For or Against . . .

> You did say that the 250,000 number was unsupported right? If you
DO
> have some research that states that 250,000 people is the minimum
> self-supporting size of a modern industrialized nation, then
perhaps
> pointing us to the research would help us to show at what points
space
> settlements could get by with fewer.

Damn, this is fun. I'm getting hit on all sides. :)

The basis of the 250,000 figure was a report by some economists,
sociologists, and some professers of manufacturing management, if
memory serves, and one which I might add got favorable feedback from
the other researchers at the symposium, that tried to examine all of
the skill sets and personnel that would be required to duplicate a
modern society circa mid 1980's "on another planet." Now, when I say
that number is unsupported, what I mean is that, even though I've
tried finding that research I'm having no luck, so to anyone who
wants me to back up that number with a reference, I can't. To such a
critic, it would look as though I've pulled the number out of thin
air. But even that is fine by me, if a case can be made for it. I do
wish though, that I could actually find that research report,
because it made a very good case witht he important caveat that the
goal was to establish a modern society very quickly while minimizing
hardship. They weren't advocating no colonization without a 250,000
person ship. Of course, colonies would be formed on other planets,
other solar systems, but the road to modern standards would be a
long one.

I've just taken what I thought was their good conclusion, and
modified it for our purposes consistent with this group's theme and
added the subsidization minimization criteria.
>
> [Snip]
>
>> But... If large cash requirements don't scare off investors, why
should
> high initial subsidies scare off investors?

Because with an investment you expect a return within the projected
period. A subsidy, OTH, is a bottemless pit that goes on in a state
of profitlessness (is that a word?)

As an example, companies invest in toll roads, and may have to spend
a few billion dollars on construction before the make a dime from
the tolls. That doesn't phase them. But if right at the beginning
they knew that every year they would have to fork over a few hundred
million dollars, for decades, until maybe, the local population
tripled in size, and then traffic would be sufficient in the area to
actually make a profit from the tolls, well, no company is going to
subsidize that project even though they might make a profit in the
next fifty years. That's why toll roads aren't out in the country,
they're near population centers.

> [Snip]

> So... people in space are expensive, and tens of thousands of
people in
> space are MUCH more expensive; but somehow hundreds of thousands
are
> cheaper? It almost sounds as though you are arguing FOR an
economy of
> scale, but without your evidence that 250,000 is the critical mass
> number the number is unassailable. Couldn't you argue that ten
million
> is the minimum number on the strength of the same evidence? Why
> shouldn't such an economy of scale return cheaper space living per
> person from the start? After all, when your one ( 1 ) Bold Space
> Pioneer absolutely HAS to have a toothbrush (or other essential)
RIGHT
> NOW, then the resupply shuttle launch will cost almost exactly the
same
> as if you also sent up a dozen toothbrushes - or heck, even up to
forty
> tons of toothbrushes.

Yes, I plead mea culpa, I have no appeal to authority with reference
to the 250,000 population figure. But it is still assailable by
logic. For a day, pay particular attention to how you live your life
and all of the industrialization benefits you enjoy, and then
imagine that every pen you use, every piece of paper, the ketchup
for your fries, the napkin, the windex, the comb, etc was not there.
Sure, there will be product substitution, and domestic products will
be manufactured in orbit, and there will be imports from earth. But
so much of our thinking about this topic takes for granted the
simplicity of achieving access to the products. For instance, we'll
just make the pen. OK, we'll probably need a plastics industry to
make the pen body material, then we'll need plastics extruding
equipment to shape the body, then metal extruding equipment to make
the pen nib, then we'll need a comprehensive chemical industry to
make the ink, then machinery to fill the ink container with ink.
Take the expense of the machinery to make pens, multiply it across
the number of other products you want to manufacture domestically,
and divide it by 10,000 people. Can all the cost of that equipment
be supported by 10,000 people? How expensive will that pen be? One
of the conclusions of that now lost report was that 250,000 people
could support an economy. I buy that argument. It makes intuitive
sense to me. I'm leery of 10,000 people supporting an economy but at
this point I have no hard and fast numbers to prove my case.

Let's look at it like a slippery slope type argument. If not 250,000
people to support an economy, how about 225,000, or 200,000, and so
on. I'd be very surprised if the majority of people concluded that
10,000 people could support an economy, even when we factor in the
sale of our exports and the cost of the imports for goods that we
can't produce domestically. Of course, what I'm not putting into the
equation, is that the earth governments are happy and willing to
subsidize those 10,000 pioneers with annual subsidies of, pick your
favorite number, mine is, $50 billion per year, or 5 million per
person per year.

Yes, one could argue that 10,000,000 provides for a larger domestic
economy and thus solves my point even better. But to further refine
my argument, I believe that the 250,000 figure is the result of an
optimization, a min-max formula that finds a balance between
minimizing construction and infrastructure costs for the habitat and
provides just enough population to have the necessary skill sets and
a barely viable domestic economy. And no, I haven't run the
optimization numbers myself :)

>
> >>While you make a valid point, I don't see any of this as
prohibitive. I can
> >>easily see our "band of pioneers" ordering those items "online".
Yes, they
> >>may have to pay $5 for a toothbrush or a roll of toilet paper.
And by the
> >>time we have "pioneers" in need of such items, we should also
have better
> >>(read: cheaper) space transportation systems to deliver the
goods. But at
> >>some point the in-space market will demand access to cheaper
goods and the
> >>industry to develop these goods will be created.
> >>
> >
> >Whether our band of pioneers orders online or not is tangential
to
> >the main point, which I consider to be expense. You randomly
chose a
> >cost of $5 for a toothbrush. That to most of us may be
exorbitant,
> >or reasonable, but nevertheless it is a strawman argument. There
is
> >no basis of support for it. While I don't claim my numbers to be
any
> >more significant, I'll explain below how they are derived.
> >
> >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
> >
> Isn't this also a strawman? Why use the shuttle? It is currently
one
> of the most expensive launch systems in the world, and is man-
rated for
> what could perfectly well be an automated (read Soviet
Era 'Progress'
> resupply ship) mission?

Perhaps. So let's use a hypothetical next generation launch vehicle
and do away with the shuttle. I've ALREADY dropped launch cost by a
factor of 10 to $1,000/lb. See below.

>
> >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.

> >
> Hang on... you just said you would grant an order of magnitude
> improvement in launch technology costs, and then you go right
ahead
> using TODAYS numbers for a shuttle launch cost! Shouldn't you use
a
> launch cost ten times lower? And something cheaper by the cubic
foot
> than the white elephant which is the STS? Don't we already have
launch
> systems (almost) an order of magnitude cheaper than this (per
cubic
> foot) today?

I did use the numbers of a $1,000/lb launch cost. I used the numbers
for the shuttle because I had them available to illustrate my point.
And I dropped them by an order of magnitude. I'm quite willing to
substitute other launch vehicle costs and volumes into the equation
to illustrate the point that supplying many of the needs of our
pioneers from earth isn't going to cut it. The shuttle isn't central
to my argument, it is used to illustrate the absurb cost of daily
items when the distorting cost of shipping to LEO or L5 orbit are
factored in. I would hope that it buttresses my main contention that
we need do domestically produce as many items in orbit as possible,
in order to lower our import requirements. And further, to make all
of these domestic industries profitable, perhaps just barely, we'll
need a critical mass of population, both for their purchasing power,
and for the skill sets that a society requires.

For those who will consider an appeal to authority, consider the
following quote by Tom Heppenheimer, from his book "Colonies in
Space," . . "The production cost would be $10 per pound, which still
is 4 times cheaper than the alternative of hauling aluminum up from
earth." p. 132

I'm just taking his point and applying it to the feasibility of
living in the habitat after it's constructed.
>
> > Double or triple that to get the cargo to L5 or some other
habitat orbit.
> >
> Hang on for a second here while I do some figuring... heck, who am
I
> kidding, I don't have the numbers on hand - can sombody help me
out
> here? Are you saying that the cost to go from LEO to L-5 or some
other
> potential Near Frontier habitat orbit will be TWICE the cost to go
from
> the surface of Terra to LEO? Does anyone know the Delta-V from
LEO to
> GEO / HEEO / L-5? Is it really this big?

LEO is just the first rung on the orbital ladder. Post of the
world's launch capability is only able to get a few hundred miles
above earth, without severe restrcition placed on the payload. Look
at the size of the Saturn 5, to get the Apollo capsule and LEM to
the moon. L5 or another habitat orbit is between the delta-v costs
of LEO and the Moon, but closer to the moon side than the LEO side.
But let's not let that distract us. Just use the LEO numbers as the
best case scenario. You're still left considering my inane example
of a $25.00 toothbrush and a $260 roll of toilet paper. You better
be earning a good salary!

>
> >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?
> >
> Maybe you need to think a little more outside the box.... What do
you do
> with the toilet paper and toothbrushes when they are used up?
Don't
> these represent valuable carbon and complex organics resources?
> Wouldn't your Bold Space Pioneer be importing these anyway to run
the
> CELSS? I realize that recycling is important, but nothing seems
to ever
> work at 100%, plus which the point is to grow the habitat... which
means
> more raw materials. If those raw materials arrive as
toothbrushes, why
> should our Bold Space Pioneer care?

Good point. They should recycle if the cost of substituting that raw
material is greater than the cost of recycling. In orbit, we
probably won't have the environmental concerns we have here on
earth. But they still need a toothbrush factory, or a waste paper
recycling facility, and then a paper forming facility, etc. That
costs money. If a business runs it, they want to make money. Can
only 10,000 people support that business?

>
> >For those who are interested, I'll continue to make my case by
way
> >of response to other poster's comments.
> >
> >Thanks for the good debate.
> >
> Thanks for the good discussion yourself - it's great to have some
fresh
> approaches on here occassionally.

Thank you :)

>
____
>
____