential benefactors of space-based R&D would stand up
and take notice. In other words, success in one might lead to another
deciding they, too, should invest in some space-based R&D.

> 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."

Only it's function as a driver is predicated on "what ifs". You have
admitted that the idea has merit as a stand-alone space venture. And
if SPS could be done as a stand-alone venture (in other words, didn't
require extensive in-space infrastructure) and wasn't sooooo
expensive, I would agree with you. And the same goes for almost every
other idea out there. Originally, my approach involved mining
asteroids instead of performing space-based R&D (in search of the
elusive space product). But because mining asteroids is too expensive
at this stage and likely unfundable in the absense of orbital
infrastructure, I have abandoned it in favor of the MULE.

> 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.

Yes, I agree. As a driver the MULE is on shaky ground (I admit it -
are you happy? :). But as a stand-alone project it's considerably
more solid - less a "house of cards" as you say. But there is no
other potential driver that works under the status quo. Not SPS, not
asteroid mining, nothing. At least not that I can think of.

> > 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.

Because the "infrastructure" (subsystems) onboard a satellite are
scaled for that satellite alone. Satellites aren't plug'n'play -
though they should be. The MULE uses a standardized interface to
provide a common-use infrastructural backplane that is both scalable
and extensible (it has to be for the MULE to be tenable, in my
opinion).

> Again, great for a stand alone project, but I
> wouldn't categorize those attached components as orbital
> infrastructure.

I don't really think of the backplane as being "orbital
infrastructure". My contention is that successful space-based R&D
leads to increased activity which in turn may lead to a higher demand
for orbital infrastructure.

> How does some non-MULE player make use of your
> subsystems?

Through the standardized interface - in other words, just like all
modules access the backplane.

Jack