MUOL

At 06:18 PM 9/9/02 -0500, you wrote:

> Alright, so it seems like an obvious enough concept, but I haven't
>really heard it explicitly discussed - and you seemed to overlook the
>space resources angle as well. Adding the whole space resource
>prospecting / refining / utilization may make the vision unpalatably
>complex, but perhaps it would be wise to at least provide module space /
>services capable of supporting a prospecting facility - and founding a
>sister-venture dedicated to providing such a facility. This could allow
>you to entice investors to rent the materials research module spaces,
>since they could look forward to cheap (non- up-ported) raw materials.

I have no problem with any of that. If someone wants to lease space on the
backplane for the purpose of "supporting a prospecting facility", that's
great. Assuming, of course, their module meets the required design specs
(presumably, there would be some required specs) and the work is approved
by the MUOL venture and the other leasees, etc.

> This diffusion of cost idea is a very appealling one - it lessens
>the risks to each individual, and makes many space ventures potentially
>affordable.

I think so. Someone with a strong background in financing and general
economics would really need to thoroughly outline the concept and it's
feasibility, but I think it has merit. As long as space industry remains
prohibitively expensive, it might be the best way to reduce cost of
participation to the individual company while still accounting for the huge
expense required to begin. There's no way around the cost. It's going to be
expensive at first. Perhaps it will always be expensive. By distributing
the debt burden you at least break the cost into "pieces" more easily
funded. That's the idea, anyway. As I said, someone with financing and
economics background should really chew on this for a while.

> Heck. I had really liked the idea up to this point; but then I am
>gung-ho about colonization - probably not the most practical thing.
>However, allow me to put an idea to you - make the facility INITIALLY
>unmanned.

Hey, no problem. Already thought of that, in fact. I've said before that I
believe CELSS and habitation modules CAN be added to the backplane to
support a permanent manned presence. The idea is to go from research to
production; from automated laboratory to manned space station.

For the record, I know this aspect of the MUOL is a hard sell. We all want
humans in space. I believe by STARTING as an unmanned research platform you
mitigate the huge expense of life-support systems (to a degree - how much
is hard to say at this early stage). There's also liability and insurance
to consider; by removing humans from the dangerous environment of space, do
you not reduce liability and the cost of insuring the facility and it's
occupants? Anyone know much about this important but under studied
consideration?

>You will be providing certain basic services to the
>industrial clients anyway - these services will probably include clean
>energy, variable gravity, clean water, and clean air. Why rule out the
>possibility of allowing a client to design a manned module, so long as
>they provide their own food and sewage?

I am with you 150%. You should go back and read the other messages. I began
pitching the MUOL in the Earth-Moon Network thread.

> Another note about humans; it would seem to be difficult to perform
>research without them. Although robots can work 24-hours, they
>sometimes work slowly and certainly tend to be oblivious to the
>serendipity and subtle quirks of experimentation that might lead to
>valuable products.

It has recently occurred to me that the savings may not be all that
significant. We won't know until we begin studying the idea more
thoroughly, but the cost of developing the hardware and software (robots)
to perform complex tasks in a hostile environment may be comparable to the
costs of supporting humans. Like I said, there's no way to know at this
early stage. Perhaps someone knows of some useful research in this regard?

Jack