Robber Barons in Space

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:

> All that said, the real problem in my estimation, is that there is
> no orbital economy at all, notwithstanding the economic assets
> presently in orbit.
>
> Nothing is bought, sold, traded, manufactured, claimed, mined, or
> refined in orbit.
>
> Have you seen the witty satire recently circulated about the wagon
> expeditions to the Desert.
>
> You point out that the satellite repair venture might reduce
> innovation in the space industry and thus maintain the status quo.
> But what drives innovation in the space industry? Surely not a
> stagnant market launching missions into a Desert.
>
> My opinion is that the best thing that government(s) could do would
> be to drop the farce of science in orbit and start launching
> infrastructure.

It is great to hear you and others advocate for infrastructure. So
many plans for this and that and I hear so few for establishing
infrastructure to support everyone.

> An orbital tether system, some means of storing fuel, and better
> yet, refining fuel, also providing orbitally obtained life support
> materials. This is akin to laying down the roads or wagon trails,
> having watering stops for the mules, having some nice vittles for
> the travellers and a place to rest for the weary folk as they
> journey into the desert for their own reasons.

Can you explain more about a "tether system"? Is this the "space
elevator" I hear about or just a means of connecting two otherwise
diparate space contraptions together to form a "unified" system?

> Now let anyone who can pay the fare go to orbit to make what they
> will of their own privately funded ventures. They'll pay for the
> fuel and life support, and a tax will eventaully recover the cost
of
> the other infrastructure.

I think this is a great idea having government build infrastructure
and tax it's use. But I read somewhere that the biggest problem with
Gerard K. O'Neill's plan (L5 Colony building SPS systems) was it's
dependence on government. That dependence was termed "naive" as I
recall.

I am curious. Your idea (and I have read many of your previous posts
as well as enjoyed some rather spirited discussions with you myself)
seems to fall under the same category - dependent on government (tax-
payer) financing. Are you saying that the illusive space market
cannot be motivated by the private sector to develop such
infrastructure? Are we trapped until someone can convince our
government or the collective governments of the world to develop this
infrastructure? Is there any other way in your estimation? Others
should of course chime in with their opinions as well.

> No Mars mission, which will be a one-off mission with no legacy
> hardware.

Oh, yes. I could not agree with you more. I support going to Mars,
but only in the context of a detailed plan for the SYSTEMATIC
development of space.

> Rather, lay down the roads, water pipes and electricity
> grid and let those assets be the legacy for future users and
> missions. Then will come the farmers, oil prospectors,
> saloonkeepers, shopkeepers, doctors, dentists, settlers,
> schoolmarms, etc.
>
> Any chance of this happening? Nope!

Oh, no. Uuggh. I guess that answers some of my questions above.
Drats! You really don't think there's any chance? No way to motivate
the private sector? I would think there could be lots of money to
whomever or whatever develops that infrastructure.

Jack