Robber Barons in Space

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
> --- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
> > --- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > What you postulate involves a very big leap in the suspension of
> > credibility department, but if this proposition is critical to
your
> > argument, then I'll go along with it to explore the remainder of
> the
> > argument.
>
> Ok, I'm sorry. You're saying that my suggestion that a product can
be
> developed or invented in the microgravity environment of space
lacks
> credibility? Are you saying that it is unlikely such a product can
be
> developed? Surely you don't seriously believe that. You're just
> playing devil's advocate, right?

No, I'm wasn't playing devil's advocate, but I was suspending my
disbelief and was, and still am, willing to accept your proposition
that a product is developed in space and its cost effective
production is exclusive to the space environment. I have no doubt
that new discoveries will take place in orbit, but their production
only in orbit is where my skepticism is centered.

Just to be clear, I have no doubt that when whole bodies of science,
technology and engineering develop that completely incorporate
temperature controls in space, cheap energy, variable gravity, and
variable vacuum AND when scientists and engineers, who are trained
to operate within these new environments, to think about them daily,
and know them as intimately as their terrestrial associates know
gravity, atmospheric presence, atmospheric pressure, then and only
then, when thousands of people are working in concert, publishing in
journals dedictated to orbital technology, will unique products that
cannot be duplicated on Earth be devised. That's a hell of a
sentence. Basically, when there is an orbital society with a
critical mass of scientific talent.

> Question: Why would the
> international participants be disappointed in that? I mean, hey,
> there's no future in space-based R&D, right?

They might be disappointed because the partners in ISS have
invested billions, they have researchers who have grants to conduct
experiments and all of that money and time is sitting idle.

But that said, the fact that there is research, or not, on ISS, and
the value inherent in that research doesn't buttress your contention
that a product will be developed only in orbit and thereafter
manufactured only in orbit.

> The first space-based wonder drug can expand market for
microgravity
> research - you don't think it likely that this would at least get
the
> attention of other companies in the pharmaceutical industry not
doing
> research in space?

Here's what I would do if I was in charge of a pharmaceutical
corporation. I would direct my researchers to find a way to
duplicate the effect of the new drug with a terrestrial process in
the hopes that, even if I have to spend more on research (unlikely
because I have no rocket launches to fund) I should be able to
manufacture the drug for less, thus undercutting my competitor.

If I have no research that can be done in orbit, and my competitor
discovers something new, I won't all of a sudden find ways to do my
research in orbit. One doesn't lead to the other.

Also, I'd be wary of basing my argument on the fact that my product
could only be manufactured in orbit without proving it can't be done
on Earth. Proving a negative is difficult.

> And I didn't say that work on industrial refining
> and fabrication processes would be boosted. But research in those
> areas would likely be on-going and any advance in any number of
> industries is likely to have a positive collateral effect on the
> other industries.

Too general a statement to support or refute. Any advance? Any
number of industries? Have a positive collateral effect on the
other industries? You say yes, I say no.

> I'm not saying we need cheaper access to space to do microgravity
> research. However, as space-based R&D efforts continue and
succeed,

You're presupposing success, and building your argument on that
assumption. Space ventures do fail.

> it is only logical that more people (industries/companies) will
want
> to access the space environment.

For me to accept your above conclusion, you can't just say it's
logical, you have to build the case through logic and let the
argument withstand attempts at invalidation.

Further, want and willing to pay are different. I want to go to
space but I'm not willing to pay the price. The launch companies
thought that many would be willing to pay to launch based on the
massive satellite networks that were planned. Today, many fewer
buyers are willing to pay despite the continued success of
communication satellite operators.

>
> > 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?
> >
> > Not necessarily. The first litmus test would be to compare the
> > economic value generated, or likely to be generated, by the
wonder
> > product, against the economic costs of "reducing the common
> > impediments to space development."
>
> No, I disagree. You're assuming that the impetus for change is
based
> on the desire to produce the same product, aren't you? I'm saying
> success will increase demand, demand drives down cost, reduced
cost
> equals increased activity.

I'd really like for you to more fully detail your thinking here. The
way I read the above, you're saying that if I, in my Earth lab, find
a way to, let's say incapsulate asbestos and thus reduce its risk to
people, that that will spur research into how to remove the pulp
from orange juice.

Why would my limited success in the MULE experiment drive others to
demand more launch services? I can see how I'd be demanding more
launch services so as to produce my product, but I fail to see your
logical linkage to other R&D efforts.

> >
> > I don't follow. Why does it seem logical? Just look to Earth for
> > counterexamples. You can get gold from seawater, you can
desalinate
> > seawater to have fresh drinking water, you can extract heavy
water
> > from seawater, you can crack seawater to get liquid hydrogen and
> > liquid oxygen. Other than some desalination plants, the other
> > technologies aren't used. They're not used because they're not
> > economic and substitutes exist. Thus, being able to successfully
> > develop one product doesn't open the floodgates for all products.
>
> Ok, not all products but I believe more products is not
unreasonable
> nor incredible. Again, success will increase demand, demand drives
> down cost, reduced cost equals increased activity.

:) It seems to me that you're employing the reverse-slippery-slope
argument. You state your proposition broadly, then when you
encounter a refutation, you scale it back a bit and declare it
reasonable. Then another wise-acre comes along and knocks it back a
bit, and so on.

Rather than take this defensive position, why not take a strong
offensive and show why things will turn out as you argue. Make the
case so compelling that no one can refute it.

As for your above statement, I'll be the wiseacre again, and say
that the success of one product doesn't necessarily lead to others.
See my above comments for more detail.

>
> > > I believe this is possible - even more likely than any other
> > concept
> > > or scheme I have read or heard about.
> >
> > You need to expand on this statement some more for me to be able
to
> > understand what you mean.
>
> Most "schemes" require new technology or vast sums of money or
both.
> I contend that the MULE is an affordable way to begin the process
of
> increasing the market - driving down cost - without requiring any
> change in the current system - no new legislation or policy shift,
no
> new technology, not as expensive (remember, the cost of the MULE
is
> distributed across multiple companies because they share a
> common "backplane" or infrastructure), etc.

So, you're arguing incrementalism will lead to your defined success.
Thus, Spacehab, while expensive, should be bursting with business,
because the alternative is dedicated rocket launched capsules. To
the best of my knowledge (I'm willing to stand corrected) SpaceHab
isn't bursting with business.

Further, my above comments apply here as well. Also, how does
launching a payload to the MULE help lay down infrastructure? For
that matter, you can launch bricks into orbit and thus help the
launch industry. It's kind of the same argument as NASA spending in
congressional districts. Any time you spend money for anything, it
helps the economy. There's nothing special about NASA spending.

> I don't think it's all that unknown. Eventually the SPS would
likely
> pay for itself and provide a cost-effective product, but we're
> talking about a 30-year or longer amortization. I don't see too
many
> capitalists lining up to fund SPS. I believe SPS is a great idea -
> but only in the context of a plan for the systematic development
of
> space.

The capitalists aren't lining up to fund SPS because there are
alternatives for their investment dollars which can earn better
rewards. That said, they aren't lining up to fund MULE for the same
reason.

Moreover, wasn't this thread predicated on laying down
infrastructure in orbit, so as you note above, SPS plays a part in
the systematic development of space, but how does MULE do the same?

As I see it MULE is a stand-alone project.

> > On what basis do you make your assessment? On the basis of
existing
> > research I have to strongly disagree with your belief. SPS is
the
> > most likely driver for future development.
>
> I disagree based on the HUGE cost of SPS development. Once the
> infrastructure is in place, yes, absolutely. But to go from the
> current space regime to SPS is a much larger, much more incredible
> leap in my estimation.

Yes, but we're writing about development of orbital infrastructure.
SPS is the rationale for the development, but MULE is just a stand-
alone platform that isn't a driver for development. The HUGE cost
goes hand in hand with development of infrastructure.

Just examine the MULE concept in another way. If you'll permit me,
let's say some manufacturing process needs 100 kg of methane, 400 kg
of propane, 700 kg of ammonia, etc. Do you contend that for that
mass of material, you're going to go to the asteroids, or are you
just going to launch material from earth? I'd say earth launch, and
that doesn't help lay down the infrastructure.

> Yes, but if the MULE and SPS have an equal chance of reducing cost
> and increasing market size, surely we would all agree the cheaper
> solution is best. And the MULE would be considerably cheaper than
SPS
> and would likely pay for itself much quicker.

What are we debating? Reducing the cost of what? Increasing market
size for what?

This started on how best to lay down infrastructure in orbit. Are
you saying that a stand-alone MULE platform is going to do that
compared to the needs of SPS development. I don't see that at all.

If you're writing about lowering launch cost, then I would say the
volume of launches for SPS development, and the size of the
worldwide electricity market, easily trump the launch requirements
to construct and operate a MULE platfrom and the market for the
product that it manufactures.

Pay for itself quicker? Relevance to developing orbital
infrastructure? How does paying for itself quicker have any
relevance to reducing cost and increasing market size?

>
> > Aren't more companies and people likely to invest in space
> > > ventures once some profitability is demonstrated?
> >
> > No. To be absurd in my example, if I can't harvest copra
> > successfully from an island in the middle of the Pacific, that
> won't
> > have any bearing on whether Intel builds a Fab plant there.
>
> I agree, that is absurd. :) You're analogy doesn't hold up. We're
> talking about exploiting an environment unique to space. An island
in
> the middle of the Pacific offers no significant advantage over
most
> any other Earth-based location - the space environment does.

Au contraire, while absurd the analogy is correct. If you're making
your wonder drug in orbit, that has absolutely no bearing on my
decisions as a sausage factory owner. The unique space environment
offers me no advantage, hmm, or does it? :)

Seriously, just because you can exploit space profitably has no
bearing on whether others can.

>
> > And as the market
> > > grows and additional space-borne products are developed, the
need
> > for
> > > an industrial infrastructure in space increases.
> >
> > You magically assume too much to reach your conclusion.
>
> How so? How can a growing market for space-borne products and
> industry not dictate over time a more robust infrastructure?

You're taking for granted that there is a growing market for space-
borne products. There isn't.

>
> > Yes, SpaceHab is such a company and their performace isn't
burning
> > up the stockmarket.
>
> No, but their storage racks ride on the ISS - I spoke about that
> problem above. They have to pay NASA to plug one of their racks
into
> the ISS meaning whoever does research in one of those racks has to
> pay NASA AND SpaceHab, right?
>
> > Yes, I'm sure that the companies would indeed
> > appreciate cheaper methods, but that doesn't mean that MULE is
> > cheaper or is even the answer. That needs to be demonstrated,
and
> > further, you need to demonstrate how your proposal serves the
> market
> > better than SpaceHab.
>
> Again, the cost of doing research on the MULE is less for the
> individual company because that cost is shared among many
companies.

But that's how SpaceHab works. Why is MULE cheaper? You're just
assuming it is, show me why MULE can deliver a service cheaper than
SpaceHab, and I'll come on side with you.

> > I understand your point about MULE. I just happen to think it is
> > like SpaceHab, and is a one off business venture. Nothing wrong
> with
> > that. I don't see how it aids orbital infrastructure development.
>
> Have I been able to make that argument any better in this email?
You
> don't think that success increases demand and higher demand lowers
> the cost?

Success for your product doesn't open the floodgates for other
products. If your success leads SeaLaunch (for example) to triple
its launches, I'd doubt that if they're already the low cost
provider, that they'd pass on the savings from amortizing their
fixed cost over a larger number of launches to you. Saving 2% on
your future launches isn't going to entice you to launch more and
there are no other low cost competitors forcing SeaLaunch to meet
their lower costs. So, wouldn't you agree that this type of example
pokes a whole in your above logic chain?

>
> > As I've pointed out above, MULE has too many unknowns compared
to
> > SPS, so I'm baffled how you can conclude that MULE is the only
> > possibility leading towards space development. That's a hell of
an
> > unsupported statement to make :)
>
> Ok, maybe not the only possibility. How about the only reasonably
> affordable possibility? How 'bout the only possibility that
doesn't
> require tax-payer financing? How 'bout the only possibility that
> requires no new technologies? Etc, etc.

Reasonably affordable possibility of what? Building orbital
infrastructure that can be used by all, or as a space project. If
its the former, MULE doesn't serve that purpose, if it's the latter
then why not just launch another weather satellite. They're cheap.

We're still wrting about orbital infrastructure development, right?
When did taxpayer funding enter the criteria, and why presume that
SPS is taxpayer funded. Further, the technology of SPS has been
pretty much nailed down for decades. Etc, etc.

> > My point is that on Earth the infrastructure providers serve
within
> > an economic marketplace and that marketplace doesn't exist in
> orbit.
>
> I'm not advocating the development of that infrastructure prior to
> the development of the market. I'm saying let's grow the
> infrastructure parallel to (and perhaps slightly behind) the
market.

My point is that for an orbital economy to develop will require an
orbital infrastructure.

If I plunk you down in the desert, point out all that sand, and tell
you make a factory to make glass. Good luck using just your hands
and no other infrastructure.

I'm not presuming that a market can develop without infrastructure.
How sure are you that it can? Would you share some examples with us?

>
> > Thus, no entity will invest in orbital infrastructure until they
> can
> > be reassured that they'll be servicing a merket.
>
> Exactly! :)
>
> > My contention is that a critical mass is needed to jump start
the
> > marketplace. It won't be developed piecemeal because the volume
of
> > business can't justify the business decisions.
>
> Then how can you do it all at once given the same volume of
business?

What do you mean "same volume of business?" No infrstructure = No
SPS. Infrastructure = SPS = large volume of business.

>
> > Once the critical mass is established, then incremental growth
can
> > follow.
>
> I believe you can reach that critical mass incrementally while
> minimizing government/tax-payer subsidies.

Show me how.

TangoMan