Bootstrapping Hawaii

>
> > I guess that my argument isn't convincing anyone when I say that
an
> > economy consists of interlinkages. If each project is a self-
> > sustained entity, I just can't see how project scope and
complexity
> > will increase.
>
> Project scope and complexity increase because each success makes
the
> next successful project more likely. But the individual project
has to
> be able to succeed on its own or it won't be able to raise
funding. If
> the requirement for positive ROI (return on investment) is that a
huge
> complex plan be executed without error and with no surprises, then
> nobody but fools will invest. If the criterion is just that a
small
> incremental advance over current state of the art be successful,
then
> there are people willing to take the chance.

You're taking standard investment due diligence and applying it to a
scenario where nobody can even offer a viable IDEA of what we should
fund. Not one industry that should be in orbit.

I don't thnk it makes sense to take the rules which work in a well-
established construct and apply them in another dissimilar construct.

Have you ever tried to argue the existence of god with a believer?
They always start from the position that god exists.

I'm completely open to the idea that the free hand of private
enterprise will be our salvation with respect to orbital
development, but I'm skeptical. But how come so many are taking the
position that it will be private enterprise that leads the way
without examining the necessary precursors required. Absent those
precursers, how can it come to be?

> The problem is not to find a single comprehensive plan that makes
SPS
> possible, for example. The issue is to find a single plan that is
> sufficiently low risk to attract investors and which lowers
barriers to
> other types of business in space. We don't need to have a path
plotted
> out in advance that brings SPS into being. In fact, it may turn
out
> that SPS never makes economic sense. What is needed is simply to
reduce
> barriers to other kinds of ET resource exploitation, harnessing
the
> creativity of thousands of people who will try to make a buck in
their
> own way.

It usually helps increase the velocity of capital if there are local
markets? Buyers and sellers in orbit. If every project can't count
on a domestic orbital economy taht means they'll have to make a go
of it independently of each other, and success will only come from a
payday on Earth, satisfying terrestrial needs.

If any one of them succeeds, it makes it more likely that
> someone else will figure out how to take the next step. That's the
> natural way for complexity to grow in an economy. Trying to design
it
> in from the ground up has failed every single time it's been tried.
>
> ......Andrew

Then are you prepared to never see orbital development, because at
the margins, every project will face exernalities that are daunting
and that are not central to the mission. Such externalities sink
many projects here on Earth, and the sheer scale of externalities in
orbit will doom many projects. OTOH, if there were other players who
specialized in tasks that you're not competent to address, they
could profit from their services and allow you to concentrate on
your expertise.

TangoMan