economics of bootstrapping (was New Book on Space Colonies)

>not claiming that hte market here is huge but it is
>significant. Look at how much we spent sending up the
>shuttle to fix satellites, this has been done multiple
>times. Just look at the last few years [...]
>
I think this is perhaps even more important than it seems. Why are
satellites so often one-offs and hideously expensive? Because they have
to be designed to operate for years or decades without upgrades or
repairs, working entirely automatically. Our computer and robotics
skills are better than they used to be, but this is still exceedingly
difficult. Can even a modern million-dollar computer server function
properly as long as a satellite has to without any direct human
intervention?

People are, relatively speaking, pretty inexpensive. If launch costs
weren't so bad, salary and equipment to send 3 guys in a repair tug
would be an easy win over designing things to last with no maintenance
at all. I.e. satellites could be a lot cheaper too - it should be a
win-win. The problem is the cost of launch, particularly for people.

>Agreed that SPS alone is sufficient scale to spawn
>business. The problem I have with it is that its just
>to large of a step for us to goto right now. We can
>talk in an idealist state about how great it is for
>society, but the fact of the matter is, the government
>is just not interested in investing in it.
>
The more I think about it, the more frustrated I am that people don't
take SPS more seriously. All of us should be writing every politician,
bureaucrat, newspaper, etc. we can think of, because it's such a HUGE
win for the world if we can make this happen. It just boggles the mind
that we haven't been investing in it. I mean, billions have been spent
on nuclear fusion with little to show; hundreds of billions have been
spent by the US government on nuclear fission (both for weapons and
subsidies to power plants - yeah, that's why they built so many in the
60's and 70's and none since - it's not cost effective without subsidy,
and they want to bring the subsidies back!) and we still have a
many-hundred-billion dollar problem of nuclear waste on our hands.

Anyway, there are small steps to space solar power - a solar power
satellite is really just a large version of a commsat. just as the
Chunnel is just a large tunnel. But the large size means space-based
assembly and repairability are key - there should be steps on that road
with comm sats too, if we really can't make the "large leap" to SPS just
yet.

> Currently, the governments of the world are
>content on having an oil-based economy, and in the
>future going towards a hydrogen based economy.
>
The "hydrogen" economy is a mirage - hydrogen isn't just "out there" on
Earth, you have to make it out of something (water or fossil fuels, but
then you're still relying on oil really) and that takes energy. What is
powering the power plants that generate hydrogen for the hydrogen
economy? SPS is the only logical long-term choice.

Arthur