Robber Barons in Space

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

> I don't see much future for the small fry UNTIL there is an
> established orbital economy. The small fry need the infrastructure
> in order to operate. There is no money to be made in building and
> operating the infrastructure until such time as there is an economy.
>
> I'm aware of your interest in the MULE concept but I honestly don't
> see it as a bootstrapping step. Rather it is another one-off
> business venture that is tied to the Earth's economy. It may be
> successful but it'll be isolated as a component of a potential
> economy to be.

My logic in seeing the MULE concept as a "bootstrapping step" comes
from believing that an incremental buildup in infrastructure is more
likely than a huge consortium doing it all at once.

Let's say a product was developed or invented whose cost-effective
production is exclusive to the space environment. Would this not
likely provide some impetus for change in the aerospace industry -
strengthen and enlarge the market for microgravity research, drive an
appropriate policy and legal framework (soft infrastructure),
contribute to the dream of cheaper access to space, etc? In other
words, wouldn't such a discovery or invention likely contribute
significantly to reducing the common impediments to space development
currently hamstringing all efforts? I mean, it seems logical that
cracking the market will set in place a series of events that would
likely drive incremental growth in space development.

I believe this is possible - even more likely than any other concept
or scheme I have read or heard about. And once those impediments
begin to fall, isn't market growth and cost reductions a natural by-
product? Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
ventures once some profitability is demonstrated? And as the market
grows and additional space-borne products are developed, the need for
an industrial infrastructure in space increases.

> Think of it this way.
>
> It makes makes little economic sense to spend billions developing a
> MULE platform if no one wants to rent space in it.

But people are already doing microgravity research. Granted, the
market isn't that well developed but there's no denying that a market
exists. It's a tough case to make, but not impossible. Surely these
companies currently paying for microgravity research would appreciate
a cheaper more effective way in which this research can be conducted?
And if the cost of microgravity research can be brought down to a
more manageable level, the market grows even larger. As I continue to
study the MULE concept and ways to develop space incrementally,
systematically, I continue to look for holes in the MULE concept. If
the MULE can not contribute to a significant reduction in the cost of
doing microgravity research, then it likely has to be abandoned. The
market isn't strong enough at the current costs. To strengthen the
weak market for microgravity research, cost has to be reduced. I
can't say for sure the MULE will be a cheaper method, but logic and
my limited sense of these matters suggest it is at least likely to.

One comment about market vs. cost:

I believe the market is the critical factor, not cost. While it is
logical to conclude that reducing cost will increase the market, I
believe this to be true only in established, if underdeveloped,
markets. You can't reduce cost in the absense of a definable market.
First comes market, then comes cost reduction, then comes larger
market, etc. Is this backwards? I know there is a great deal of
debate among space advocates regarding the market vs. cost issue.

One other comment about the MULE concept in general: I am not saying
that the MULE is the end-all, be-all of space development. I just
want to demonstrate that we are not completely helpless and there are
ways we can contribute to increasing the likelihood of space
development. The MULE is one possibility - the only one I know of, in
fact.

> So to directly answer your question, if you can act as the catalyst
> to the formation of the the consortium, then I believe that things
> can get rolling sooner.

I think it can. But it's pure speculation. That's the biggest problem
with space development in general - we can only speculate as to the
possibilities. Surely the potential is great but that's been a tough
case to make so far.

> I don't think it likely though, not as long as there are investment
> opportunities on Earth that are lucrative. When there is more money
> chasing fewer opportunites and driving returns down, that's when
> you'll be seeing the massive move into orbit - because it's sheer
> size will make it defensible.
>
> After that, will come the entrepeneurs and the small fry. Further,
> the serendipitous results of working in , creating for, and being
> inspired by, an environment of cheap energy, cheap temperature
> control, cheap vacuum and cheap access to variable gravity will
> result in new technologies, new products, and new wealth.

Boy, do I agree with that last sentence. I see space development as
an end, at least to some extent, to Earth-based limitations on
economic growth. In space, once the infrastructure is in place to
support industry, there will always be room and a need for more and
better services and products. The possibilities are endless.

> > > 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
>
> I'm curious on what basis you believe there would be lot's of money
> to be made and how much infrastructure is needed before money can
be
> made, and who would pay to use that infrastructure?

I could be wrong - do Earth-based power providers make money? What
about the telecommunications industry? The companies that provide
water, do they make any money from this service? These are Earth-
based profit-making services - can the same not be applied to space.
There are differences, of course, but there is no reason space
infrastructure itself cannot be profitable.

> I guess, where we differ is that I think the infrastructure is a
> means towards a profit-generting end, and not a profit-generating
> end in itself.

I don't believe it is a profit-generating end in itself, either. I
believe it is the profit-generating beginning.

> That end must be a product which earns enough to
> finance that infrastructure otherwise no investment will flow to
> create the infrastructure.

I agree completely.

Jack