For or Against . . .

At 01:23 AM 9/12/02 +0000, you wrote:

> > It is difficult for me to imagine anyone with knowledge of the
>facts to
> > claim space is NOT and can NOT be made profitable.
>
>Perhaps I don't have access to the knowledge of facts that you have
>access to, but I'm quite comfortable in not funding any individual
>space efforts because I haven't seen space be profitable yet. I
>dream of the day that it will, just like the rest of us on this
>list, but my professional responsibilities included due diligence
>and maximizing the institutional clients return on their capital. My
>responsibilities didn't include being a cheerleader for space
>development. That's the job of the enterprise leader. He has to
>convince the VCs, bankers, investment bankers, traders, etc that
>they'll be investing in a profitable enterprise. I'd love to see the
>day when that happens.
> >
> > >Just as a matter of interest, as an aside, it is my opinion and
>one
> > >that I share with a number of economists, that there is an
> > >overabundance of capital available in the markets.
> >
> > I don't doubt the funding is available. I doubt the people who
>have the
> > money to use it in such ventures. Again, not from a lack of the
>right case
> > being made, but perhaps from a lack of will or foresight. Or
>perhaps
> > another reason. I think the case has been made many times over.
>
>Oh, you'd be surprised how many people have the space bug, and would
>love to do their part, even if it's only financial, in getting us
>out there. They have the will, the foresight, and the means, but
>thus far they've lacked the vehicle to bring those talents to bear.
>I disagree with you on the case having been made many times over.
>There is a difference between a lot of ideas and plans that get
>floated and a convincing case having been made.

Ok. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. There are people with
the will, the foresight, and the money to invest in expensive, high-risk
space ventures, right? But nobody can say for sure that space is even
profitable because we haven't seen anyone make a profit from space yet,
right? And until someone makes a strong enough case for space development,
it won't happen, right?

So what is a strong enough case? Demonstrable evidence of profitability in
space? And who ultimately decides what is and isn't a strong case? The
financiers or the folks managing their portfolios (or whatever)?

> > I agree competition is causing returns on capital to flatten, that
>makes
> > sense. But I believe the emphasis these days is placed on a quick
>return. I
> > do NOT believe that ideas are failing to be funded because they
>are bad or
> > fail to make the right case. I believe it is because the cost is
>too high
> > and the return too slow. Perhaps if either the costs were reduced
>or the
> > return quickened, we would see more space ventures financed.
>
>There are better investment alternatives out there than space based
>industry.

Define better, though? Quicker return? An almost guaranteed return?
Investments that don't have the political baggage space industry does? What
exactly makes those "better investment alternatives" better?

> > >Leaving aside for the moment the concept of space platforms being
> > >easily modifiable into many configurations,
> >
> > I have done the MUOL concept an injustice if you walk away from
>our
> > discussion with that idea. I hope I have an opportunity to
>rehabilitate the
> > concept in the future. While that description is not entirely
>inaccurate it
> > is, at least, misleading.
>
>I respect that you're a dogged proponent of the MUOL concept, and I
>think it has an appropriate place in the greater scheme of things, I
>just didn't want to divert this discussion into the merits of the
>MUOL concept and its role in this issue. I wanted to keep the focus
>on the issue of 10,000 population versus 250,000 population needed
>for a viable habitat that will spawn more habitats without sucking
>dry the earth economy by way of subsidies.

I sensed your reluctance to discuss the MUOL further and limited my
digression to merely clearing up what I considered to be a misconception.

> > >Space industry can, and must be, profitable in order to exist.
>This
> > >results in a positive balance of payments. No room for debate.
>But a
> > >habitat where thousands of people must be supported has a number
>of
> > >significantly additional expenses, and the question becomes can
>the
> > >small number of people (<10,000) in orbit add more value to their
> > >products and services than it costs to support them. My contention
> > >is that they cannot.
> >
> > Yes, but that's if you go from 0 and no industrial infrastructure
>to
> > 249,999 (you know what I mean) quickly. Doing it over time, the in-
>orbit
> > markets mature, industries develop, and such goods and services
>become
> > common place. Over time. Start small, make consistent forward
>progress and
> > I believe (in time) thousands and thousands of people can be
>supported in
> > orbit.
>
>Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm sure there will be human
>presence in orbit, but it will require subsidies. Oh, just look at
>what I wrote earlier.

I've read what you wrote earlier, thank you. Of course it will require
subsidies. You've admitted that getting to a population of 250,000 will
require smaller space stations with smaller populations. They, too, will of
course be subsidized. Are you merely arguing that the magic number is
250,000? That 250,000 is critical mass for autonomy and self-sufficiency in
space?

I thought there was more to your proposition. It sounds like to me getting
to 250,000, regardless of the hows and whens will still require no less of
a bootstrapped effort and I thought that your point was counter to
bootstrapping all together.

> > >We've seen numbers of $10,000/lb launch costs delivered into LEO
>via
> > >the shuttle. I've also seen a report stating total launch cost per
> > >shuttle mission is $500,000,000. Further, the size of the launch
>bay
> > >is 40 feet with a diameter of 15 feet, and the shuttle has a cargo
> > >capacity of 40 tons
> > >
> > >I will grant that launch costs will be lowered in the future. I
>feel
> > >it is a generous concession to state that launch costs will be
>only
> > >$1,000/lb on future shuttle missions or on ELVs. Consider the
> > >following: the shuttle, packed to the rafters with cargo, can hold
> > >7,071 ft^3. Total launch cost $50,000,000/7,071 ft^3 = $7,070.71
>per
> > >ft^3. So, if future launches are conducted at all like FedEX and
>UPS
> > >shipments, they'll factor in both volume and weight by some
> > >formula. If we can fit 288 toothbrushes into a cubic foot, then
> > >just the transport cost to LEO would be $24.55. Double or triple
> > >that to get the cargo to L5 or some other habitat orbit.
> > >
> > >Now, how much value in product and service, that is exportable to
> > >earth, can the habitat citizen create to balance against such
> > >shipping costs for every item that isn't manufctured in orbit?
> >
> > It's an interesting point that you are making, but I just don't
>see it as
> > all that prohibitive to smaller communities in space (initially).
> > Communities grow and with them their capacity to either a) provide
>enough
> > value in their in-orbit products and services to offset the cost
>of
> > importing or b) to manufacture the needed item(s) themselves.
>
>You keep taking my statements and applying them to your own vision
>of smaller communities in space.

You asked whether a colony would require a minimum population of 250,000 to
be self-sustaining; you're point (I believe) being that a population of
less than 250,000 would not be able to sustain itself without "budget
busting" subsidies. Am I missing something?

>If I haven't been able to convey my point in a clarity that allows
>you to see the substance I'm trying to convey, rather than just as
>an interesting, easily dismissed point of curiousity then I don't
>really know which other arguments I can marshall to make my case to
>you. You're not acknowledging my points with respect to the defining
>topic,

What point am I not acknowledging?

>rather you're inserting them into your own vision and using
>that as a rebuttal to what I wrote.

I really wished I knew how I was doing this exactly. Perhaps you should go
back and read what I have written. I did just go back and read our
discussion so far and I feel like I am making a point that is right in line
with this discussion. And rather than acknowledge and address that you are
accusing me of misunderstanding and misreading and throwing up strawmen to
distract from the crux of your issue. No clarification of this issue I am
apparently too dense to understand, mind you. Just the subtle suggestion I
ain't too bright.

Jack