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

> 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.

You're pursuing a dangerous line of reasoning here. Be wary of
defining success by assuming process has to be done your way.
SpaceHab doesn't have to provide a backplane, it just has to offer a
solution to its customers that they're willing to pay for. How
SpaceHab solves its technical problems is their affair.

> 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.

If you'd like to remove this area of discussion that's fine. As for
it being defensible, I don't agree, unless we restrict discussion to
a hypothetical scenario that is constructed on a multitude of weak
premises.

> 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.

I fear you'll never reach that conclusion because no evidence will
ever reach the stage of necessary and sufficient :) until the damn
thing is built.

I'm skeptical of the reality of your concept, and you've also
mentioned that you've had difficulty gaining other proponents in the
space discussion groups. Why this difficulty?

Your situation with MULE reminds me of the situation that David
Criswell faces. He wants to build solar plants on the moon and beam
the power back to Earth and has a devil of a time addressing the
criticism of why his scheme is better than SPS. Yet he persists in
his dream despite the facts and criticisms.

> 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.

OK, this assumption is off the table, but I fear your confidence,
absent any evidence, is based on faith and bravado.

> 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.

Good luck getting a bureaucracy to give you that official response.
I would bet that you'd never get it. By your above reasoning, that
puts your project into doubt. Why not save your self a lot of time
and energy and try to get such a response now and see how successful
you are. This way you might be able to find another project that has
more chance of success and one that could find a number of other
proponents to help you.

>
> 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.

Yes I am, because there really is no existing "commercial" market. A
business model that is premised on creating a market doesn't often
benefit from first mover advantage. Look at where VisiCalc is these
days to Lotus 123 and that in turn, to MS Excel.

The market that does exist is one of gov't and university research.
Almost all public money.

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.

Market size = not sufficient to warrant development of MULE.

Effectiveness of research in space = Still pretty much restricted to
basic research and funding for said research is still primarily
provided by gov't. As to effectiveness, the decisionmakers must
consider the other research efforts that could be funded without
having to support the costs associated with space. While a space-
based research project may have merit when considered in isolation,
in the real world there are always alternatives to consider. This is
where a number of space research efforts may fail to pass muster.

Ways of sparking development of infrastructure in space = We've
already batted this one around for a while; I don't see MULE being a
driver in this regard.

> 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.

Again, we come to having to adopt this assumption. OK, but so many
concerns I have have to do with many different aspects of the
economic model of MULE and its efficacy. Until your work and
research actually demonstrate your contentions, there is little of
substance we can discuss without having to assume key unproven
assertions.

> 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.

But the theme of the discussion concerns my critiqing MULE and you
addressing those critiques. If we assume away the critiques that
does a disservice to MULE and if frankly leading us nowhere.

> 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?

A whole lot because it would add substance to your argument. I'm
just not buying a whole bunch of your premises, thus there's no way
I can buy into your conclusions.

> 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.

No, you've got to tighten up the logic of this argument. It is too
easily refutable.

>
> 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?

No, it's not a logical progression. So I don't agree with the
statement and thus I can't proceed with you to the next step. I feel
that even if I could proceed that you're really overreaching on MULE
being a driver for infrastructure development. You're giving me
nothing of substance to buttress your points, only asking me to
adopt the same assumptions that your laboring under.

> 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?

Launch stresses, radiation exposure, thermal environment,
contamination in removing components from fabrication in order to
launch them to orbit, landing stresses, and possibly a number of
other factors. It would be helpful if some one with more knowledge
than me could jump in to address this question.

Maybe all issues can be solved, maybe not, but I think the above
presents at least a rudimentary lists of concerns.

> > 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?

Would my underestimation of MULE's hypothetical abilities change my
opinion? No, it wouldn't.

I'm simply addressing your contentions, hypothetical as they are. If
you want to have others accept them they should be defensible. To
simply turn the question around and state that my skepticism is
unfounded and that MULE is indeed more robust than I assume, without
providing support is troublesome. You're the advocate of MULE, not
me. You're out to convince others of its merits. How can you ask
anyone to adopt the position that they are underestimating MULE
without at least giving them a reason to believe so?

I really don't see where we can go with this discussion if I have to
accept a number of assumptions, all of which undercut the efficacy
of MULE. I feel that you're just asking me to accept on faith that
MULE is all that you believe it to be. I'd be more inclined to
engage in a fruitful dialogue if you could address my concerns,
otherwise I fear we'll just be spinning our wheels. But I had fun
thus far :)

TangoMan