The case for an economy in space

[Albert VDS]

Space is not comparable, because it isn't an actual destination for anything worthwhile. You aren't going to space to go conduct business meetings or to visit relatives, neither is there a market to sell stuff to people. So it is never going to be a mainstream destination for mass transport.

Neither is the ocean, but we still use it to travel across instead of holding business meetings underneath it.

Space has a lot of potential destinations, far more than the Earth has. Actually Earth is one of it's destinations, but that is besides the point.

These destinations need to be created before it's going to be used the same way.

But this thread's purpose it to discuss such destinations.

[DerekL1963]

Hard to say. On one hand, there could be materials that's too costly or otherwise impossible to get on Earth

No, it's not at all hard to say once you look at actual numbers. There's no material on Earth that you wouldn't go broke fetching back from space, even if it were already refined and neatly packaged so that all you had to do is pick it up and stack it in your return vehicle. None. Zip. Nada.

but on the other hand, not much people are trying to look for them

Huh? People are looking very, very intensely at what materials are in space - because examining those materials are basic to answering the scientific questions we send stuff into space to answer. That's where the space-as-new-world model breaks down, space isn't Terra Incognita.

(And old thread is old, just as here - it's people trying to replace cold hard facts with optimistic assumptions, wishful thinking, and vague handwaving in order to reach the predetermined conclusion that space is the place to be baby.)

Neither is the ocean, but we still use it to travel across instead of holding business meetings underneath it.

Space has a lot of potential destinations, far more than the Earth has.

What Nibb was trying to say and the point you (and many others) are missing, is that the growth of terrestrial travel was fueled by actual destinations, not theoretical ones. By actual economic advantages, not wishful thinking.

[Pipcard]

I'm probably misunderstanding this a lot, but why are people so against advancement in space development here? Why do they want to remain in a rut?

Edited July 26, 2015 by Pipcard

[Bill Phil]

The difference is that there was demand, even before those inventions, for fast transportation. People needed cars and planes (and horses and ships) because there were places that they wanted or needed to go to. There were people at those destinations that they needed to meet up with, places that they wanted to visit, customers to sell stuff to, business to be made...

Space is not comparable, because it isn't an actual destination for anything worthwhile. You aren't going to space to go conduct business meetings or to visit relatives, neither is there a market to sell stuff to people. So it is never going to be a mainstream destination for mass transport.

There was little demand to travel fast. Only people that had power wanted to travel faster. Only the richest really had cars in the beginning. Besides the guys who built their own. Cars were toys for the rich at first. Like spaceflight is currently. Eventually, over a long time, they became cheaper. Henry Ford played a part in that. But infrastructure was also developed over decades, which reduced costs as well.

Even boats took hundreds of years to get as fast as they are now, if not thousands of years.

Space is comparable, not in some ways, but they are comparable in that both are transportation systems. They are comparable, except space is on a much bigger scale. But so is our current industry compared to a century ago. So, wait a few centuries and space will be fairly accessible.

But people still need to build up infrastructure in space, supply depots and many other facilities. That's only one step to expand into space. Proper infrastructure can help to lower costs fairly dramatically, if done right.

[Technical Ben]

Anyone watch "Sea Quest"? Similar concepts. Similar problems. Similar realities. We're at 2015, no moon base and no deep sea bases.

[Albert VDS]

What Nibb was trying to say and the point you (and many others) are missing, is that the growth of terrestrial travel was fueled by actual destinations, not theoretical ones. By actual economic advantages, not wishful thinking.

Actually you missed a portion of what I said: "These destinations need to be created before it's going to be used the same way."

As in they don't exist yet, unlike the destinations for any new form of terrestrial travel.

It's like the Internet, who needed that 25 years ago? It was too expensive. It will never catch on.

And now people can't live without it(or imagine a time before it).

It's because we created destinations.

It's the same for space, once the destinations are created it will go mainstream.

[AngelLestat]

I'm probably misunderstanding this a lot, but why are people so against advancement in space development here? Why do they want to remain in a rut?

If that is what they believe as realistic, then is perfect, even if they love space, they separate their dreams from their conclusions.

Saying this.. I am strongly disagree with them, first there are current evidence today that there is a lot of market oportunities to do in space.

But not need to mention all that, almost everyone knows my opinion because I give it repeated occasion tons of arguments and reasons why I think this way.

[shynung]

No, it's not at all hard to say once you look at actual numbers. There's no material on Earth that you wouldn't go broke fetching back from space, even if it were already refined and neatly packaged so that all you had to do is pick it up and stack it in your return vehicle. None. Zip. Nada.

That's because putting those materials into a return vehicle is a silly idea. Plain water in space is worth around $4600/liter, if lifted up by a Falcon 9. The advantage of space-procured materials is that it's already up there, not needing us to spend enormous energy costs to lift it up Terra's gravity well.

Huh? People are looking very, very intensely at what materials are in space - because examining those materials are basic to answering the scientific questions we send stuff into space to answer. That's where the space-as-new-world model breaks down, space isn't Terra Incognita.

As planetary and asteroidal scientific research, yes. As candidates for space-procured materials, only one company.

That said, an economy in space must stay in space. Going to-and-from high-gravity (and thick-atmosphere) planets like Terra is too costly. Places like the Moon, Phobos, and Deimos are fair destinations, as they have low gravity and virtually no atmosphere.

Edited July 26, 2015 by shynung

[DerekL1963]

That's because putting those materials into a return vehicle is a silly idea. Plain water in space is worth around $4600/liter, if lifted up by a Falcon 9.

Water in space is virtually valueless - because there's no virtually demand for water in space. (For those of who don't grasp basic economics, something is only worth what somebody will pay you for it.) Not to mention, if you read what I was replying to, the individual specified "on Earth", which implies returning the material to earth.

And it's ludicrous to say that because we've only been looking for materials for scientific reasons that we can't then turn around and compare the value of what we know to be out there against the costs of recovering and transporting it. (Not to mention, Planetary Resources isn't looking for materials - they're looking for mining sites, something they can only do because we already know what materials are out there.)

And no Albert, I didn't miss part of what you said - I showed how the whole of what you (and others) are saying is deeply flawed. That there is a difference difference between theoretical and actual. No form of actual terrestrial transport had to create destinations - and thus the theoretical "space-travel-as-terrestrial-transport" model is broken right out of the gate because the two have nothing to do with each other. Cars and planes and boats developed because there were tangible economic benefits to doing so. Space travel isn't, because there are no such tangible benefits.

I'm probably misunderstanding this a lot, but why are people so against advancement in space development here? Why do they want to remain in a rut?

Nobody here is "against" space development. But only a couple of us can tell the difference between engineering and economic reality and the cargo cult dogma that characterizes the average "supporter" of space development.

[Albert VDS]

And no Albert, I didn't miss part of what you said - I showed how the whole of what you (and others) are saying is deeply flawed. That there is a difference difference between theoretical and actual. No form of actual terrestrial transport had to create destinations - and thus the theoretical "space-travel-as-terrestrial-transport" model is broken right out of the gate because the two have nothing to do with each other. Cars and planes and boats developed because there were tangible economic benefits to doing so. Space travel isn't, because there are no such tangible benefits.

But we are not talking about "space-travel-as-terrestrial-transport". We talking about how to exploit space and create business opportunities.

You don't need existing destinations or demand to create one.

Look at the pet rock, who wanted one before it was invented? No one. But it sold.

Again the Internet, was there a large outcry of people who want it? No, because there was nothing to do on it.

The demand needs to be created.

[55delta]

Okay folks, break it up and back to your corners (FYI boxing reference), we're starting to get off track. Please re-read the OP. We have plenty of threads concerning space flight and ISRU. But I'm not seeing much for ideas, business cases, or much of anything practical over the last few posts.

I specifically requested that if you discussing providing materials or services in space, that you explain the existence of the demand. Yes, water in space could cost $4600/liter unless there is ISRU development. Water on Earth can cost about $1.50/liter at the corner store. So that isn't where the water in space is being sold. Then, to whom is it being sold? Why is the buyer in space? Could someone please answer this question? I seriously would like to know the answer.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to research whether some of these other ideas are, or could be practical in space. Currently, I'm working on solar-power beamed to Earth. Free feel to work along with me here, or build your own case for a different idea. And remember to keep discussion of space travel limited to how it affects your idea. Space travel is not on trial here. When we hear the question of 'Why do you want go to space?', we want to hear more than 'I don't know.' And, honestly, I would prefer to have more answers than 'to show sub-orbital tourists the Earth from space for a few hours.'

Here, let me stir the pot some more. Is there any material in outer space that cannot be found on Earth? If there is, could we find a use for it?

[AngelLestat]

Look at the pet rock, who wanted one before it was invented? No one. But it sold.

many people cant see beyond their nose.

But there are people who can, and if they have a good plan, they will become in the new magnates just for see a business where others couldn´t.

As our friend Elon here..

- - - Updated - - -

Okay folks, break it up and back to your corners (FYI boxing reference), we're starting to get off track. Please re-read the OP. We have plenty of threads concerning space flight and ISRU. But I'm not seeing much for ideas, business cases, or much of anything practical over the last few posts.

I already did it in other topic, these are my ideas:

First we have all the know constellation programs from virgin with 650 sats, and google-spacex with 4000 sats for internet.

I guess there is another competitor but I dont remember it now..

Launch cost determine all the other costs. More satellites you launch, the satellites parts becomes more standarize and cheap, you can even forget to design the hardware... just launch common hardware to the space, maybe using better shielding (extra mass) or redundancy.

The software also becomes more reusable. The operation (sat and launcher) more automatic.

Other costellation ideas:

-a personal real time eye network in space, just paying 100$ for month to be able to use it, like google maps but in real time.

-hundreds of sats in shape pattern which between all acts as a giant telescope.

You can have perfect formation with tethers and mirror bounce lasers.

- a satellite network to calibrate the orbits of all the other satellites without using proppelent.

You will need several networks at different orbit heights, then you can use lasers or magnetic fields to push (or deorbit) other satellites already designed to use this system.

I have more ideas.. they will come later... but I wonder.. If I can think in all this, then the world can find thousands of other uses for space. Then why people said that there is not use for space?

Edited July 26, 2015 by AngelLestat

[DBowman]

55Delta,

You've hit on the crux of the matter. People won't live and work in space unless they're paid handsomely to do it. That money doesn't come from nowhere. There has to be an economic cash cow up there; something that's valuable here and worth the risk and expense.

Sadly, I don't know what that might be...

The only thing I could think of (see earlier) was orbital solar power beamed back to Earth via microwaves. There is an endless and endlessly growing demand for electricity. All the basic science is established and proven. We know how to build all kinds of PV and thermal solar they've done power beaming tests. Economic modeling in the 70s or 80s showed it could be cost competitive. I imagine a 'price on carbon' is going to work in favor of the zero carbon power from space.

That's the problem with both the space-as-aviation model (there's nobody there and no place to go), and the space-as-the-New-World model (there's nothing there worth bringing back).

Water in space is virtually valueless - because there's no virtually demand for water in space.

Making the orbital power generation proposals cost effective involved resource utilization from the Moon, done today it might also involve Mars. That means the proposal creates demand for commodities in Earth orbit, because of the huge Earth deltaV tax Moon & Mars sourcing can be cost competitive. This means the proposal creates the aviation & New World models.

[55delta]

I'm most certainly going to have to do some serious research into orbital power generation, if only to see how the numbers work out. Here are the questions I need to answer.

What are standard/reasonable/good examples of each primary type of mass electrical generation (oil/coal plants, solar farms, wind farms, hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors)? At what rate do each of those generate electricity? Additionally, relevant to solar generation, at what rate do solar cells generate electricity on Earth while in direct sunlight? How much did those facilities cost to build? How much do they cost to maintain?

How much power do solar cells generate in direct sunlight at a langrage point? Is there a more efficient place to put a solar cell to generate electricity, assuming attached heat radiators? How big then would the surface area of a solar panel need to be to generate electricity equal to at least one of the terrestrial facilities? Using the size of the solar panel, how big would the whole satellite need to be? Is there a rocket that could launch it, and how much does that cost? If multiple rockets, their total cost? What would be a rough estimate of the cost of that satellite? What would the rough cost of the ground station? What would be the maintenance cost? How do those costs compare to the previous terrestrial facilities? And, the big question, would the cost and the electricity generated by an orbital generator compare to it's terrestrial counter-parts, and which is the better deal?

Note that I'm not including safety concerns because it isn't relevant yet. The question of 'can I have a directional antenna and directional receiver, that know where each other are by other means, stay pointed at each other at all times?' comes after the question, 'why would I build this over another solar farm?'

[SomeGuy12]

Did every single poster here miss my post? I've got a viable business plan that will eventually make more money than the rest of the earth's GDP combined. See post 19.

[Camacha]

Did every single poster here miss my post? I've got a viable business plan that will eventually make more money than the rest of the earth's GDP combined. See post 19.

Your business plan is not viable, since it falls down at the very first point. That type of technology does not exist, and will probably not exist for at least a little while. If it were to exist, it would eliminate pretty much all mining on Earth.

[PakledHostage]

Did every single poster here miss my post?

No, I don't think we missed it... It is just a little vague. I think you need to be more explicit. I don't think "Do some magic. Profit." is what 55delta had in mind in his/her OP.

Edit: Ninja'd by Camcha.

[DBowman]

Did every single poster here miss my post? I've got a viable business plan that will eventually make more money than the rest of the earth's GDP combined. See post 19.

For sure that's the 'end game', even if the self replicating factories are only 'us' - but we need an 'opening game' first.

[SomeGuy12]

For sure that's the 'end game', even if the self replicating factories are only 'us' - but we need an 'opening game' first.

No we don't. The first time we send astronauts back to the Moon we'll have a self-replicating factory for them to operate. So what if it takes 50 years to get there? It makes technical and economic sense. We absolutely can develop such technology with the raw materials already present on earth. We can send lightweight robot probes to study our solar system in the meantime, and stay in low earth orbit until it makes economic sense to go elsewhere.

A self replicating factory - note there's intermediate versions of it, basically a roomful of 3d printers and CNC machines that need a constant supply of tiny high end parts like ball bearings and microchips - also makes the rockets to do all this a lot cheaper as well.

[Bill Phil]

For sure that's the 'end game', even if the self replicating factories are only 'us' - but we need an 'opening game' first.

That sounds like a good analogy. Play your cards right early to make it easier later on.

[SomeGuy12]

That sounds like a good analogy. Play your cards right early to make it easier later on.

See my response above. It's a terrible, idiotic idea. Only reason we ever put people on the Moon was basically a national pride/marketing campaign for America. It was just a stunt. We will go back in large numbers but we need the underlying tools to make it feasible.

Mining it for water doesn't pass the pencil test, since there's no economic reason to go to Mars either...(and any kind of colonization effort will also need self replicating factories. Only feasible way to do it. You don't have a true independent colony unless you can make everything you need to survive in the colony..and the only way to do that requires the ability to make the tools you need to survive with, like air fans, amine exchangers, etc. Those tools are all high technology items that have to be made in a factory. Hence you need a self replicating factory or you can't actually colonize Mars. Well...you could...but you'd have to be willing to spend trillions of dollars constantly shipping replacement parts, year after year, forever, with no return on your investment. That isn't feasible.)

I know you guys like Space stuff. I do too. But if you really want to be part of developing space stuff, you should be learning to build robots and learning to write neural net software and learning to recognize images in software, etc. The tools to do this are cheaper than they ever were - there are hacker-spaces in major cities, all in one development kits like Arduino and Pis that let you get started easily, online courses in how to write the software on Udacity...

Edited July 27, 2015 by SomeGuy12

[Bill Phil]

See my response above. It's a terrible, idiotic idea. Only reason we ever put people on the Moon was basically a national pride/marketing campaign for America. It was just a stunt. We will go back in large numbers but we need the underlying tools to make it feasible.

Mining it for water doesn't pass the pencil test, since there's no economic reason to go to Mars either...(and any kind of colonization effort will also need self replicating factories. Only feasible way to do it. You don't have a true independent colony unless you can make everything you need to survive in the colony..and the only way to do that requires the ability to make the tools you need to survive with, like air fans, amine exchangers, etc. Those tools are all high technology items that have to be made in a factory. Hence you need a self replicating factory or you can't actually colonize Mars. Well...you could...but you'd have to be willing to spend trillions of dollars constantly shipping replacement parts, year after year, forever, with no return on your investment. That isn't feasible.)

I know you guys like Space stuff. I do too. But if you really want to be part of developing space stuff, you should be learning to build robots and learning to write neural net software and learning to recognize images in software, etc. The tools to do this are cheaper than they ever were - there are hacker-spaces in major cities, all in one development kits like Arduino and Pis that let you get started easily, online courses in how to write the software on Udacity...

I think you're missing the point. The "cards" I refer to are money. Allocate that money correctly, and things cost less in the future. Establishing infrastructure.

[BoomerDog9]

I believe the two things that will herald the arrival of a serious human presence in space will be microgravity manufacturing and microgravity metallurgy.

Some microchip company will find a way to deploy an orbital microchip factory, and start sending down ultra-efficient CPUs for use in government and research sectors. Testing, maintenance and systems management will probably require a permanent human presence on this orbital factory. As profits are made on this endeavor, more launch bandwidth will come online to support it and help it grow.

Other industrial interests will want to explore the properties of various materials that can only be created in microgravity. Currently the human race is dependent upon materials which are available only on a 1g rocky-terrestrial planet with a dense atmosphere. As an orbital lab-foundry operation expands our catalogue of possible materials to include those which can be made in microgravity, some of these new materials will no doubt find themselves profoundly useful for high-technology applications, and industries will move mountains to start producing them in greater and greater quantities. This too will lead to more humans in space.

Gathering the available resources to fuel these two kinds of orbital industrial operations will then bring into existence the low-delta-V shipping lanes between LEO, L4 & L5, Moon surface, Mars, Ceres, various asteroids, and the Jovian moons.

It's just waiting for that one company to get hungry enough to get out there and start turning a profit, then others will follow.

[SomeGuy12]

I believe the two things that will herald the arrival of a serious human presence in space will be microgravity manufacturing and microgravity metallurgy.

Pretty sure you're wrong on both counts. Gravity is a very weak force - many ways to neutralize it in manufacturing. The simplest way is to continually rotate the product being worked on. There's no reason to think that we can't make any form of metal or chip that can be made in microgravity with a modified technique on Earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Your business plan is not viable, since it falls down at the very first point. That type of technology does not exist, and will probably not exist for at least a little while. If it were to exist, it would eliminate pretty much all mining on Earth.

It does exist - I mentioned it in my post you didn't completely read. It just takes up a lot of room. Enough pieces of manufacturing equipment in one building, and you'd have a self replicating factory. It's a lot of gear - measured in square miles. It is self replicating, or we wouldn't have manufactured goods at all today...

[AngelLestat]

more heavier elements since the solar wind and heating has over the aeons blown away a lot of the light stuff.

What? solar wind carry away light stuff?

Lol, solar wind is super weak, it may do it with hydrogen or helium atmosphere in billions of years.

First when the moon form was due a collision between a body and the earth, all the light material had more chance to stay in orbit meanwhile the heavy material would come back to earth, then the moon form from all that "surface light material" from the collision. So you dont have many expensive heavy elements in the moon, to search that go to Mercury or Venus (which it has more chance due their volcanoes.

Living things are self replicating. We can build 3d printers and other bits of tech that can make many of the parts used in themselves. We have massive factories that the sum total of the effects of all the machinery is that the factories replicate themselves.

Lol, that is the only thing we need? When we learn to do that, then we can make von neumann probes and conquer the universe. And if we dont take care with the replicating mechanism, we may consume all the matter in the universe (is exponential grow)

---------------------------------------------

Well I guess my ideas are a lot more realistic, the only that it will need some development is the constellation to push or deorbit sattelites. But I accept critics.