economics of bootstrapping (was New Book on Space Colonies)

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> Now this is mostly physical transformations of energy and
> electromagnetic radiation, rather than of physical matter - but
what's
> so special about matter? :-)

Nothing.

And the physical components of existing
> satellites (propellant, antennas, computers, photovoltaic panels)
are
> all things that could fund a market in replacement parts, or even
> space-based manufacture and ISRU, if the pricing was suitable.

There are more possibilities in the Universe than can exist as
actual outcomes.

Families of satellites are built with common components. ALL
satellites are not built with common components.

Try fitting an AMD chip into your Pentium motherboard CPU seat.

Try pumping UDMH fuel into a Hydrazine tank on a satellite.

Whiile it will be technically easier to produce LO2 and LH from
ISRU, it is going to be more complex to produce Hydrazine, Nitrogen
Tetroxide, Monomethyl Hydrazine, Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine,
Nitric Acid and Aerozine.

Take a look at all of these satellites:
https://www.cheyennemountain.af.mil/boxscore.htm

> >
> >This is of extreme interest to me. Of course the buyers and
sellers
> >have to be on Earth. I'm just waiting for a crytal lattice that
must
> >be grown in space for an electronics component. Now you send a
> >payload up, grow the crystal, return it to Earth and send it
through
> >the remaining fabrication processes. [...]
> >
> Is that really so different from sending data up, having it
transformed
> by a comm satellite, and having the result actively beamed down
again?
> The big difference is it's extremely cheap to send EM waves up and
down,
> but it's still way too expensive to send up and return physical
objects.
> So launch prices have a much stronger effect on the market for
physical
> processing.

I have no dog in this hunt. I'm not arguing the very valid points
you're making. The fact of the matter is that while these ventures
are revenue generating, they are not forming a component of an
orbital economy. That doesn't detract from their potential, it just
puts them into another category.

The return of the physical object is incidental. The key to THAT
EXAMPLE is that something has been identified that MUST be made in
orbit, has no substitute on Earth, and was deemed with enough
potential to warrant the expense of orbital creation. No such
product exists. Further, don't focus solely on the one example I
gave. It would be more significant to me that support business exist
in orbit to provide a common necessity to any other venture that
requires it, so that each doesn't have to provide it on their own.
That's why Orbital Express is closer to being a building block of a
new economy than the satellites it would service.

>
> Anyway, maybe we're all splitting hairs here; still I think comm
sats
> shouldn't be counted out as contributing to the growth of orbital
> industry - there's a lot of money in them...
>
> Arthur

I think I should take a remedial English class. Somehow I continue
to confuse people into thinking that I'm saying that there's no
revenue potential from satellites and they have no part in lowering
the thresholds to space. Hmm . . .

TangoMan