You are not logged in.
In all the decisions relating to space have been from governments or leaders of governments or government authorities. I believe it is time that a single or group of corporations set out a plan to build into space with a profitable future as well expanding the human race into space.
In previous developements for space industry have been based on government specifications not on a long term development program.
Corporations are more stable for long term (core) asset development into space. Firstly development methods should look at creating income for space activities derived from Earth and then you will have the corporations working with you.
I think that the space related association alliance should work on the hard policy issues and also create a committee to bring business into the space race and then determine what primary and secondary industries and then go after the companies within these categories. Look at creating a non-profit space business foundation with all the companies as donors ( resources and / or monetary funds) that would allow the corporations to claim a tax deduction - a business incentive.
But remember this - space must generate income to build a self-funding activity for the benefit of mankind.
Offline
I think that the space related association alliance should work on the hard policy issues and also create a committee to bring business into the space race and then determine what primary and secondary industries and then go after the companies within these categories. Look at creating a non-profit space business foundation with all the companies as donors ( resources and / or monetary funds) that would allow the corporations to claim a tax deduction - a business incentive.
Okay, what about travel besides small orbital satelites and suborbital tourism is profitable?
Businesses also do not make policy persay, though they can suggest it and advocate it.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
GCNRevenger
What about vaccines, what about new metals, what about new computer tech, what about property leasing methods for space platforms, and more and more, all are required for long term space development but also can be brought back and deliver benefit to earth citizens.
for vaccines - target large drug companies, for donations ( with monetary and human resource expertise ) for mining - mining associations and corporations for donations ( working on how to find raw materials and new mining techiques for processing the minerals. Again monetary and human resource ) just as examples - but then the corporations and foundation would benefit from the profits in the new discovers.
Tourism can be expanded from just flights to stays as well. Also what about training facilities, could be another growth market that could be independent from governments because they could train for all space participant groups ( NASA, Russia, China, ESA and Japan )
This is only a short list of possible activities that will be required and also business activities that could produce income for both space foundation and particitpating corporations.
Offline
*Checks off the list...*
Vaccine design has no benefit in space. Special chemical manufacturing may have some benefit, but you can achieve similar results with spinning-reactor or magnetic levitation setups on Terra Firma for a millionth of the price. The economics of making specialty chemicals on orbit are inhertintly pretty terrible to begin with. And how will you get stuff up and down efficently?
Its too expensive to make computer chips in orbit in any quantity. Launching a chip factory would be fantasticly expensive given all the hardware required, and it is unclear if there will be any real benefit to orbital manufacture at all. Some improvements in silicon crystal quality... big deal. Just buy two Earthly chips for 1/10,000 the price. The cost of transport of materials to and from would also be problematic. Computers chips have reached commodity status now, making PCs with multiple CPUs and gobs of cheap memory chips is common now. How will space chips compete?
Tourism CANNOT go up to stay yet. The minimum size, mass, and complexity of an orbital vehicle using the best chemical fuels and composits still clearly precludes space travel except for a select handfull of super-rich people, which does not a market make.
Mining? Mine what? All the same atoms are right here on Earth, and its easier and cheaper to dig them up than to fly into space to get them and trying to get them back down. It might even be cheaper to dig them out of mines on the bottom of the ocean than space.
In order to sell property rights, the property has to have some kind of value first... right now, we can't even get to it.
Its simply not looking good for commertial space beyond what we are doing now.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I think at this moment its not the ideas nor the technology stopping from businesses from starting a space orientated business but:
1. Are you shure of the number of customers?
2. Capital, no one wants to be be the first invester. Some venture capital group should break the ice and invest and if their project is sucessful all the other venture capital groups will follow.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
smurf975,
That is correct, nobody wants to be the first investor, or pioneer into space developments that bring business into the space race.
We have current technology across this world that could help build large scale development platforms in orbit without the cost of ISS today. Using current technology and some design work the earth could have designed a station at least 10x the capacity of ISS and could have had other facilities for space exploration without the cost running over the ISS budget today.
I know of a method to create 6-10x (approx 200B$ in 2004 figures) the NASA Budget per annum for a space business that is derived from earth on a commercial venture.
But these facts are no good if you don't have the resources to back up your claims, So I am working on the reality of services required to build the resources needed to back that claim and thus bring free enterprise in the race for moon, mars, and the asteroid belt.
But remember this - you must first start from scratch and build a new way outside the box ( method of existing entrants) where you can see the benefits and cost running methods, with high quality and world class saftey standards.
Only time will tell - but people must remember that Las Vegas or New Hong Kong Airport or the Island Airport in Japan didn't exist until someone made it and overcome the issues.
Offline
GCNRevenger,
PS> Things can start small, becuase your market could be the orbiting space station, commercial satellites, and te future moonbases, and spacecrafts, they will need the components and it would be cheaper to manufacture in ordit that sending complete components from earth. And I am not just talking about PC Chips what about fiber optics as well as other components. So think outside the square, these process could be small to start they enlarge as demand enlarges.
Offline
Do you know of the company called http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/program … html]space island group. They are working to do almost all the things you are thinking of. If your plans are detailed maybe you should contact them.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
Well, what's profitable today? Maybe, instead of creating a whole new industry, like space tourism, maybe we should support what we already have.
Can manned repair missions profitably extend the life of satellites? Is salvage a viable space industry?
"We go big, or we don't go." - GCNRevenger
Offline
CM Edwards,
Yes, repair and salvage business is profitable in space , but require a place to function from > These is where it gets back to working together in business.
Offline
In the "Asteroid Mining" thread under "Science and Technology" we discussed profit in space. I listed several profitable enterprises. I don't think computer chips will ever be profitable in space, but mining can be now. Tourism is a business that has already proven to be profitable.
Pharmaceutical companies had stated their desire to use ISS for research. Analysis of protein requires crystallization so the crystals can be X-ray analyzed for molecular structure. Getting samples to ISS requires reliable, frequent, regularly scheduled, and affordable access to space; Shuttle was supposed to provide that. Shuttle attempted to grow protein crystals before ISS was built, but the crystals didn't survive the stress of atmospheric entry. Without Shuttle, I don't know how ISS can do the science it was designed for.
Offline
Bigelow is already aiming at the two markets that have a chance of paying off - tourism and pharmaceutical research. An orbiting TransHab based facility that will host drug researchers and tourists.
IIRC Bigelow is privately held so you cannot even buy stock.
He is also doing the down and dirty engineering needed to make TransHab fabric lighter and more functional allowing for cheaper launch costs.
He is also negotiating with the cheapest sources of lift to LEO on the planet. Russian, Chinese and Elon Musk.
= = =
Otherwise, we need an ice-breaker. Someone to throw away many many billions of dollars motivated by altruism. :;):
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Yes, repair and salvage business is profitable in space , but require a place to function from > These is where it gets back to working together in business.
No, it is not. There simply aren't that many satelites to begin with, and the cost of a repair mission will probobly equal or exceed the cost of simply launching a newer, smaller satelite with modern computers, solar panels, even ion/steam stationkeeping & OMS engines.
You would have to diagnose the problem, which will probobly involve dismantaling the satelite on orbit, which it was never designed for. That fact alone makes it unprofitable since there is such a high chance of failure, and risk is expensive. Then you have to get replacement parts, which if they aren't made anymore you have to make new ones yourself, then they have to be packaged to survive launch and be easy to handle on orbit. Then you have to actually fix the satelite, which is not at all like the Hubble service missions since satelites aren't designed to be fixed on orbit at all. And finally, you have to launch the replacement parts, after paying and continuing to pay a team of well-paid aeronautical engineers in order to fix an old, nearly obsolete satelite which won't last as long as a new one... And you must do it for less than it takes to buy a cookie-cutter Boeing 500 or 700 and a flight on Zenit-IIISL or Falcon-V Centaur.
About the only worthwhile thing is to send up a mini-tug to augment the stationkeeping/OMS/attitude control functions.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
In the "Asteroid Mining" thread under "Science and Technology" we discussed profit in space. I listed several profitable enterprises. I don't think computer chips will ever be profitable in space, but mining can be now. Tourism is a business that has already proven to be profitable.
Pharmaceutical companies had stated their desire to use ISS for research. Analysis of protein requires crystallization so the crystals can be X-ray analyzed for molecular structure. Getting samples to ISS requires reliable, frequent, regularly scheduled, and affordable access to space; Shuttle was supposed to provide that. Shuttle attempted to grow protein crystals before ISS was built, but the crystals didn't survive the stress of atmospheric entry. Without Shuttle, I don't know how ISS can do the science it was designed for.
Welll I don't think that mining of anything will be terribly practical, barring some worldwide shortage of a particular element or for the "novelty factor" of jewelry made with space materials.
And no, space tourism has not proven to be at all profitable. In fact, it has thus far proven that it isn't... Even the best in the business of SO private spacecraft may not be able to pull off the most minimal of stunt flights. Orbital tourism on government spacecraft (like Soyuz or Klipper) is particularly silly, since there just aren't that many rich billionaires, and the rockets are expensive... even if you flew two tourists at $20M a head, the Soyuz costs $50M a flight.
---
Oh yes, and those nasty dynamic forces involved with reentry? How will you avoid those even if you do make protein crystals, since you still have to get them back down to analyze them. Oh, and even if you brought an X-Ray Diffraction setup with you to orbit to study them on site, guess what? All the noisy Mir-era Russian equipment makes some dreadful vibration, which would ruin the analysis, if not ruin the crystals. Then you have consider competition... making the stuff here on Earth in a magnetic levitation cell or spinning reactor may be just as effective and orders of magnetudes cheaper. Or don't make crystals at all and use computational chemistry.
So what will you do with ISS even if Shuttle does fly til' the ISS falls apart and the crew abandons it to the ocean.. or worse?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
???
Current - Space Technology -" LOOK OUTSIDE THE SQUARE "
Space Transportation Systems are too inexpensive for large scale development - ( 600ft+ / 200m + space platforms for orbit. ) Large scale spacecrafts for exploration of our solar system provide tens of probes and also carry and deploy navigation satellites for mapping and controlling the solar system traffic and communicating with future spacecraft movement to earth command.
It gets back to working space as going across the sea, build things in mass production to a set of standards. That limits / reduce the cost in the process.
I realize that space agencies are not looking to develop it to be self-funding, but that what business does, they develop a process and looking for a return to pay for that process.
These are some thoughts that I can release, other information I can not due to commercial confidential until they are realised.
Offline
Hundreds of years ago, in Siberia and Canada, the economy for expansion was the Fur Trade. Something similar, fashionable, for space ?
-
Entertainment, survival TV program. As proposed by a Japanese company, Moon Robots that you could remotely take for a test drive..
-
The desire of people to flee their condition, even if only virtually, is the key.
Offline
Manned space travel or any space industry that involves the transport of materials between space and the Earth though is still simply a non-starter... A toy rover sent to the Moon to drive around? Great, but thats about it. The cost of a Lunar or Asteroid return to make novelty jewlry out of would be so high as to probobly eliminate any potential profit for "space aluminum wedding rings" or "space iron pendants."
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I agree, GCN. Novelty jewelry would also face the problem of potential fakes. In one of my novels I make a comment about fake moon rocks being sold to people that were really anorthosite from the Adriondacks (which is one of the places one can find stuff that looks like lunar crust). Martian gold would be indistinguishable from the real thing, unless it contained a unique combination of trace elements in it and the purchaser was willing to spend a lot of money on a test that might destroy a piece of the purchase.
-- RobS
Offline
Yeah, which would make an authentication system, like there is for diamonds, very expensive... there probobly would be characteristic trace contaminants which could be detected by mass spectrometry, atomic absortion spectrometry, or perhaps neutron scattering, but all of these procedures would drive the cost right out the window. (especially neutron testing)
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
No, the purpose for asteroid mining is to sell gold and platinum on the precious metals market. Novelty jewellery made from space platinum (not iron) is a very small side market.
Oh, by the way, the Tagish Lake meteorite was a C-type carbonaceous chondrite asteroid; it had miniature diamonds. The diamonds are far too small for jewellery, but doesn't it make prospecting worth while?
Offline
Asteroid or Luna mining is practical IF it's still very expensive to ship things up from Earth, and there are already other industries in space or you intend to use te full capacity of such a venture in another project. This would be like building a concrete factory in the middle of nowhere (very unprofitable) in order to build a dam close by (more profitable than shipping it in from 'civilisation'.)
With a reduction of launch costs to $500/kg or so (or less!) solar power becomes practical. (How much do Americans pay per kW??) IF there are no severe technical problems with moving the power down to Earth. At present there are no known problems with that.
As to thinking outside the box... I fear that even if you cut off a skeptic's head and carried it outside it would keep it's eyes closed to avoid seeing anything that could upset it's carefully preserved opinions.
ANTIcarrot.
Offline
Well, considering if you packed the Shuttle's cargo bay full of confetti and it magicly turned to gold in orbit, the whole enterprise would still be a losing proposition... it doesn't look good for precious metals mining in space. You would need to learn to mine and smelt for real, which will take a pretty big/heavy/complex system... then you have to get it back to Earth... and then you have to compete with simply digging up less rich ores from the ground or actually removing precious metal ions from sea water...
Tiny diamonds are all over the place on Earth, you can dig them up pretty easily, and its also real easy to make them things considerd... a washing-machine sized press and 2-3 days of pressing and you can crank out substantial quantities. You can even extract REALLY small diamonds from crude oil! They just aren't that valuble unless they are gem sized and very pure.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I for one like the idea of asteroid mining but you (all) made good points about the cost and the need for such a thing.
I'm sure my opinion is biased towards to any thing to do with space exploration and colonization. So I think its a possibility.
Its just that after the initial base is setup you don't want to send up anything up to space only down to Earth. This is to keep the costs low. You will keep the operation costs low by using automation and telecontrol and so your space base can be small as needs not to support humans.
If you can make spare parts locally then I think you have a winner. As then it will cost you only the initial investment. But this will end up with a discussion about self replication machines which I should stop now. But no I'm not talking about nano machines.
So here is list of things that I think are needed to make this operation profitable.
1. Small local base no humans
2. Robots and 100% automation
3. Local machines shop that can make new miners and parts
4. Easy way to ship the resources to anywere in the solar system
5. Cargo that enters a planet with atomosphere (such as Earth) must not need expensive LEO to Earth handling.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
Exploring, improving and extending our senses is big business on Earth.
Even Star Trek had a Virtual Reality room to take a CD rom vacation.
Just think of the entertainment value of Virtual Reality exploration.
The military has very elaborate imaging systems for Earth;
Sadly, selectively awailable only to a few.
Offline
Unfortunatly numbers 2, 3, and 5 aren't currently practical.
100% automation isn't practical yet, computers are not smart enough or wise enough to do everything completly without human help. Though teleoperated-assistance/oversight is practical.
Space robots definatly are a ways from repair of componets, particularly electronic ones. This would require at the very least a major leap in robotics and a large supply of spare parts or stock to make them from, which gets heavy. It isn't practical to make spare parts in space yet except simple mechanical ones out of hard plastic.
And LEO-to-surface vehicles will, for the forseeable future, have to built on Earth. A reuseable rocket like DC-X makes some sense here if your operation is large, or throw-away inflatable heat shields for small occasional loads (if the ESA can perfect them).
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline