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

Sorry for the delay in responding. Been busy helping a friend strip
and paint a truck - all day for two days. I didn't want to start on a
response until I had enough time to really focus on it.

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
>
> Impressive response. It must have taken you a lot of work to
rummage
> through all of our past postings and craft this response.

I'm glad it came across well. It was a lot of work and rather time
consuming, but I thought it important to bring the debate back around
to ensure clarification of certain points and refocus the discussion
on the lingering issues not fully developed.

> I hope it
> didn't take too much of your time, and I must say, that the quality
> of your writing voice is much different with this response.

Well, there wasn't a lot of new information or dialogue in that
response so I will take that to mean that in this review of some of
our exchanges my writing voice was more clearly discerned. That's a
good thing - it may be difficult to identify an effective writing
voice when responding "point by point".

> It must
> be the ability to see the whole picture rather than responding
point
> by point as the two of us have been doing.
>
> It was a pleasure to read.

Glad to hear it. Steady progress is always good. Now let's see if I
can maintain this high standard.

> > > 1.) You point out that SpaceHab and MULE aren't the same thing
> in
> > > particular, but only share general features, much like the 747
> and
> > > the F-16 share similar features. You're counting on me to
> > understand
> > > the differences between the two planes, and I do, but you make
> no
> > > effort to detail the differences between SpaceHab and MULE.

> > In your followup, you did not address my specific response above.
> > Instead you just mentioned the same issue at a different point in
> the
> > exchange:
>
> I didn't address this question because we both have to edit what we
> respond to in order to avoid ever-longer posts, but now that I see
> that you were looking for a response, I'm happy to comply.
>
> Yes, they would have to pay SpaceHab and NASA.

And therein lies a HUGE difference between SpaceHab and the MULE and
why, specifically, I believe the MULE would be less expensive than
SpaceHab. If SpaceHab was providing the infrastructure to support
their racks (as opposed to riding the ISS "backplane") then the MULE
would have more significant competition, in my opinion.

I believe for the sake of these debates we should conclude that the
MULE would be the least expensive option available for space-based
basic and applied research and development. And I believe
this "assumption" is defendable. I just don't think we should spend
the time arguing it now. Let's move on to the bigger picture with
that assumption tucked neatly away. Obviously, it's cost-
effectiveness has to be more clearly demonstrated than I have done so
here.

> > JACK: Again, the cost of doing research on the MULE is less for
> the
> > individual company because that cost is shared among many
> companies.
> >
> > TANGO: But that's how SpaceHab works. Why is MULE cheaper? You're
> > just assuming it is, show me why MULE can deliver a service
> cheaper
> > than SpaceHab, and I'll come on side with you.
> >
> > JACK: Let's say 10 companies decided to develop and deploy a
> > commercial space station. All ten would have access, all ten
would
> > SHARE the cost of developing, deploying and maintaing that space
> > station. Now, let's say you own one of those companies - Tango,
> Inc.
> > Now, what would cost more, Tango, Inc. to pay to have their own
> > individual space station or for them to share the cost with nine
> > other companies?
>
> So, considering this preamble, when you write that categorically
> your MULE can perform a service more efficiently, I believe that
> you're ignoring real-life constraints and competitor strengths, and
> stressing the academic theory or the wishful thinking of a perfect
> scenario inherent with a pet project.

If the MULE cannot perform space-based R&D more efficiently than
existing methodologies, if it is not cheaper than other
methodologies, then I would be the first in line advocating dropping
the concept from further consideration.

Let me expand on this. For the sake of these discussion, we should
assume the MULE to be cheaper and more efficient. First off, I am not
at a point where I can say definitively one way or the other.
Secondly, I believe the assumption to be logical based on the limited
facts at hand. Thirdly, if it can be aptly demonstrated that the MULE
does not significantly reduce cost and make doing such research more
efficient then the MULE should be dropped from serious consideration.
I'm not ignoring anything, Tango. I am just not there yet. I am
confident, however, that this assumption (assumed only for this
discussion) will play out in my favor in the end.

> One point for you to consider; if MULE, SpaceHab and ISS were
> starting as blueprint ideas and competing equally then your
> assumptions about cost allocation would hold true. But as part of
> your due diligence you need to investigate your competition, and
> with respect to SpaceHab, perhaps they've already amortized their
> pod. Now that you enter the market, they may not have to charge for
> it any longer. Now you've got an expense that they don't have to
> cover. As for the man rating of your competition, I don't
understand
> why a MULE customer would have to design a module that performs the
> research robotically and just receives power, heat dissipation, and
> communication from the backpane, couldn't take that same design
> expertise and design the same module, with its integrated robotics,
> place it into ISS and just receive power, heat dissipation, and
> communication from the ISS?

That's a little like saying to FedEX or UPS during their
startup, "How do you know the US Post Office won't add expedited
delivery service in an effort to prevent you from taking business
away from them?" I mean it's a valid point and all, but there are a
thousand little issues like that, all of which have to be addressed
in some way. But we're just having a little debate regarding the more
general issues the MULE addresses - give me more time to address
specifics.

This particular issue, however, does raise an important point - it
may be wise to elicit an official response from NASA before
finalizing a business plan to show VCs. If their response is
assuring, great. If not, we may have to reconsider the MULE project
entirely. Is that satisfactory? I know it doesn't directly refute
your concern, but it does set it aside for the moment.

> The question for the potential pod renter, is why go with MULE,
Inc.
> when SpaceHab may do it for less in order to starve your business,
> and NASA may love to add a robotic R&D module as an additional
> component to the ISS thus buying another constituency to support
the
> ISS, so they too may give you a cut rate?

I'll let my two para answer above hold for this as well. I understand
what you are saying, but I think it's a little early in the process
to expect me to answer this definitively.

> > Your contention that the body of knowledge concerning SPS is
> > not "lacking" collapses under the weight of your own words: "No
> such
> > body of knowledge exists for the . . . practice of engineering in
> > space." SPS is a considerable engineering project - and you just
> > admitted we lack the body of knowledge to practice such
> engineering.
> > I would also hold that your assertion that constructing the
> > infrastructure "has nothing to do with the 'body of knowledge'"
is
> > inconsistent with your statement as well.
>
> No, No, No . . . you're taking my concerns about a body of
knowledge
> with respect to innovation and creation of new science, new
> engineering prinicples, and new product development in a unique
> environment (SPACE) and applying it to a SPS structure that is not
> subject to centripetal forces and use existing techonology, PV
cells
> or sterling engines, klystron tubes, and can be constructed with
> 1970s technology and engineering knowledge.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the SPS is "not subject
to centripetal forces" - this seems to imply the MULE is? Explain.

Additionally, the MULE relies solely on existing technologies - this
is another one of those areas I have addressed. If the MULE is not
doable given currently available technology, it should be dropped
from further consideration.

And I don't understand how this lack of knowledge regarding
engineering in space does not apply to a structure the size of SPS.
Yes, the technology is there but it has never been integrated into a
space structure before, nor is there a comparable Earth-based SPS-
like application currently being utilized that I know of (wireless
communication doesn't use microwave). There are, on the other hand,
automated labs and telerobots currently in use in several different
industries right now on Earth - and there is synergy between these
two that has already lead to some application-specific integration).
The only challenge faced regarding the MULE is adapting these
technologies to the space environment (ok, that's a bit of an
oversimplification, but you get the idea).

> For a concise primer on SPS see:
>
> http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm

I have the Permanent book and read over the SPS section this last
weekend. I am familiar with SPS.

> For information on Japan's plan to launch a SPS testbed system, see:
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/nasda_solar_sats_0
> 11029.html
>
> Just a quick look at the NASA Glenn site, reveals:
>
> http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/facilities/
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/concentrators.html
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/stirling.html

All good links. I'll review more of the literature online as time
allows. Thanks for the references.

> > You further contend that what body of knowledge does exist for
SPS
> > exceeds that of microgravity research (or more generally, space-
> based
> > R&D). I dispute that. NASA has a Microgravity Research Program, a
> > Microgravity Science Division, Zero Gravity Research Facility,
and
> > The Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Product Development
> Office
> > (a commercial space center). NASA has no specific division,
> facility
> > or office dicated to SPS research that I can discern. The only
> thing
> > I could find was the Space Solar Power Technology Advanced
> Research
> > and Technology program.
>
> I'll withdraw my overly broad statement about microgravity
research,
> because you are correct that there is indeed a lot of research
> activity surrounding microgravity, and because almost every
activity
> in orbit can be classified as a subset of microgravity activity.

Hehehehe. Yeah, I know. I wasn't really being fair. But it sure was
nice to catch you in a broad statement easily refuted. A cheap point
is still a point. :)

> What I meant to write, and if you'll look at the context of my
> criticism, you see that it would have been more appropriate, is the
> body of knowledge concerning commerical research and product
> development in orbit is easily surpassed by that of SPS.

Maybe - I don't think it is that cut and dry. SPS is a singular
concept - commercial research and product development in space
encompasses such a huge array of disciplines - I just don't think
it's fair to dismiss the MULE based on this. I just don't find this
argument altogether relevant - certainly not that significant and in
no way persuasive.

> And that
> has direct relevence to MULE, because as you pointed out all of
> those NASA and other government centers are dealing with basic
> science and it's unlikely that you'll entice a NASA Center to rent
a
> MULE slot when they have their own infrastructure already in place.

That infrastructure that they tap consists of the ISS (ability to
perform such research has been significantly impacted by cutbacks),
shuttle flights (delayed probably another year at least), and Earth-
based methods (drop towers, parabolic flights, sounding rockets). My
point is that you are now making broad assumptions about the MULE's
ability to effectively compete in the existing market. My contention
is that it is entirely too early to draw such assumptions and that
for the sake of this discussion we should focus on the more general
issues - market size, effectiveness of research in space,
contributions of such research to Earth-based markets, ways of
sparking development of infrastructure in space, etc.

> Nevertheless, I don't believe that this comparison adds anything to
> our debate. It's like a my dad can beat up your dad argument.

Hey, don't be talking smack about my daddy! Yes, I agree - it's of
little consequence at this time.

> One last point: SPS is a specific application, with very limited
and
> defined technical requirements and microgravity commerical R&D is
> all encompassing, so the quantity of research that SPS has thus far
> amassed will one day be surpassed by the multitude of distinct
> research avenues pursued under the rubric of commercial R&D.

Yes, I agree. We are much closer on these issues than the point by
point debate would indicate.

> If you're really interested in SPS research, try to drag Arthur
> Smith, Mike Combs, Charles Radley (where are you?) and some others
> who frequent this list, into the discusssion. They have a wealth of
> information at their disposal, and have provided interesting
reading
> for me.

I think I will make a separate post regarding questions I have about
SPS's ability to effectively contribute to orbital infrastructure in
the absense of that orbital infrastructure. Of course, there are
other questions as well.

> > No, for very good reason - a reason you can't cite in other
> examples.
> > The technologies behind the MULE concept have only recently
> matured.
> > Computers, robotics, communication - these technologies have now
> > ripened to the point where we can maintain an unmanned,
> > automated/telecontrolled laboratory in Earth-orbit for the
> purposes
> > of conducting space-related industrial/commercial applied
research
> or
> > government/university-sponsored basic research. If the technology
> > hasn't ripened to this point, then the MULE concept is untenable
> > right now.
>
> So, welcome to the club. Your MULE concept now has mature
> technology, just like SPS, satellite refueling, and a number of
> other concepts and all of these concepts haven't yet been
> implemented. On a further note, I'm glad that you've rejected the
> logic of the statement from which this paragraph derived.

Yes, some concepts are doable now with existing technologies. I
contend that the MULE is a cheaper option now that could ultimately
lead to the funding of more expensive projects depending on it's
success. That contention IS based on supposition and conjecture - I
agree. Let's assume the MULE is cheaper for the sake of these
discussions. The actual cost of the MULE venture is very significant -
I don't mean to suggest it isn't. But I do believe my research and
work will demonstrate it is in fact cheaper and more effective (in
the near term) than other more costly projects.

> I can agree with your statement below because it is sufficiently
> general in allowing that one action MIGHT lead to another.
> Possibilities are open. This statement can apply to MULE as well as
> to other schemes and I think it's perfectly valid.
>
> "If it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting the
> space environment it might encourage additional applications."

I agree that this statement applies to any number of ventures.
Success in space is likely to breed more success (or at least more
activity, successful or otherwise) in space. The difference, in my
opinion is cost. I believe the MULE is one of the cheapest ways we
can begin laying the foundation of success in space in the near term.
I further believe we should assume this to be the case for the sake
of this discussion.

If I can demonstrate that the MULE is, in fact, more cost-effective
and significantly so, how much would that weigh in on your judgement
of the concept as a whole?

> I have more difficulty in accepting the statement below because you
> posit a defined consequence and provide that there is indeed SOME
> incentive created. I can invalidate your statement by allowing for
> the successful operation of MULE, yet it doesn't produce any
> commerically meaningful results, thus it doesn't encourage a
> blossoming of orbital research & development. MULE operates
> successfully by finding tenants so as to earn a profit and it
> operates flawlessly, thus proving its basic viability (thus meeting
> your goals) but it doesn't cause the results you specify.
>
> "By DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL VIABILITY OF SPACE-
> BASED R&D, you encourage increased activity and provide SOME
> incentive to develop the infrastructure . . "

Ok, I get your point about affirming a defined consequence as opposed
to a more general statement like above. However, I think I can clear
this up.

If a successful venture in space leads to additional activity in
space, surely we can agree that some of that "additional activity"
will also be successful. It stands to reason that if SUCCESS = MORE
ACTIVITY, then MORE ACTIVITY = MORE SUCCESS. Additionally, MORE
SUCCESS = EVEN MORE ACTIVITY and EVEN MORE ACTIVITY = EVEN MORE
SUCCESS.

Granted, that's not a guarantee, but it is at least a logical
progression, yes? One major catastrophe and I'm screwed, but that's
the risk of all space ventures right now, even SPS. Assuming you
agree with the above statement in principal, let's take it a step
further . . . at some point as activity in space grows we reach a
point where it will be more cost effective to provide some
infrastructure in support of the growing activity in space rather
than all support coming from Earth. Yes?

Perhaps the MULE alone can't enjoy so much success that it leads to
orbital infrastructure, but it could at least start the cycle of
success in space, right? Maybe we factor in other concepts and
ventures - the point is the more activity occurring in space the
greater the demand for orbital infrastructure and with infrastructure
comes much larger ventures requiring even more infrastructure. This
is what I meant when I said "by DEMONSTRATING the economic and
industrial viability of space-based R&D, you encourage increased
activity and provide SOME incentive to develop the infrastructure."
The key word is SOME.

> > My point here, Tango, is that I never uncategorically stated that
> the
> > MULE was less expensive - quite to the contrary.
>
> But you did, and I don't want to search through all of our
postings,
> but even in your last posting, to quote:

> I'm led to conclude that you believe that MULE is the cheaper, more
> effective way that you refer to in the above quote.

Yes, I said that - but I have explained it, too. I am making such
statements because for the sake of this discussion "cheaper"
and "more efficient" needs to be assumed. And, again, it is
defendable.

> > Specifically, what infrastructure is required in space for a chip
> fab
> > plant to function and mass produce chips in orbit for delivery to
> > terrestrial markets?
> >
> > I have an extensible, scalable infrastructural backplane that
> > provides the basics: thermal radiation, power, comm, etc.
> Everything
> > else the plant needs would have to be provided by the plant
owner -
> > just like on Earth. I mean, when a terrestrial chip fab plant
asks
> > the power company for power or the telephone company for
> > communications capabilities, they don't get chip fab plant
> equipment
> > as a bonus for signing up, right? That stuff still has to be paid
> for
> > by the chip fab plant owner(s).
>
> I'd love to answer your question.

One question about this whole chip fab plant tangent: The only part
of this particular chip fabrication process that I have identified as
having to occur in space is the thin-film process. Why not
manufacture as much of the chip as possible in Earth-based plant,
bundle and send the unfinished chip to the MULE module where the thin
film will be applied? Then bulk-return the chips back to the Earth-
based plant for the conclusion of the fab process. Is that not
possible? At what point in the fabrication process does a computer
chip become too fragile to withstand reentry, for example?

> I think you're overstating the ability of MULE to expand to
> accomodate to be all things to all people.

Possibly, but again for the sake of these discussions . . . wait,
what if I am not and you are underestimating the MULE's ability to
accomodate more than just research and development in space? Would
that change your opinion of the MULE's ability to affect and help
drive the demand for infrastructure in space?

> The power supply, heat radiation, communications would be such a
> small part of the total cost of a chip fab, that I'm not sure that
> MULE savings, if they could be realized, would be incentive enough
> to bring about a mating of the Fab and the MULE.

Good point. Clearly, there are industries or processes that are
unlikely to be more cost effective in a MULE module regardless and
likely would not be done in space until enough infrastructure was in
place to ensure a higher level of cost-effectiveness - if even then.
Perhaps a chip fab plant is one such example.

> Let's right this discussion. By your own
> > admission the MULE has merit - I just haven't been able to make
> the
> > case for the MULE as a potential catalyst to infrastructure.
> Right?
> >
> > Jack
>
> That's right. As a stand-alone venture it rises or falls on its
> merits, but I for the life of me, can't see how it provides a basis
> for orbital infrastructure.

Well, we've narrowed the discussion considerably. Onward, ho!

Jack