economics of bootstrapping

>
> --- victoriatangoman
>
> > This is an economic activity that has near term
> > potential, as we've
> > discussed on this list in the past, but I still
> > don't see the
> > bootstrapping potential which is what I'm looking
> > for.
> >
> Going back to Mike Combs question here:
> what we need are baby steps.

As I see it there are two approach paths: the baby steps that you
mention and the prime mover approach. Baby steps will yield the
first immediate results and may actually lead a few steps up the
bootstrapping ladder but I think there is a greater likelihood of
stalling. It is always easiest to squeeze efficiency out of a system
at the beginning of a reform.

There is no compelling case for a prime mover (non-gov't) being made
and that is a huge obstacle for this approach.

> The topics I have listed
> here represent what these near terms baby steps are.
> Each one of these builds up a new sector in space
> beyond that of the commsat market. They are able to
> do this because they are leveraging against an
> existing market. As an economist, I think you can
> agree that it is easier to enter a new market by
> leveraging off an existing market.

Absolutely. It's good that you've taken this into account. FWIW,
technically I'm not an economist, I've the education of a management
professor but I've more than a Master's degree in coursework in
economics and banking theory. Finance and marketing are my
specialties, but I am drawn to the philosophical underpinnings of
econimic thought.
>
> Each of these businesses are realistic near term
> projects being looked at which can succeed on their
> own two feet. And each deals with technologies that
> can bring us further to SPS.
>
> Refeuling and in orbit repair are both technologies
> that help advance construction and telerobotics in
> space. Both will also demonstrate that not only is
> space a location to service the earth, but it also a
> place where work can be done. This may seem like a
> subtle point but one I cannot stress more in its
> importance in relation to bootstrapping.

Just as Mercury and Gemini validated procedures for later use by
Apollo, I agree with you that construction and telerobotics will be
useful in future risk minimization calculations. Can they make money
though? Is it the technology that will help the bootstrap effort or
is it the business itself that will help the others that follow it?
Or does it not matter which?
>
> Investors and politicians do not see space as a place
> where we can work in except in terms of large
> government projects (ala the shuttle). By promoting
> refeuling, in-orbit repair and orbital debris services
> we produce a shift in the paradigm in which space is
> viewed. No longer do privately funded initiatives to
> actually develop in space seem far fetched to the
> non-space cadets.

Good insight. I think you've latched onto something here.

> > incremental approach may work, or it may not. The
> > history of Earth
> > based economic development may not translate to an
> > environment that
> > is absent an economic support network. I keep
> > stressing that point.
> > We can't take for granted that the future will
> > follow the path of
> > the past.
> >
> yet we can use the lessons of the past to find the
> path of least resistance.

References to past frontiers always ignore the common goods (air,
water, land, food water, ease of heat dissapation, energy, etc) that
were easily available or were of little significant consequence to
the primary goal of the frontiersman. Lack of such common goods will
not be a minor inconvenience to orbital frontiersman.

The path of least resistance will have to squarely address this
issue and won't find any guidance from the past.

>
> > Look into where the Hydrogen will come from and the
> > resultant
> > byproducts and the environmental consequences of the
> > byproducts.
> >
> this all may be true but I don't see it stopping
> people like George Bush touting that the new economy
> will be moving towards hydrogen in the next 10-20
> years. When I start hearing the president talk the
> same way about SPS, then I'll start believing more in
> the possibility it will be happening soon.

What I take from your statement is that the rhetoric of a President,
can add crediblity, even without significant funding. This "prestige
capital" is important. I agree.

SPS may not be econmically competitive with substitute energy
sources but it also doesn't have the hidden costs associated with
them? Just this week President Bush asked for $87 Billion for Iraq
expenditures next year. It's not really germaine whether people
believe the motivation for the Iraw offensive was to secure oil, but
one should ask if our dependence on oil wasn't so severe would we
even be in the Middle East? How much of the military budget goes to
protecting oil supplies? Is this a cost? Why isn't it factored into
cost of oil? How about pollution? Oil and coal cause a lot of it but
the costs are borne by society. Why? SPS avoids these costs so
depending on the artificial construct of economic analysis that you
use you end up making oil, gas, coal, and nuclear look cheaper than
they are.

>
> While talking of of environmental impact, orbital
> reentry itself has its own problems. Everytime
> something comes through the atmosphere, NO is
> produced. Currently our level of space flight is too
> low for this to be a major effect, but if we get to
> the point where there is 1000+ launches per day, this
> is going to be a major environmental issue. Just
> something to munch on.
>
> Ryan Z

Care to elaborate? Where does the NO come from? If we're to munch on
it we should know more about it (at least I should.)

TangoMan