Space-Based R&D as a Catalyst for Space Development ( Robber Barons in Space)

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

> > 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 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.

So gravity never effects production quality? Of course it does,
that's a well-established fact. You are contending that while
discoveries will take place all will be reproducable on Earth? Surely
you see that is not going to be the case nor will it likely be the
case most of the time. And in anticipation of your next question, I
say that because the impact of gravity on Earth-based processes IS
that profound. It is just THAT significant.

> 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.

You do not need to have that scientific talent in orbit to evaluate
the merits and potential returns from space-based R&D. In this day
and age, with networks and rapid communication, computers and
robotics, in-orbit presence is superfluous. This army of engineers
and scientists who must consider the ramifications of gravity on a
daily basis can do so from Earth. They don't have to be in space.

But for the record, my opinion of the above is:

Your suggestion that there won't be a product whose production is
exclusive to the unique environment of space, an environment that can
NOT be reproduced in it's totality on Earth, until there's an army of
engineers and scientists already in orbit to evaluate the research
data is such an extreme exageratioin. I find it hard to believe that
you, an educated, intelligent person, truly think that is a serious
argument.

> > 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.

Invested billions in research that has such little promise for any
near-term returns? My God, they must be mad! And who in the world
would give their researchers grants? It's so speculative and stands
little chance of contributing significantly to Earth-based markets.

Seriously, you're making my case. Yes, they invested billions - to
provide the infrastructure to support microgravity research oboard
the ISS. And when that infrastructure was rendered moot by NASA cuts
they were mad. I'm sure they were mad that they spent all that money,
but why spend it in the first place if there's no merit to space-
based R&D.

> 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.

No, you need to go back and reread that message. You're combining
different arguments from different points. You originally were
implying there was little, if any, value in space-based R&D without
extensive in-orbit infrastructure. Now that that contention has been
aptly refuted, you argue that even if there is value that doesn't
translate into a product whose cost-effective production is exclusive
to the space environment. I never said it did. I was merely refuting
your apparent assertion that there is no promise of return from space-
based R&D absent of extensive infrastructure in space.

There has been enough research in space to easily suggest there is a
great deal of promise in space-based production. I am NOT the only
person on the planet who thinks so. Many people, much smarter than I,
agree.

Roger Handberg, Director of the Center for Space Policy and Law,
states in his book, "The Future of the Space Industry":

"Materials process in a microgravity environment confronts directly
the competition of Earth-based products - a competition in which
price and quality become a direct trade-off. For this reason,
materials processing in space continues to be pursued but the field
awaits either a product that uniquely requires microgravity
processing and is essential for some critical need (i.e., a life
saving drug) or else a significant decline in launch costs that
reduces overhead expenses. The latter remains more likely than the
former in the short term. . . A more likely way to DRASTICALLY lower
costs is clearly separating materials processing from manned flight
operations." (emphasis mine)

Continuing, ". . . robotic missions presently allow longer time
periods for materials to be processed in low-vibration environments
prior to return to Earth. The cost savings should make such products
more competitive in the marketplace. In addition, robotic
missions . . . can be flown more frequently. This means that the
products produced move from the the status of exotic rarities to
commercially available ones, enhancing their price is likely to
increase their use (a nicely circular relationship)."

Now, having said that I will also tell you that I have read a NSF
report stating there is no real market for commercial microgravity
research. I disagree and I believe I can make the case. I may not be
able to make the case to you, but I don't think that has much to with
the merits of my argument or the logic I employ.

> > 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.

Pharmaceutical research in space is based largely on the creation of
pristine, near-perfect crystals (protein crystals, for examples) that
can NOT be duplicated in ANY gravity-affected environment. Can your
company produce protein crystals in Earth-based labs? Yes. But not
like my company can in space. And it is that ability to create
pristine crystals in microgravity that is most likely (and already
has in some cases) going to lead to the medical breakthrough you
hypothesize.

> 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.

If a product is developed based on the exploitation of the unique
environment of space (an environment that can NOT be completely
reproduced in Earth-based labs), then if you want to compete with
that product you won't have a choice. If it's exclusive to the space
environment, IT IS EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT. Please don't
claim you are willing to suspend disbelief in exclusivity then argue
against exclusivity.

> 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.

Please, tell me how to produce crystals that are the same size and
possess the same pristine characteristics of space-borne crystals on
Earth? If so, we got ourselves a great new business!

> > 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.

Of course it is a general statement. Your suggestion that one must
predict the future to make the case for this is just a little goofy,
if you ask me. Asserting that growth in the PC market will have a
positive collateral effect on other industries before the PC market
was anything more than a niche market would have been met with the
exact same cynicism you espouse in these exchanges. Nonetheless, the
growth in the PC market has had a considerable impact on other
industries - this impact was not all foreseen.

> > 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.

Of course I am. Who on Earth would argue for any business on the
presupposition of failure? Yes space ventures fail and I have not
made a single, solitary guarantee, have I? I have merely suggested an
incremental path for the systematic development of space founded on
the potential of microgravity research. Is it really all that
terrible and incredible? Really?

> > 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.

Are you saying that success in a given industry will not breed
competition within that industry? Are you saying that success in one
industry can't have a positive collateral effect on other industries?
Has such a thing ever happend in the past? YES! Therefore, it seems
logical to me to suggest that it could happen again here.

> 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.

I have no problem with what you just said. In fact, I agree. I do,
however, contend that research on the MULE will be cheaper than space-
based R&D has been in the past. I also contend that by reducing the
cost you potentially increase the size of your market.

> > 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.

I have never suggested that the return from microgravity research
alone could fund the infrastructure. I am merely suggesting a way we
can nudge the market to do it themselves.

> 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.

No, of course not. I am saying that microgravity research into
materials manufacturing, for example, would likely demonstrate the
industrial and economic viability of the space environment, thus
encouraging additional applications.

> 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.

See above. I don't know any other way to put it. I have tried to
explain it as best I know how. There is a relationship between some
industries (asbestos safety and orange juice pulp have no such
relationship) and growth in one industry is often dependent (and
often serendiptiously so) upon growth in the other.

> > 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.

Yeah, that's it. I overstate one point and that indicates a reverse-
slippery-slope argument. Come on, Tango, you're smarter than that.
Not all products. My bad for saying "all". Certainly some or more
products is agreeable, right? Some products? More than was there to
begin with?

> 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.

Great! You tell me what you want to hear. What could I possibly say
to convince you? Are you sure you haven't already drawn your
conclusions about this issue? Are you absolutely positive, no doubt
in your mind whatsoever, that there is something, anything, I COULD
say to change your mind?

> 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.

And I never said it did in all cases, every time, without fail. Did
I, Tango? I said it could. I said there is potential. You haven't
even acknowledge that there is. You seem to be saying that the only
way you will believe the sky is blue is if you see a blue sky. Well,
the sky IS blue, regardless of whether you see it yourself, and there
IS potential for space-based R&D to provide SOME impetus to industry
to develop SOME infrastructure to explore that potential further. I
can't tell the future, I can't guarantee anything. But history and,
yes, logic suggest there is at least that possibility.

> > 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.

No, I don't believe they are either. But nor have they been able to
provide much of a contribution to this field because of the ISS
cutbacks (I also understand that the space shuttle Columbia was the
only shuttle fitted for SpaceHab's modules - they're going to have a
tougher time now).

> Further, my above comments apply here as well. Also, how does
> launching a payload to the MULE help lay down infrastructure?

Again, if it can demonstrate the economic viability of exploiting the
space environment it might encourage additional applications. That
doesn't make sense to you? I feel like I keep repeating myself here.
The ever-shrinking microchip has revolutionized multiple industries.
There is a documented relationship between many industries where
advances in one lead to advances in others - and not all advances are
or could be foreseen. It happens all the time. I am trying very hard
not to speak in absolutes, though a few have slipped in (stems from
passion not flawed arguments).

> For
> that matter, you can launch bricks into orbit and thus help the
> launch industry.

That's a little silly. Bricks have no significant application in
space. The MULE does.

> 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.

Not special, no, but there IS something about NASA spending - as is
traditional with most bureaucracies, spending is disproportionate to
both cost and return. Using them as an example just isn't fair.

> 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.

I don't know how else to explain it. We just keep going over and over
the same ground. If I haven't convinced you there is potential for
space-based R&D to encourage (provide the incentive for) industry to
develop the infrastructure in space, then there's nothing else I can
possibly think to say.

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever heard of a company having success in an undeveloped
market?
Have you ever known such success to lead to greater competition?
Have you ever known competition to drive down cost?
Have you ever heard of increased competition and lower cost
encouraging market growth?

Now my answer to each of those is a resounding yes. If you agree that
the answer to all four is yes, but still don't see where I am coming
from, let me know. Maybe we should take this one step at a time.

> > 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.

No, I was speaking of the huge cost of SPS not the infrastructure. I
believe a motivated industry/market will create the infrastructure as
that industry/market grows. You seem to be saying that we need a
space project to provide enough of a return to fund the
infrastructure in it's entirety.

> 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.

Ok, I'm not sure of your point here. At some point, as the space
industry grows, it WILL be more cost-effective to use indigenous
space materials than to launch all raw materials from the Earth.

> 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.

I am saying, as I have already said, that by demonstrating the
economic viability of space-based research (the viability of
production in microgravity) that it can lead to further development.
This increased development of space will require some infrastructure.
The more we develop space the more infrastructure we need. Absent of
economic viabililty, I don't see anyone creating infrastructure just
in the hopes that a market will spring forth. The infrastructure
should grow as the market dictates.

> 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.

Yes the volume of launches needed for SPS development would likely
drive down launch costs. But the costs of SPS development, coupled
with the cost of developing the infrastructure needed to support SPS
development, are way too high for serious consideration now (in my
opinion). By nurturing the space industry market, you nudge everyone
in the direction of developing the infrastructure because, again, it
will be more cost-effective to develop that infrastructure in space
rather than rely solely on Earth-based support forever. At some point
that infrastructure will likely develop to the point of being able to
support SPS development - it is then I believe SPS becomes viable.

> > 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? :)

Of course the space environment has no bearing on a sausage factory.
Don't be rediculous. But a significant advance in the pharmaceutical
industry as a DIRECT result of access to the space environment may
suggest to someone in the materials manufacturing industry that the
space environment is viable. Not because there is a direct
relationship between these two industries, but because we all know
the potential impact of space-based materials manufacturing could
have on that industry - that POTENTIAL has been researched for years.
There is already a whisper - success in one industry known to have
great potential in space may up the volume a bit.

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

That is simply untrue. That's like saying just because Christopher
Columbus crossed the ocean doesn't mean anyone else can. Research to
date has identified several industries that could, emphasize could,
benefit greatly from routine, on-going access to the space
environment for R&D. Success with any one of those industries in
space could bleed into the other identified industries. Thus a
growing market for space-based R&D increases competition, which in
turn is likely to drive down costs and further expand the market.

> > > 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.

No, I am merely suggesting there COULD be a growing market for space-
borne products. There is no market now because nobody is even trying
to produce anything in space. But there is a small market for
research, a market that could be nurtured to grow. A growing market
for space-based research could lead to production - Earth-based
research often leads to production, does it not?

> > 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'll give you two:

1. Cost won't be based in part on the expense of doing business with
NASA aboard the ISS.
2. Cost is shared - distributed among all users of the MULE
backplane.

Let's say 10 companies decided to develop and deploy a commercial
space station. All ten would have access, all ten would SHARE the
cost of developing, deploying and maintaing that space station. Now,
let's say you own one of those companies - Tango, Inc. Now, what
would cost more, Tango, Inc. to pay to have their own individual
space station or for them to share the cost with nine other companies?

And let me launch a preemptive strike:

I am not suggesting that you reduce the cost to a tenth of what it
would cost an individual company.
You cannot say that this commercial space station would cost ten
times what it would cost an individual company.

> Success for your product doesn't open the floodgates for other
> products.

I'm not saying it will open the floodgates for other products. I am,
however, saying it is likely to increase the market for space-based
R&D, therefore, increasing the likelihood that additional products
will be forthcoming. The floodgates don't just open all at once under
my concept. They are opened incrementally at a rate that can more
easily be absorbed by a growing market.

> 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?

Somewhat, but it's more of a gradual process than your example
suggests.

Can success lead to greater competition?
Can increased competition lead to cost reductions?
Can reduced costs increase the size of a market?
Has any of that happened before?

Again, I say yes. Do you say no to any or all of the above?

> > 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?

Providing incentives to governments and industries to develop the
infrastructure needed to support the growing market in space-based
goods and services.

> 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.

Because successful weather satellite ventures provide little
incentive to anyone to lower cost and increase access. I believe
success in space-based R&D can.

> We're still wrting about orbital infrastructure development, right?

Yes and how to get such infrastructure established.

> 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.

You mentioned the government having to pay for the infrastructure in
the first email I responded to back on 3/13, I believe.

> > > 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.

And I am saying there will be no infrastructure until it can be
adequately demonstrated that an orbital economy is even forthcoming
(personally, I doubt infrastructure will be developed until that
economy is strong enough to absorb the cost of that 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.

But if you bring with you a set of solar arrays, power storage units,
comm equipment, etc AND these "subsystems" have the capacity to
support multiple factories, you have SOME infrastructure. No more
than is needed to get started, but some.

> 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?

Hey, I argued that same point in both this and the spacesettlers
group during some of the pre-talk about the MULE and got royally
flamed. Let's see - what about the good 'ole Railroads, huh? Or the
original frontier settlers who faced the harshness of the land with
nothing more than they could carry (no existing infrastructure in
place)?

I personally agree with you. I believe that by developing the
infrastructure in space to support industry, you in fact enable
industry in space. But tell me who is going to do that without some
indication of the true potential of industry in space? The MULE at
least provides a forum to demonstrate that potential - to what
extent, hey, I agree, that's tough to say - not impossible to
speculate about, but difficult to quantify to any degree of accuracy
now. But you seem to be saying, "why bother, it won't demonstrate
squat!"

> > > 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.

You said the infrastructure "won't be developed piecemeal because the
volume of business [the MULE would generate?] can't justify the
business decision [to spend that much money developing it?]". What I
was saying is that you seem to advocacate that the infrastructure be
developed all at once - where's the increase in business volume to
support the infrastructure being developed all at once? After the
development of the infrastructure?

> > > 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.

I have been trying - I just don't know what else I can say. I think
my biggest problem is I tend to speak in absolutes - again, that's a
product of my passion for "getting to space" not a symptom of bad
logic. To clarify, R&D aboard an unmanned laboratory in space has the
potential to generate enough competition and market growth to provide
the incentive for the development of space. Have I been able to make
any progress in convincing you of at least the potential of this?

Jack