Smells Like Teen Spirit

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur P. Smith"
wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2003, victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> > I do have serious doubt about your 2020 prediction. Investment
> > dollars flow to projects that have the greatest return. There are
> > more projects available than capital to fund them, so there is a
> > rationing of investment. I see no investment proposals, nor
> > technologies, on the horizon, nor a gleam in the eye of a budding
> > engineer, nor speculative business plans that past first muster,
> > which lead me to share your conclusion that 2020 is a viable
date.
>
> (1) The companies are out there. TransOrbital is flying
> the first commercial mission to the Moon later
> this year. If they're successful with that (and they sound very
> positive about it right now, in contrast to some earlier reports
I'd
> heard from the same people) they plan follow-on missions of
increasing
> scope - the next one (scheduled for 2005) would be a lander with
sample
> analysis, etc.

True enough. I guess if your definition of "exploit space resources"
encompasses sample analysis then there is activity as you predicted.

I took exploit to mean the gathering, refining and utilization of
space resources.

I don't see TransOrbital nor LunaCorp meeting those conditions. I
still don't see even the gleam in the eye of future projects.

LunaCorp seems well on their way to something similar next
> year with a bit more on the government sponsorship side, though
they're not
> as far ahead on permits etc. as far as I can tell. This is one
> route, and far more than a "gleam in the eye" at this point. The
business
> plans are evolving; if these companies crash and burn like Beal
and Rotary
> Rocket, I fully expect followers who will have learned from their
mistakes
> and try again, perhaps with more modest plans.

Or more ambitious plans. Past failure can be a powerful management
motivator.

No, they're not at the
> billion dollar level yet, but they are working with 10's of
millions
> right now, and to get there in 17 years takes only a modest
30%/year :-)

To get 30% per annum investment growth will require that the market
grow at an even larger rate. Is that happening?

>
> (2) One major market: large-scale space structures. For example,
the
> recent space.com article on future space telescopes.
Communications satellites
> have also been getting larger at an accelerating pace. Within the
next 15
> years we'll be regularly putting things in space that can not be
launched
> in one piece, but (like ISS) will need in-orbit assembly - that
also provides
> opportunities for in-orbit re-fueling, and supply of bulk or
lightly
> processed materials that could be manufactured and brought to LEO
(or
> wherever the assembly point is) from the Moon more cheaply than
from Earth.

Part of your analysis is right on the money; market demand preceeds
infrastructure.

Will it really be the case that orbitaly produced meterials will be
cheaper than Earth-launched materials?

I don't believe that the volume of material that'll be needed in the
next 17 years will warrant the investment in infrastructure required
to provide that material. Even if that infrastructure was in place,
the low volumes would drive the amortization cost too high. In the
end, the calculus will probably be to continue as we are now, pay
dearly on Earth for extreme engineering for light weight components
and launch from Earth.

As for orbital assembly, yes, I agree that more and more of that
will probably occur but don't share your reasoning that that will be
the impetus for orbital infrastructure.

>
> (3) The greatest return on investments comes from creating and
improving
> economic "loops", where part of the output of the economic process
> provides most of the input required for the next iteration;
> the development of agriculture, utilization of metals,
industrialization,
> electricity, computers and the internet all provided new
opportunities for
> a variety of economic feedback loops. Development of space
resources
> provides us a similar loop, completely new, and in the long run
the returns
> will be astronomical! Now we just need to convince those
investors...
>
> Arthur

You need a market and products first. If you could provide these two
criteria then I might go along with your 17 year projection.

If you could convince Congress that they should tax pollution caused
by oil, gas, coal etc, then that would spur cleaner energy
solutions, and bring SPS closer to fruition.

SPS becomes a project that can amortize the enormous infrastructure
requirements of orbital processing.

If Sony, GE, etc could together come forward with products that can
only come from orbit and were willing to act in concert to share the
infrastructure costs then we would be a step closer.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. I'm not even seeing the
gleam in the eye yet. 17 years is really a short time in which to
birth a revolution. Think back to 1986 and see how many monumental
shifts in society there have been. Where are the flying cars, food
as pills, cure for cancer, long life, fusion power, and the High
Frontier as O'Neill and Heppenheimer predicted.

I just don't see it.

TangoMan