Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

This was for ssi_list, but I can't get it to show up. It was mailed before
the last one on the MUOL.

At 05:07 AM 9/7/02 +0000, you wrote:

>Jack,
>
>I like the way you're defending your idea. Many of your responses
>are adding more detail to your original proposal, and I'm coming
>around to seeing what you're getting at.
>
>I think that what's happened here is that you may have a more
>fleshed out concept in your mind than what you're conveying through
>your postings.

I think this is certainly part of it. I also have a difficult time of
articulating it in a way that affords people a better understanding of the
idea.

>As you probably surmised from my response, I'm
>skeptical of vague solutions and when I raise a question, you seem
>to be able to answer it, or clarify your position to invalidate my
>question. That's great. Your giving me, or all of us, a better
>understanding of the MUOL concept.

Well, this is a relief. Up to now, my impression was the opposite.

>It would really help me if you could post a URL that describes in
>more detail the MUOL.

I had a website, but lost it when I lost my last job (IT industry). I am
now gainfully employed again and will be creating another site within a few
months. There are two Distant Star articles (I am the webmaster for that
on-line magazine) that will give you a good idea of what I am referring to
about the MUOL. I didn't write the articles. Both of them are responses to
questions I posted last year. Some of the writing reflects the authors
personal political and (to a lesser extent) social views and aren't
entirely irrelevant to the MUOL, so please extract the relevant information
as you see fit. The URLs for those articles are:

http://www.distant-star.com/issue13/oct_2001_barriers.htm
http://www.distant-star.com/issue13/jan_2002_leo_or_geo.html

>Don't take for granted the knowledge that you
>have of it. I don't have it, so I'm just going on your descriptions.
>Alternatively, perhaps post in more detail a description of the MUOL
>and how it helps in the 4-step process that you raised in the start
>of the thread. They're still connected issues, right?

Yes. If the MUOL can be expanded and developed into a manned space station,
it could act as the first of those four steps. My logic is that we should
focus on the next 10-20 years with an eye on future needs. I believe we
need a clear picture of the necessary industrial infrastructure to support
industry in space. It is from that picture we can better surmise our most
immediate goals and needs.

>While I'm at it; what is the scale of this thing?

I don't have a firm answer for this. All I can say is that the goal is to
start small (affordable) and expand it's size and function as money and
engineering allows.

>How many modules
>is it supposed to support?

The MUOL seed would probably just support, say, 2-3 modules. But if a
significant enough revenue stream could be generated from the leasing of
backplane space to those modules, then we would expand the backplane and
increase it's capacity to support more modules. That is the goal. I don't
believe launching a fixed-capacity backplane is the way to go. If the MUOL
cannot be extended, then much of what makes the MUOL appealing to me is lost.

>Do you have any diagrams?

Two. One of the seed and one of the larger, more complete MUOL. I will try
to post to the files section later today.

>Just more
>information. I feel that I'm offending you, and I don't mean to, but
>I can only go on the information you've provided. :)

At times, I have a very difficult time censoring myself. I tend to
overreact and not think through my responses. I was not offended by
anything you have said. Unfortunately, there has been so little progress on
this concept and I don't have ready responses to the concerns and issues
you raised.

>In your last response, when you raised the question of "Is it
>absolutely impossible to design a way for those concerns to be
>mitigated?" I'm sure that could be the case, but then you'd have
>design limitations. Maybe the MUOL authorities have to approve each
>module with an eye to how its functionality will integrate with all
>of the other modules.

This will absolutely be the case. Collateral damage to modules or to the
backplane are a concern that will have to be addressed. It will most likely
require the leasee be given a vote in who else can lease space on the
backplane.

>As for your concern about my dismissing the idea. Not at all. I'm
>playing devil's advocate. As I've already stated, I think it has
>some merit, but I'm still unsure of how you see it playing a
>significant role in the 4-step program you raised?

The progression in my mind (having not thought this through all the way) is:

MUOL seed in LEO
MUOL expanded to support additional modules
Transition from primarily research to primarily production
Habitation and CELSS modules added to the backplane
Transition from unmanned laboratory to manned space station

MUOL seed to L2 above moon
MUOL progresses as above (research --> production : unmanned --> manned)

MUOL seed to Lunar surface
MUOL progresses as above (research --> production : unmanned --> manned)

MUOL seed to NEO
MUOL progress as above (research --> production : unmanned --> manned

At some point along this progression, each MUOL/station will have to assume
it's responsibility within the "Earth-Moon Network". The idea is to
establish the necessary infrastructure to support wide spread use of space
and it's resources. For example, the LEO station's primary function in the
network may be to act as refueling station. This doesn't mean it foregoes
it's other goals and tasks. The Lunar station may provide the necessary
volatiles from which the LEO station develops the propellant it provides.
Each station serves a function within the network. But each station also
serves itself. The LEO station can continue to function as a product
research and development platform in space. The Lunar station might extract
He3 from the soil. Each station must not only be able to support itself but
also serve an important function within the Earth-Moon Network.

Keep in mind this is all within the MUOL concept. No single entity bears
the full load of the debt burden. The initial MUOL seed is still made up of
two separate elements, the backplane and the modules. The backplane is
owned by one (we'll call them the MUOL Venture) and the modules are owned
by other companies. In this way, support costs are shared and, therefore,
lessened to each individual company or "venture". I refer to this as
distributed debt burden. The debt burden of the MUOL is shared by both the
MUOL venture and the companies leasing space on the backplane. I do not
have an economics degree. I am thinking in terms of simple logic, as flawed
as it may be. But this is an important concept to the overall MUOL. It
suggests a less expensive approach to individual companies while still
assuming the huge costs involved with any space venture, at least for the
time being.

This same principal should be applied through the whole progression. And
different companies may have different goals within each MUOL/station, but
the unit as a whole serves the larger network as well.

>When you wrote "Because it was never designed to be anything more
>than a space telescope. The MUOL will be designed for much more than
>a single purpose."
>
>Now this is where you can shine a lot of light on the issue for me.
>With no need for engineering drawings :) exactly HOW will it be
>designed for more than a single purpose? I hope I'm not coming
>across as being very dense, but exactly what does that entail? You
>know, an answer to this question may solve a lot of my skepticism.
>What are the common factors that the MUOL must have to be of use to
>the modules?

The MUOL must provide power to the modules.
The MUOL must provide the necessary communications infrastructure to the
modules (clearly, some comm unique to each module is required)
The MUOL must provide a reasonable amount of protection from space hazards.
The MUOL must provide a means of thermal radiation.
The MUOL must provide a means of temperature amelioration.

Power is a requirement of almost every single space mission, correct? By
eliminating the need for power subsystems almost entirely from the space
mission, how much cost is cut?

Communication is another requirement of almost every single space mission.
By eliminating much of the need for comm subsystems, by how much is the
bottom line reduced?

>What would distinguish the MUOL from a rack onboard the
>ISS or Space Shuttle?

Remember, the MUOL is made up of two distinct components:

Backplane + Modules = MUOL

Think of the ISS or space shuttle as the backplane. Sure you can plug
commercial "modules" into their "backplane". Clearly, NASA is a
"competitor" in that sense. But both the ISS and Space Shuttle have huge
costs associated with their use.

And I believe the MUOL backplane can be a less expensive option than either
of those two above. For one thing, it starts off as unmanned. This will
hopefully reduce the costs significantly by not requiring expensive
life-support systems. Nor does the MUOL have the political overhead that
the other two have. I am sure there are other advantages as well. And
disadvantages, too.

>When you wrote " I do however believe that the single most important
>breakthrough for advancing the development of space is the invention
>or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
>significantly more favorable in the space environment. And I believe
>that providing a platform for product research and development in
>space would be a good idea and that is what I believe could lead to
>increased production and a growing and thriving space industry."
>
>Yes. Very well put and I agree with you whole-heartedly. But to me
>this statement can stand apart from the 4 steps issue that started
>this thread.

The "4 steps issue" provide the infrastructure to support a growing
industrial base in space that, in this discussion at least, began to grow
and increase because of product research and development.

Jack