Smells Like Teen Spirit

--- "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
> Perhaps CATS as you define it isn't possible yet?
> The Russian launchers
> and SeaLaunch are already 10 times less expensive
> per pound than the
> shuttle - but that's not cheap enough apparently...
> If none of the many
> efforts I mentioned are going to provide cheap
> access to space, then
> where do you see it coming from?

Sea Launch is not less expensive, its just on the
equator so you can save some weight on a satellite by
not having fuel on it needed to move it to the correct
orbital inclination. Also, Sea Launch is having some
problems keeping to schedule (see last weeks Space
News article for more info on this).

As for Russian launchers, yes they are cheaper then
American counterparts. However, Russia is strapped
for money right now and only time will tell how this
effects their industry. Also, thanx to the Iran
weapons proliferation act, there is some friction now
between US and Russian space agencies. This "could"
lead to problems in the future (other than the current
ISS problems it is causing), though none at this point
for commercial enterprises.

There has always been the threat that Russia could
undercut the ELV market. However, it is not in their
economic interests to reduce the profit margins on
their Proton and smaller rockets.

As for is it cheap enough, a recent study put out by
Futron (which I posted a link to this group a few
weeks back) clearly shows that it is in fact not chap
enough. Launch costs need to go less than $1000 per
pound to GTO. We are not even close to that yet.

As for humans, currently its at $20 mil to LEO (ala
Soyuz). That definitely is not CATS! Even the
x-prize doesn't fulfil this part of CATS as it is
sub-orbital only. Though it is without a doubt a
great step to getting CATS.

> The question is use of space resources, not your own
> equipment, where
> the law is clear. Closest at hand is lunar material,
> NEO's should be
> shortly after that - without clear legal authority
> or rights, the
> situation is identical to the problems with the
> "Law of the Sea" treaty
> - there's no way to own undersea resources outside
> of national
> boundaries, so nobody will invest real money in
> efforts to prospect for
> resources in international waters (or in space) or
> in infrastructure to
> extract and use them.
>

International waters is greatly exploited for
resources already (fishing and oil primarily, though
natural gas has also been on the rise) and alot of
"real money" is put into these projects. Not to
mention the ownership of optical networks running
across the bottom of international waters as an
example of "real money" being used.

> Read the "Moon Miners' Manifesto", the "Artemis
> Databook", the
> "P.E.R.M.A.N.E.N.T" site, the various books like the
> "Lunar Base
> Handbook"

I've read every single one of these you've mentioned
and then some. I would also recommend that you read
the many Futron reports on space, at least a years
worth Space News and Aviation Weekly, Department of
Commerce's yearly commercial space report, the FAA's
yearly forecasting reports on Launch demand, and
various peer-reviewed ideas for space habitats and
lunar and asteroid resources that have been published
in Astrophysics Today, Science, Nature and other peer
reviewed magazines.

> - we're not being held up by technology,
> although there's a
> need for some low-gravity location/material-specific
> processing R&D, and
> lots of "prospecting" will of course be needed. I
> have little doubt that
> we will be starting to exploit off-Earth resources
> well before 2020; IF
> we can gather the investment capital needed to make
> it happen. CATS cuts
> down some of the costs (but far from all of them -
> most satellites
> launched now cost considerably more than the launch
> fee) and so reduces
> the capital investment needed - so it helps. But we
> still need some big
> billion-dollar-level investments with or without
> CATS.

Most of the technology to do this is already here. We
can already use spectroscopy and crystal field theory
to help prospecting. Yes, there still needs to be
some r/d done and yes, we are talking billion-dollar
investments are always needed, just as they are needed
to open up new gold mines in Indonesia (see Freeport
gold mine story some time, a multi-billion effort to
build a mine that has over S50 billion worth of gold,
copper and silver).

However, look at global trade today. What would
happen if the cost of shipping goods across the ocean
we ten times as high as they are now? How would that
effect our electronic industry? Would we have such a
grerat gobal economy if shipping costs were higher?
The same lesson I believe applies to space.

As Futron's report on launch costs showed (you can get
this report from their web site or dig for the link i
provided earlier), existing space markets don't need
CATS. Telecom has shown its demand fits the current
costs, as has remote sensing. However, to move beyond
these markets and open up space to new markets, we
must drive down shipping costs. Just as lower
shipping costs here on Earth have opened up new trade
avenues.

> That's basically what the Space Settlement
> Initiative proposal does -
> establish what "first come" means so you can make
> the first claim.

There are already laws written which describe what
first claim is. Not being a lawyer, I do not know all
the ins and outs of this. But I'd bet my last dollar
that when these large mining companies wish to exploit
these resources, their lawyers will bend the law to
their wills, just as they have done in Indonesia.

NOTE: I am in NO WAY endorsing what happened in
Indonesia for those who are familar with the cultural
crimes committed. I am just using this as an example
of the power of mining. It is in fact because of
these human right violations which happened there that
I am even aware of how powerful mining interests are.
For those who have no idea what I am talking about,
the controversy is way beyond this newsgroup's
discussion.

Ryan Z