Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Ah, but we do need a congressional consensus to fund a space program and a sustainable congressional consensus is easier if there also is a national consensus.

Unless of course we decide this historical example is the road Bush, Cheney and O'Keefe should follow.

= = =

I very strongly support private sector investment in humans in space however I see no profitable business models except those involving intangible assets. Mining and manufacturing ideas are Industrial Age enterprises ill-suited to entice 21st century private sector investors.

Like Sam Dinkin says, the cost to export video (or data) from "out there" to Earth can't be beat.

Tourism, of course, is a business model not based on bringing anything tangible from space to Earth.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 11:12 AM

Why does it have to bring tangible assets to earth? This is a strange criterion for a viable business case. Tourism generates revenue, which is all that's required.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 25, 2004 11:15 AM

I'll give it a whirl.

_IF_ the ISS was an honest 'Space Station' in the classic sense, then it wouldn't matter as much. Some people would concentrate on getting stuff 'up' for minimum cost. That lets explorers out of two of the tough problems: taking off from Earth, and landing on Earth. Assembling components for a mission to Mars or the Moon is not _that_ much tougher than assembling pieces of the ISS itself.

If you don't use an intermediary of _some_ sort, then you're essentially building custom designs which leads to a splitting of efforts. Saturn V's versus the current 'routine' ISS-piece launches.

Posted by Al at August 25, 2004 11:24 AM

Rand, Bill,

I watched the argument over there on spacepolitics, but didn't get involved, as I'm short on time, and most of what I had to say was business and technology, instead of policy related. That said, I'd like to mention a few points.

Yes, tourism will be a decent part of the lunar economy. I think PGM Mining will also become fairly popular, as will LUNOX production, and eventually heavier industries. But tourism is one of the easier medium-to-short term markets.

And in fact Mark was wrong, you can make a profitable LUNOX business that can compete with terrestrial launched sources, even if the launch costs go way down. It just depends a lot on how you do your development, which order you go after markets, and which markets are used to pay for the infrastructure. Done right, it can be quite the lucrative market, even if there turns out not to be easily accessible polar ice or other volatiles.

With those, lunar derived fuels are a slam dunk case. Unless you're NASA or a Zubrinite.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at August 25, 2004 11:38 AM

Why does it have to bring tangible assets to earth? This is a strange criterion for a viable business case. Tourism generates revenue, which is all that's required.

Rand, I agree with you.

More tourism. Faster. That is what NASA should be enouraging. Subsidize a genuine space hotel and that gives Elon Mush incentive to fly a man-rated Falcon V sooner rather than later.

But too many old school NSS guys or Gerard O'Neill fans are still hung up on "mining the sky" as the business model for private sector investment in space.

At the Mars Society convention I presented a paper calling on NASA to sell media rights to Nike and IBM and get private sector dollars flowing into the space sector TODAY.

= = =

Let Dominos and FedEx and Hanes sponsor a re-supply rocket to ISS, or astronauts on the Moon, or on Mars.

Dang! the pizza's free 'cause it took more than 30 minutes, and, after six months in space, clean underwear feels really, really good.

Verizon? Can you hear me now?

= = =

Sherwood Boehlert and company cut $1.1 billion from next year's VSE. Nike alone spends $1.4 billion per year on sponsorship.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 11:39 AM

Heck, if we're going for Sponsorship, make it a race from here to there and back. Budweiser hasn't found a sport yet they couldn't outspend all the competition on.

Rule 1: Ship must be smaller and lighter than the current 'max size' ISS piece.
Rule 2: There is no rule 2.

Posted by Al at August 25, 2004 12:19 PM

Although the information provided on spacepolitics.com is top-notch and timely, the comments section leaves much to be desired. There are several regular posters who really do not have much to say, and say it often.

It is a shame that the quality of space policy discussion on the internet is so miserable.

Posted by at August 25, 2004 02:31 PM

> Ah, but we do need a congressional consensus to fund a space program

Burt Rutan and Paul Allen didn't need a congressional consensus to fund their space program.

Even if you think only Congress can fund a space program, you still don't need a consensus. Only a majority of both Houses.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 25, 2004 02:47 PM

> > Ah, but we do need a congressional consensus to fund a space program. . .

Burt Rutan and Paul Allen didn't need a congressional consensus to fund their space program.

Fair enough. So why do we need the VSE?

Even if you think only Congress can fund a space program, you still don't need a consensus. Only a majority of both Houses.

I don't want Congress to be the only funding source.

I want private money flowing into the space sector. The sooner the better. Yet sub-orbital dollars are far too few to do anything really meaningful for a long time to come. We need "b for billions" not "m for millions"

And, yes, Tom Delay can hammer legislation through the House. But without consensus it can be reversed just as soon as the next election shifts the balance of political power.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 03:05 PM

Who says we need the VSE?

Bill, the notion that you can develop a bi-partisan consensus for the kind of space program that you want is a pipe dream.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 25, 2004 03:13 PM

Bill, the notion that you can develop a bi-partisan consensus for the kind of space program that you want is a pipe dream.

Rand, you are probably correct.

And if you are correct, then all space advocates, Democrat and Republican, should agree that the O'Keefe NASA is only marginally better than the Goldin NASA and that O'Keefe's NASA will not fulfill our dreams for space exploration.

If we can agree that the VSE will not fulfill our dreams for space exploration then we can move on.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 03:28 PM

The VSE certainly won't fulfill our dreams by itself, but it can play a useful role, if done properly. I'm not sure how to assess the chances of that happening.

The big difference between O'Keefe's NASA and Goldin's is that we now actually have a national policy that we will send humans beyond LEO. We may not achieve that goal, but we're much more likely to do so than with a policy that we won't (which was the Clinton policy, and may possibly be the Kerry policy, since he's had so much praise for the policy of the nineties).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 25, 2004 03:33 PM

Anyone who has followed my posts here and elsewhere can easily figure out I am not a fan of GWB. That said, his speech and call to leave LEO deserves continuing praise.

To repeat, GWB deserves tremendous credit for saying American must go beyond LEO and that should never be minimized.

But like Zubrin said on Sunday afternoon, we need to straighten out those spirals and work to accelerate the timeline. Bush and Kerry both offer obstacles and opportunities for space advocates.

We need to increase private sector investment.

The VSE gives that "lip service" only as it does call for increased private sector involvement but fails to suggest a credible plan on how to accomplish that.

Since business models based on space mining and manufacture are decades away, at best, if we desire immediate private sector funding we are forced to rely on the intangible economy - - tourism and the sale of media content and marketing.

We also need to build public support for space.

Rand, you like to say public support for space is a mile wide and an inch deep. Spot on, IMHO. 100% dead spot on.

How do we change that? Have Sean O'Keefe give speeches?

How about letting America's top guns in media and marketing have a go at it? But we need to pay them. Either with tax dollars or NASA can sell them marketing and broadcast rights and let the experts sell space to the public.

= = =

Bush may well be more inherently pro-space than Kerry yet does that mean we must accept what ever crumbs Bush throws down without fighting for more?

The VSE is better than what came before but its still a cup only 1/4 full.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 03:55 PM

Rand, you like to say public support for space is a mile wide and an inch deep. Spot on, IMHO. 100% dead spot on.

How do we change that? Have Sean O'Keefe give speeches?

We do that by making space relevant to peoples' lives in a way that it isn't now. Telling them we're going to send civil servants off to Mars, no matter how quickly, so that we can watch on teevee isn't going to do that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 25, 2004 04:06 PM

> Yet sub-orbital dollars are far too few to do anything really meaningful
> for a long time to come.

That's a matter of opinion. What's not meaningful to you may be meaningful to a lot of people.

> And, yes, Tom Delay can hammer legislation through the House. But without
> consensus it can be reversed just as soon as the next election shifts the
> balance of political power.

Even with consensus, it can be reversed.

Consensus means unanimous agreement. You're never going to get that in Congress. Even the US entry into WW II was opposed by one representative.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 25, 2004 04:10 PM

This comment by Mr. White has to be one of the most ignorant things I've seen recently:

"I see no profitable business models except those involving intangible assets. Mining and manufacturing ideas are Industrial Age enterprises ill-suited to entice 21st century private sector investors."

or as it phrased by anonymous over at SpacePolitics.com:

"Mining raw materials is an Industrial Age business model not an Information Age business model."

In actuality, folks are just afraid of the investment and what the burden is going to be. We know that solar-power satellites will tap a 4.5 billion year supply of energy (give or take), which beats any of the second-hand stuff we're getting now. But it is easier to just make a small, marginal additional investment in an existing infrastructure than to make the large investment in ensuring our posterity. Especially given all of the other large investments we have to make, such as roads, tunnels, bridges, water supplies (Big problem there), govie entitlements, and more.

When I can drive my intangible car to the intangible office building that I work in by sitting in an intangible chair at an ether computer and generating the data that apparently is the only thing that has value, then I might side with Mr. White.

We're already getting data from space. It's market is marginal at best, even with "billions and billions" of hits on the web.

Ignoring manufacturing concepts in space exploration is foolhardy and dangerous for anyone, but especially the U.s.

Specialty glasses are one product that comes to mind. Vacuum formed with some of the abundant lunar doping elements like aluminum and Rare Earth Elements.

Vacuum-pure metal ingots, starting with aluminum, titanium and iron, and eventually others as the capabilities grow, is another possibility.

The fact is that energy and materials spent producing such on our Moon is energy not consumed for that purpose on Earth. Our Moon has 15 million square miles of vacuum to replace the millions of energy-sucking pumps on Earth.

Energy is our prosperity. We will likely soon come to be far more conscient of how we expend it here on Earth. Expending it from non-terrestrial sources can be a huge factor in that equation.

A 4.5 billion year supply of energy. Is it worth the investment?

Posted by ken murphy at August 25, 2004 05:06 PM

Ken, nothing would make me happier than to be proven ignorant by having someone mine the Moon or an asteroid and make a profit within the next 10 to 15 years.

Care to wager?

Remember Enrico Fermi's argument about the aliens? - - "Where is everyone?"

= = =

Russian boosters are relatively cheap, today.

$1000 - $1500 per pound to LEO. An ATK-Thiokol 5 segment SRB plus LH2 upper stage should be able to toss mass to LEO at a very comparable price. Offer to buy 20 Thiokol SRBs in a given year and I bet you could get a much better price.

=IF= space mining and manufacturing is profitable today then why is no one doing it today?

=IF= solar power sats (the old standby) is a good investment, why has no one tried to do it?

=IF= space mining and manufacturing will be profitable at some future and unknown time AFTER launch costs fall by another 90% then I believe my point stands, even if I was less than clear that I meant TODAY, not some hypothetical future point after alt-space delivers $100 per pound to LEO.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 07:24 PM

Terrestrial tourism became a viable business in and of itself because it could make use of assets and services which had been developed/created and, for a rather long period sustained, by other commercial/human activities.

Posted by Daveon at August 25, 2004 07:25 PM

PS - - Bigelow may well be doing it right with his plans for an orbital hab to do dual duty as a space hotel and an LEO research facility. He is also talking to the Russians and the Chinese for low cost launch services and is thereby causing consternation that the Chinese may gain access to TransHab technology.

However, I will also wager then when Bigelow's hotel goes up, he will supplement his revenue streams with marketing money. Should we ignore manufacturing in space? Of course not. Make a dollar however you can. Including sponsorship and marketing.

= = =

But space solar power beamed to Earth? I very much doubt we will see much of that in the next 20 or 30 years.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2004 07:34 PM

I'm pretty sure that politically funded programs are *not* the answer. Not only are politicians fair weather friends; they are fair weather friends that get voted out of office on a regular basis. That's why Mars Direct is probably not going to happen- or if it does, it will be quickly cancelled, like Apollo was (unless there is a massive publicity coup, like finding martian life).

That leaves the 'private sector'.

They also are fair weather friends, if they cease to see a profit, or fail to see a profit they aren't going in.

Space Tourism is quite likely to be profitable- it already is profitable(!)

But there's a giggle factor elimination, reduction in the high prices, and an advertising job to the money holders to be done- that's what suborbital is for.

It doesn't even matter if suborbital fails, or if it only just recoups the original investment; the point is that it shows the world that there might actually be money down this road. It is *essential* that suborbital not be a major loss though; it is also essential that large numbers of people don't die.

As to extraterrestial mining of the Moon or Mars. The Moon might have ice- that's an easily separated rocket fuel without any further processing, but it's unclear whether it does have it. The Moon's escape velocity is low enough that steam can be used as a monopropellent (nuclear steamer).

Mars's escape velocity is too high for extraterrestial mining to be profitable. Phobos and Deimos are better bets, low surface gravity and low delta-v to return to Earth. The problem is, we don't know whether they have any useful deposits; although ice has been suggested. The only other problem with Deimos and Phobos is the long delay between deliveries; but the rocket to do the delivery should be very reusable indeed, and tiny, so it should pay for itself.

Space tourism is by far the best bet; it provides *profit* and leads to Moon, Mars missions and lower costs all around; that in turn grows the market; that's what needs to happen; it will also lead to attempts to mine extraterrestial resources.

Posted by Ian Woollard at August 26, 2004 09:22 AM

> Russian boosters are relatively cheap, today.

"Relatively cheap" is not cheap.

> =IF= space mining and manufacturing is profitable today then
> why is no one doing it today?

Is this a trick question?

First, no one said that space mining and manufacturing were profitable today. Second, your hypothetical "SRB plus LH2 upper stage" can't throw anything to LEO. Not without a lot of development work. Third, SRBs are not cheap. Fourth, $1000 - $1500 per pound to LEO is not cheap.

> =IF= solar power sats (the old standby) is a good investment,
> why has no one tried to do it?

See above. No one is going to try much of anything while space transportation costs $1000 - $1500 per pound.

> I believe my point stands, even if I was less than clear that I meant TODAY, not
> some hypothetical future point after alt-space delivers $100 per pound to LEO.

Your point is trivial, because no one's claiming space mining and manufacturing are profitable today or that they even exist.

What does this have to do with our allegedly needing a consensus so we can spend huge sums of money on a big expensive rocket to send a few people to Mars?

Posted by Edward Wright at August 26, 2004 12:17 PM

We need a consensus if we are to maintain twenty or thirty years of funding across transitions between Republican and Democrat government.

=OR= we need private sector funding.

Until mining and manufacturing is profitable, there will be NO private sector funding based on those industries.

However, private sector funding could be available today (at least to supplement federal tax revenue) based on selling media, marketing and sponsorship.

= = =

Next the VSE does NOTHING to facilitate lower launch costs.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2004 12:43 PM

VSE could do a great deal to reduce launch costs if NASA were to, for instance, purchase large quantities of propellant (or even water) in orbit from the private sector. Many people are thinking about this as part of the implementation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2004 01:29 PM

> We need a consensus if we are to maintain twenty or thirty years of
> funding across transitions between Republican and Democrat government.

No, we don't. "Consensus" means unanimous agreement, which is neither necessary nor sufficient to maintain 20 or 30 years of government funding. You seem to be using the word to mean something else.

Nor have you explained why we need to maintain government funding for 20 or 30 years. Presumably, this has something to do with your desire to see a big rocket land civil servants on Mars. Do you think that will take 20-30 years?

Posted by Edward Wright at August 26, 2004 02:26 PM

Good point. Okay, I agree. ;-)

Demand, create more demand to send stuff to LEO. Lots of stuff. Large quantities of propellant (or even water) would seem to presume lots of missions, which is all good.

But why do we need to wait until 2014?

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2004 08:36 PM

"Relatively cheap" is not cheap.

Define cheap in this context.

I know a guy who's running a pretty, or at least he says it is, sucessful business launching com sats and weather sats for third world countries for low million dollar price tags using cast off Russian kit.

That measures up pretty well to the numbers I've seen touted so far for Falcon and others. He's done a half dozen launches or more in the last few years. His target for end 2006 is 20.

Posted by Daveon at August 26, 2004 11:17 PM

> Define cheap in this context.

Inexpensive enough that people who want to go can afford to.

> I know a guy who's running a pretty, or at least he says it is, sucessful
> business launching com sats and weather sats for third world countries for
> low million dollar price tags

Sure, and Saddam Hussein had gold faucets. If you have your own country, you can afford lots of things ordinary people can't.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 27, 2004 02:28 PM

Sure, and Saddam Hussein had gold faucets. If you have your own country, you can afford lots of things ordinary people can't.

I'm pretty sure Gerry Webb doesn't have his own country, just a succesful commercial sat launch business using ex-Russian kit. I haven't seen him since last Easter but he'd just got back from a launch for Nigeria for a weather sat (I think).

Commercial Space Technologies has been going a pretty long time. I'm sort of surprised that you're familiar with Patrick Collins and Pete Wainwright and not Gerry. Although Gerry, to be fair, has been busier doing this stuff than writing about it.

Posted by Daveon at August 30, 2004 06:40 PM

I think we need to nasa as a advasary board like the a space version of the faa, and have private companies and induelveus explore space. I may be 27 but since I was 7 I wanted to go into space. of course I run my own government and ships though I do not expect to do anything for now.
rand, any ideas for someone who would like to get to deep space, or at least in orbit?
I only have a ged,and some college. (computer technican) thank you!

Posted by Christopher coulter at September 7, 2004 07:45 PM

Post a comment