why outer space?

From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]

Yes of course, anything rolled to the bottom of the well has lost
energy.

But still I don't agree with O'Neill on this one. Build a crude
reentry vehicle and load it up with a ton or so of platinum.
It does get that very important resource: money.
(Platinum is currently running at $500 an ounce.)

I'd allow that just maybe a case can be made for the platinum group metals.
The only problem here is that dumping tons of it on the market will bring
the value down, so there are limits to how large this industry can grow.

Then there's the alloys you can't make on earth.

In my youth, G. Harry Stine had me very enthused about this. But there's
been 2 decades of experimentation on Salyut and Mir. It seems like if there
was any economic advantage here, private corporations would be pushing NASA
out of the way to build space stations.

Then there's the
chip fab plants,

I work for Texas Instruments, and I see very little interest out of them
regarding 0-G chip fabs. They are vitally interested in any technology
which might give them a competitive advantage over the competition, but
making chips in space doesn't seem to even be on the list.

then there's the SPS;

SPS and space tourism are the two proposals I take most seriously.

then there's the
materials that can't be separated on earth then there's etc. etc.

Ditto G. Harry Stine comment.

True, but a lot of things in space are going to be cheaper aren't they?

Energy may be somewhat cheaper (although not free). Creating a vacuum will
obviously be cheaper. But so many other things are going to be much more
expensive, due to the fact that specialized methods will have to be
developed for the space environment. Labor costs will be greater due to
transportation costs. Heat rejection will be more difficult. I argue
everyday with people who tell me that EVERYTHING will be more expensive to
do in space. I only argue that some things will be less expensive than
lifting everything up from the Earth.

Well, zero g is quite scarce down here.

Exports TO the earth. Don't expect them to pay for space. But do expect
them to pay, and pay well. I'm pretty sure space can undercut earth
based production in a lot of cases.

Nobody would be happier than I if this were true. But I would rather invest
in an SPS plan than in any business proposal which involved importation of
material products from space. The beauty of energy is that we can beam it
down.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
Yes of course, anything rolled to the bottom of the well has lost
energy.
But still I don't agree with O'Neill on this one. Build a crude
reentry vehicle and load it up with a ton or so of platinum.
It does get that very important resource: money.
(Platinum is currently running at $500 an ounce.)

I'd allow that just maybe a case can be made for the platinum group metals. The only problem here is that dumping tons of it on the market will bring the value down, so there are limits to how large this industry can grow.
Then there's the alloys you can't make on earth.

In my youth, G. Harry Stine had me very enthused about this. But there's been 2 decades of experimentation on Salyut and Mir. It seems like if there was any economic advantage here, private corporations would be pushing NASA out of the way to build space stations.

Then there's the
chip fab plants,

I work for Texas Instruments, and I see very little interest out of them regarding 0-G chip fabs. They are vitally interested in any technology which might give them a competitive advantage over the competition, but making chips in space doesn't seem to even be on the list.

then there's the SPS;

SPS and space tourism are the two proposals I take most seriously.

then there's the
materials that can't be separated on earth then there's etc. etc.

Ditto G. Harry Stine comment.
True, but a lot of things in space are going to be cheaper aren't they?

Energy may be somewhat cheaper (although not free). Creating a vacuum will obviously be cheaper. But so many other things are going to be much more expensive, due to the fact that specialized methods will have to be developed for the space environment. Labor costs will be greater due to transportation costs. Heat rejection will be more difficult. I argue everyday with people who tell me that EVERYTHING will be more expensive to do in space. I only argue that some things will be less expensive than lifting everything up from the Earth.
Well, zero g is quite scarce down here.
Exports TO the earth. Don't expect them to pay for space. But do expect
them to pay, and pay well. I'm pretty sure space can undercut earth
based production in a lot of cases.

Nobody would be happier than I if this were true. But I would rather invest in an SPS plan than in any business proposal which involved importation of material products from space. The beauty of energy is that we can beam it down.
Regards,
Mike Combs