Incentive for Space Stations

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

16 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

People said that about rockets back in the 60's.  Now, we couldn't get along without them.

Space stations are still in their infancy.  

There are zero examples of economic reasons to build a space station. There are few reasons that are plausible even as science fiction.

Did you even read my comment?  I gave you an example of what used to have the same issue, and now doesn't.  I have no idea what would be useful, but, just for example, what about a solar Rectanna, which would beam power down to earth?  Would you consider the rectanna a station?  If not, then it would make economic sense to have a station which would support the servicing requirements of the (hopefully) multiple rectannas in orbit.

[tater]

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Did you even read my comment?  I gave you an example of what used to have the same issue, and now doesn't.  I have no idea what would be useful, but, just for example, what about a solar Rectanna, which would beam power down to earth?  Would you consider the rectanna a station?  If not, then it would make economic sense to have a station which would support the servicing requirements of the (hopefully) multiple rectannas in orbit.

A station is a manned, "permanent" vehicle in orbit.

You provided zero examples of any station demonstrated to have made money---because there are no such examples. If you want to discuss possible ways to make money, sure, there are a few. But not many, and the idea of profit with them is very, very sketchy at best. Just like there is basically zero possible "trade" between Earth and Mars for the distant foreseeable future (many hundreds of years), even if we took as given a full-blown colony.

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, tater said:

9 hours ago, Giskard said:

But in the real world? Yeah, sure there are reasons. 

Name a couple real world examples where a space station has justified itself economically (i.e.: has made money). I won't hold my breath.

I will admit, that there are no current real world examples of what you call "a space station has justified itself economically".  But, the original quote was that there are reasons, not that it's been done

 

13 minutes ago, tater said:

I said name a single actual economic example

No, you asked for a real world example.  You've been provided with a  number of feasable economic examples which could be doable in the near future.

[tater]

19 hours ago, tater said:

Are there any real reasons for space stations that are economic? It's pretty dubious, frankly.

^^^That is what I asked. "Real reasons" requires that they actually exist, I didn't ask for hypothetical reasons.

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

No, you asked for a real world example.  You've been provided with a  number of feasable economic examples which could be doable in the near future.

The real world. That we live in. Show me a real station making money. You just admitted there were none. No plausible hypotheticals (except maybe my own about tourism) have been provided.

[linuxgurugamer]

42 minutes ago, tater said:

^^^That is what I asked. "Real reasons" requires that they actually exist

Wrong.   Real Reasons does not require that they actually exist.  What part of "real reason" implies existence?  And yes, several plausible hypotheticals have been provided, including my own.

[Giskard]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I said name a single actual economic example. The answer is there are none at all. Science fiction doesn't count.

Well, I guess we should go and ask Robert Goddard about the point in designing a liquid fueled rocket in the first place. A possible commercial use obviously was not a feasible reason, since this would have involved too much science fiction...

Whatever, I also have the feeling that you neglect the impact of space station technology on a national economy. Billions of $money spend on a high tech industry, engineers, technicians, cleaning stuff and so on and the synergy effects of all that high tech stuff in a economy that highly depends on technological personnel and know how. Of course we could have spent the money on high tech weaponry as well, but I prefer a space station.

However, I think this is becoming off topic.

 

[tater]

26 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Wrong.   Real Reasons does not require that they actually exist.  What part of "real reason" implies existence?  And yes, several plausible hypotheticals have been provided, including my own.

If they were plausible, we'd already have them, we've had space stations for 40 years.

[linuxgurugamer]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

If they were plausible, we'd already have them, we've had space stations for 40 years.

No.  It takes time to develop the technology, and frankly, this IS rocket science

[tater]

9 minutes ago, Giskard said:

Well, I guess we should go and ask Robert Goddard about the point in designing a liquid fueled rocket in the first place. A possible commercial use obviously was not a feasible reason, since this would have involved too much science fiction...

Whatever, I also have the feeling that you neglect the impact of space station technology on a national economy. Billions of $money spend on a high tech industry, engineers, technicians, cleaning stuff and so on and the synergy effects of all that high tech stuff in a economy that highly depends on technological personnel and know how. Of course we could have spent the money on high tech weaponry as well, but I prefer a space station.

However, I think this is becoming off topic.

National space programs are not part of the discussion, since they are not a thing in KSP minus a total overhaul of career. We're talking about real world, private sector stuff.

NASA contractors could have made their own station decades ago if there was a reason to do so aside from letting NASA pay for the pork. There is not a reason, so they have not done so. Right now, the current best bet is BO and Bigelow, since they actually have a business model built around stations for profit (at some point). So that is a plausible, near future space station for economic reasons. No other station for the private sector has been suggested that I know of (by anyone working to actually do anything about it). It;s like saying Mars One is a plausible rationale for colonization. 

[SingABrightSong]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

If they were plausible, we'd already have them, we've had space stations for 40 years.

We had TCP/IP for years before the World Wide Web was implemented. Just because nobody has bothered to implement an idea does not mean that the idea isn't plausible.

[tater]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

No.  It takes time to develop the technology, and frankly, this IS rocket science

We've had stations for 40 years. No contractor has built anything aside from for the one customer wilting to throw money away, NASA. Every part of ISS could have been done privately in the 80s. Crickets. Didn't happen. A real world example requires a real world project hitting real world milestones.

Edited September 13, 2016 by tater

[linuxgurugamer]

The Internet used to be ArpaNet, which was an RnD project only.  It took 40 years to get where it is now.

[SingABrightSong]

@linuxgurugamer Can't tell if you're responding to @tater or to me.

[tater]

6 minutes ago, SingABrightSong said:

We had TCP/IP for years before the World Wide Web was implemented. Just because nobody has bothered to implement an idea does not mean that the idea isn't plausible.

We had actual space stations decades ago, not the idea that we might have them. Any of the contractors could have made private versions at will. They have not because there is no plausible economic reason to do so. I was using arpanet back in the day, and the reason the "web" is what it is today is because there was actual money to be made. That is simply not the case with manned space stations. There is nothing in space that cannot be done better by electronics other than "living." Any economic model for a space station must monetize "living."

[linuxgurugamer]

8 minutes ago, SingABrightSong said:

@linuxgurugamer Can't tell if you're responding to @tater or to me.

@tater

@SingABrightSong, I was enhancing your comment

[tater]

The below have been the only reasons given (aside from my own) for a station.

2 hours ago, Giskard said:

As I said, it starts to justify itself as soon as we start to create a reusable infrastructure in space. For example imagine satellites that do not have to be dumped in a graveyard orbit when you can service them in space, refuel them in space and all you have to launch are spare parts and fuel instead of a completely new satellite.

Servicing satellites has exactly one example, and it cost more than sending a new (and better) replacement (Hubble). Satellites are sent up all the time, no one is trying to service them. Even if they did, dragging them to a station for a person to do so... the math seems very unlikely, and honestly, as launch costs drop, it becomes less likely, not more likely. Remember that dragging to a station requires that they all be in a coplanar orbit, else the dv requirements of to and from are insane.

Quote

Imagine moon shuttles and landers that stay in space instead of having to throw them away and lauch a new one every time. Imagine a fuel infrastructure that harvests fuel on the moon. Imagine a large mars transporter that is flying back and forth instead of a single use mission.  This sounds like future? Yeah, but this is most of what I do in KSP.

Moon anything has no economic reason whatsoever, that's a national space program goal. Except, as I said, unless tourism is an actual market.

 

Quote

Imagine moon shuttles and landers that stay in space instead of having to throw them away and lauch a new one every time. Imagine a fuel infrastructure that harvests fuel on the moon. Imagine a large mars transporter that is flying back and forth instead of a single use mission.  This sounds like future? Yeah, but this is most of what I do in KSP.

The point is ECONOMIC reasons. Not fun or cool reasons. I'm all in for a real Moon base, but it's lighting money on fire, there is no "profit" motive.

 

Quote

Apart from that economic is not only about money its also about science. On a space station you can do long term experiments that you can not do on a orbiter that can only stay in space for a short time. You can also do experiments that you can not do in small orbiters, because you just do not have enough space in them. And you also learn things on space stations that will be helpful for the design of long term missions deeper into the solar system.

This is the only reason for the foreseeable future, unless somehow it's cheap enough (a million? less?) to send tourists.

Edited September 13, 2016 by tater

[linuxgurugamer]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

The below have been the only reasons given (aside from my own) for a station.

Servicing satellites has exactly one example, and it cost more than sending a new (and better) replacement (Hubble). Satellites are sent up all the time, no one is trying to service them. Even if they did, dragging them to a station for a person to do so... the math seems very unlikely, and honestly, as launch costs drop, it becomes less likely, not more likely. Remember that dragging to a station requires that they all be in a coplanar orbit, else the dv requirements of to and from are insane.

Moon anything has no economic reason whatsoever, that's a national space program goal. Except, as I said, unless tourism is an actual market.

 

The point is ECONOMIC reasons. Not fun or cool reasons. I'm all in for a real Moon base, but it's lighting money on fire, there is no "profit" motive.

 

This is the only reason for the foreseeable future, unless somehow it's cheap enough (a million? less?) to send tourists.

You seem to ignore many comments, so I'm not answering this anymore.  There is an old saying:  

Never try to teach a horse to sing;  it wastes your time and annoys the horse.

[tater]

I reread the entire thread and posted literally, the ONLY concrete suggestions made about "real world" station ideas. You can admit defeat, that's fine, or you can simply find another post and hit "quote."

[TheEpicSquared]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

The point is ECONOMIC reasons. Not fun or cool reasons. I'm all in for a real Moon base, but it's lighting money on fire, there is no "profit" motive.

If you're talking about government agencies, then I guess you're right. No ECONOMIC value will come out of it, but a lot of science value will (long term habitation in different gravity experiments, etc). However, if you're talking about a private company, money could come out of a moon base. Extracting helium-3, for example, could bring a private company huge profits. Then again, these opportunities are still in the (near) future, and more development is needed.

[tater]

Yeah, the He economy has been cited for decades WRT lunar stuff (one of the proponents at LANL taught a class I took on Lunar bases back in the 90s). The trouble of course is that such an economy is predicated on Fusion power plants. "Plausible" with such a caveat places it in the "currently implausible" category to me, though I welcome my fusion powered masters.

[linuxgurugamer]

17 minutes ago, tater said:

I reread the entire thread and posted literally, the ONLY concrete suggestions made about "real world" station ideas. You can admit defeat, that's fine, or you can simply find another post and hit "quote."

I need to quote my own posting?  Since you can't seem to find it:

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

what about a solar Rectanna, which would beam power down to earth?  Would you consider the rectanna a station?  If not, then it would make economic sense to have a station which would support the servicing requirements of the (hopefully) multiple rectannas in orbit.

 

[tater]

5 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I need to quote my own posting?  Since you can't seem to find it:

Why would it require human beings? Beamed solar has not been considered viable for a long time now, however (it was the initial rationale for O'Neil stuff, back in the day, but it's not taken very seriously now).

EDIT: I'm open to solar power stations, however. I just don't see why they require people. To stare at gauges, and turn 1950s style knobs?

Edited September 13, 2016 by tater

[linuxgurugamer]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

Why would it require human beings? Beamed solar has not been considered viable for a long time now, however (it was the initial rationale for O'Neil stuff, back in the day, but it's not taken very seriously now).

EDIT: I'm open to solar power stations, however. I just don't see why they require people. To stare at gauges, and turn 1950s style knobs?

Maintenance.  Things go wrong.  I have no idea of how it would be built, but anything that large is going to have issue.

Regardless, you asked for examples, there are now three, including your own.  No reason to think that more won't come up

[Jovus]

42 minutes ago, tater said:

The point is ECONOMIC reasons. Not fun or cool reasons. I'm all in for a real Moon base, but it's lighting money on fire, there is no "profit" motive.

A couple potential reasons that fall roughly into the realm of 'economic', though with some overlap elsewhere.

We've already mentioned tourism, which is the most plausible to date.

Another use: Aldrin cyclers. These aren't strictly stations per se, but they're permanent space-borne installations. Of course, this requires some method of matching velocities which we couldn't just use to plot an intercept, so it sounds like we're in Space Elevator territory here...but there might be a more plausible interface that I'm just not thinking of at the moment. Or maybe this allows us to front-load food/water/space/comfort and only send up tiny rockets to intercept, because they don't have to be man-rated all the way to Mars.

More serious suggestion: quarantine.

Some disease/device/phenomenon needs study, but it's just too dangerous to study it anywhere on Earth, despite strict quarantine procedures, because the potential downside of a quarantine break is too high. You locate the lab on a space station, and if a containment breach happens the whatever-it-is has to both survive re-entry and have the delta-V to pull it off.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Maintenance.  Things go wrong.  I have no idea of how it would be built, but anything that large is going to have issue.

Regardless, you asked for examples, there are now three, including your own.  No reason to think that more won't come up

Yours is exactly the same as Giscard's. Servicing an unmanned satellite. What the sat does doesn't matter. The only real world example had repair cost more than replacement.

Note that a station is likely in LEO because of radiation hazards, and solar power is likely in GEO. So such a maintenance requires an equatorial station ideally, and then require sending workers TO the power sat. Why would you not just send them there directly, instead of keeping them on a station, then sending a spacecraft that will certainly require fuel deliveries anyway.