Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

BWhite · 2004-08-23 15:23:25

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv … ne.html]Dr Lee Valentine writes:

Preservation and prosperity of humanity on the Earth and human settlement of circumsolar space is the goal, we must concentrate on a commercial path to get there. NASA must enable new markets, not compete in them. Nonterrestrial materials are the key to opening the space frontier and should be the focus of new NASA initiatives. NEO mining serves two purposes, defense and material supply. Scientific missions must be undertaken to assay resources and plan NEO diversion. Use the advantages of space: manufacture and assembly in space.

Lets chat about this - -

Is it realistic to expect ANY profits from resource utilization or space manufacturing?

Next quote:

Space solar power is a trillion dollar market and should be fully explored, and NASA is crucial to this effort, platinum group metals will eventually be important. Obtaining economic benefits from commercial space including tourism and space solar power and platinum group metals as well as traditional markets should be the major thrust of our space enterprise.
Man to Mars is a diversion we can't afford. Human settlement of the space frontier is an end in itself but will follow naturally large-scale extraction of nonterrestrial resources and construction of space solar power stations, either on the moon or in orbit. Space tourism is a real market and the necessary evolution from small stations like Mir and ISS to real space hotels will necessitate the incorporation of fully closed life-support systems. These could be considered the first space colonies. The likelihood is that space tourism will greatly drive down the cost of space access over the next two decades. Space tourism may even provide a relatively near term market for lunar or asteroidal water.

Space solar power? I am comfortable refuting that business proposal with a corollary of Enrico Fermi's argument "Where is everyone" - - if space solar power was economically viable, Bechtel and Halliburton could be in that busines today flying Russian boosters at $1000 - $1500 per pound to LEO.

Space minerals and mining? Tangible assets are becoming less and less important to the market capitalization of major corporations.

Read http://www.interbrand.com/best_brands_0 … l.pdf]this report from August 2004.

These people assert the "value" of IBM's brand is $53 billion dollars. IBM has a total http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& … BM+]market capitalization of about $140 billion dollars.

Someone stop me if I am wrong, but this suggests that over 1/3 of the total value of IBM's stock price is tied up in the intangible asset known as "brand identity" or business goodwill.

How does this apply to space investment?

Spending money on media and marketing rights or sponsorship of space missions will very likely provide positive return on investment LONG BEFORE a single penny is ever made from investing in mining and manufacture.

Nike is the "big dog" of sponsorship spending at $1.4 billion per year. Currently, one round of Summer and Winter Olympics generate over $600 million in sponsorship revenues.

= = =

Private sector space is essential to a robust and sustainable space program. If we exclude intangible business investments such as advertising, media deals and marketing/sponsorship rights, where will the first dollar of private sector investment come from?

Lets chat.

Dook · 2004-08-23 16:08:43

Cost is what has kept commercial markets out of space, not NASA. How are non-terrestrial materials the key to opening the space frontier?

NEO mining serves the purpose of defense and material supply? Only if we were still using catapults to fling rocks at castle walls in which case we still have enough rocks on the earth for a few thousand more years.

I don't know how much money space based solar power would generate. Space based reflectors could provide additional energy but I don't think $1 trillion.

How does he think he's going to get solar power created on the moon back to the earth?

I agree that space tourism is a real market. Getting water from the moon or an asteroid to support space based tourism I think is unrealistic. Does he have any idea how much that kind of thing is going to cost?

Defend the earth? From who?

Asteroids convenient mines already in place. Yeah, a giant rock flipping through space millions of miles away, hundreds of degrees in the sun, negative hundred degrees in the shade, that's about as inconvenient as it can get.

In the near future most humans will inhabit colonies in orbit about the sun? Well we have 6 billion and counting so exactly when and how does he think we are going to get more than that into space on rocks that have no food, no oxygen, not enough water, dangerous radiation, and extreme temperatures?

I stopped reading after that. Is this guy for real? I've heard some strange stuff on late night radio before and this guy is right there with them.

I know there are a few forum participants who will love everything this guy says. I don't understand the strange idea that we should move large sections of the human race into space. For what reason? If we go it should be in small groups set out to explore, to discover, not in giant waves abandoning the beautiful place that has been given to us. The earth is our home, not space.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-08-23 17:09:28

Solar power stations are getting to be practical in terms of cost invested/cost returned - barely.

The killer is build time though. Even with sea dragons going up 4 times a month that's only 24,000tons/year, and a 5GW SSPS weighs 100,000tons. So you're talking about a 4 year minimum build time and it'd be difficult to build them in parallel. With 10 DH-1 launches a day it'd take 12 years.

You also need to invest heavily up front. Build costs for direct launch can be as high as $60B, and even if the eventual return is $100B companies are reluctant to make the initial investment.

Asteroid or moon-built SSPSs cost less on paper (say $20 up front + $5B per SSPS) but you're gambling that the mineral resources are there and that you can get at them easily. since there's no proof that they are, Halliburton contine to invest in oil and political brides.

ANTIcarrot.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-23 17:20:32

And "Barely" + Risk = No investors...

And it is still an unproven paper concept... transmitting multimegawatt energies from space is still a pretty shakey paper concept in my opinion. Nobody has ever done anything like that before, and could present a whole range of issues beyond simply hitting the target from hundreds of kilometers away.

I can really see only one solution to the problem of SSPS systems... the space elevator. Perhaps the only way to reduce launch costs enough, and how about transmitting the power down the cable by HTSC wire? ...Of course, when we figure out how to do Fusion, this will all be quite moot.

As for asteroid or Lunar reasources are pretty useless, there is no reason to go up and get them unless you live there... it would be easier to mine them off the bottom of the sea probobly. Industrial automation in space is also a pipe dream... does this guy have any idea how far we are away from building.. say.. a Centaur rocket stage in space?

Euler · 2004-08-23 19:53:38

I'm not a big genius

At least he has some idea of his limitations.

He want so build SPS systems using space resources and space manufacturing. That’s not one, not two, but three different unproven concepts that he is testing out simultaneously. The risks and development costs of developing all three simultaneously would certainly kill the project, so you end up with a chicken/egg scenario.

It seems unlikely that space resources can be mined profitably for use on Earth. SPS might be profitable on its own, but I have my doubts, and it would still be a big step from SPS using Earth manufacture to SPS using local resources.

This leaves manufacturing as the key first step. I have heard that it may be possible to make valuable pharmaceuticals, alloys, and electronics in space that could not be made on Earth. Solar sails (and maybe solar panels as well?) can be made thinner and lighter in 0-g as well. I am not qualified to judge the veracity of these claims, or the difficulty involved in manufacturing these items in space. However, even if these thins can be built, pharmaceuticals and electronics are the only things that would see large-scale use on Earth. Ultra-lightweight alloys are nice, but they would also be too expensive for most terrestrial applications. Superlight solar sails and solar panels have little usefulness on Earth.

This means that these industries would probably start out in support of other space activities. Dr. Valentine seems to think that tourism will be a large market, but I am skeptical. In any case, private industry would probably no want to increase the risk of building space hotels by using space manufacturing to help build them. I think that government programs, which can invest in space manufacturing because they have greater resources and do not need to make a profit, will be the most likely supporters of space manufacturing.

If space manufacturing gets going, it becomes less impractical to mine space resources, provided that the space resources can be used in the space manufacturing process. This does not necessarily make it practical, it just gives it a chance. If you are already manufacturing solar cells in space from solar resources, SPS is a much smaller step.

All of which leads to an ironic conclusion: the Mars mission that Dr. Valentine is so ardently against could be used to subsidize space manufacturing and be key to making his vision a reality.

BWhite · 2004-08-23 21:57:04

Sunday morning at the Mars Society convention I lstened to an interesting exchange between Bob Zubrin and George Whitesides (NSS) about the Aldridge Commission Report. Essentially, Zubrin wanted to toss the whole Aldridge report in the waste-basket or flush it somewhere worse. :;):

Whitesides tried to take a more "glass is 1/2 or 1/3 full" approach saying that at least Aldridge Commission called for increasing private sector involvement in space.

My big question is HOW can the private sector contribute? IMHO, there are NO profit making models involving mining or manufacturing or resource exploitation (which includes solar power) that will pay-off in less than many decades, if then.

Big investment PLUS high risk to capital PLUS no assured return on investment PLUS very long delay between money in and money out (if the investor gets lucky on the other risk factors) means no private sector investment.

Like I said in my first post, tangible goods are a decreasing percentage of the cost or value of any product, be it

gym shoes or Coca-Cola (how much of that $150 does Nike pay for materials or labor?) or

silicon chips (its the design not the sand that matters and multi-billion dollar chip stamping plants are only feasible if billions of chips are sold meaning goodwill & marketshare is vital)

or even automobiles.

Therefore, why would anyone think mining lunar resources or NEO resources for export to Earth will earn a single penny of NET profit?

Lunar oxygen is worth $1500 per pound in LEO, not a dime more. If Earth to LEO launch costs fall, that value falls. And I see no conceivable way anyone can extract lunar O2 for $1500 per pound delivered to LEO.

If the lunar or NEO mine cost merely $10 billion to deploy (Hah!) and shipping to LEO was free and operations costs were zero you would still need to sell 67,000 pounds of O2 per year just to pay the interest on your $10 billion mining operation with no profit and no recoupment of the principal investment. If the lunar operation cost $50 billion to build, then the first 335,000 pounds of O2 shipped to LEO pays the interest for one year.

= = =

That said, Nike currently spends $1.4 billion per year on sponsorship.

At the Mars Society conference I passed out a poll question in my paper session. I will rearrange it here.

If Nike would pay $250 million per year for 15 years to put its swoosh on flight suits; and

IBM would pay $350 million per year for 15 years to add its logo to the network architecture for the Mars vessel and every astronaut on Mars was given a souped up, custom IBM ThinkPad; and

NBC would pay $10 billion for exclusive broadcast rights (subject to extensive requirements for syndication and release of science data); and

that made the difference in Congress paying for Mars, or not; what would you say?

[1] GO - - FOR - - IT !!!!

[2] Well okay, but I am worried.

[3] Really don't know.

[4] Tempted, but no. Sorry.

[5] Over my cold dead body!

= = =

If we do not seek private sector involvement through media, marketing and sponsorship, can we realistically expect private sector involvement in any other way?

And if we do not seek private sector funding then it all needs to come from the taxpayers, right?

Dook · 2004-08-23 23:22:45

I think space tourism will be profitable.

Also your idea to sell advertisement on NASA equipment is a good one but even with more money NASA's not going to mars any time soon.

What we really need is a President or NASA administrator with a vision. Someone who sets the bar higher and says "We can do this".

comstar03 · 2004-08-24 00:06:19

I think you all are missing the main point, if we want to build into space in a large scale way then we need to develop a large scale funding process to match the development cost side. As the resources grow from space then the outlay from earth based assets and resources are reduced and then redirected into new process, technology and social activities.

When you can come up with 100$B plus income generating business venture/s that combined or separately fund the space development then we could have a discussion about human spaceflight and space program. Until then we should use robotics, telerobotics as alternatives until we have the resources to fund and support humanity in space.

comstar03 · 2004-08-24 00:07:30

oops, forgot , Its PRIVATE funding process not government or semi-government agency based funding process.

Euler · 2004-08-24 00:13:30

[1] GO - - FOR - - IT !!!!

Mars: Just Do It.

What we really need is a President or NASA administrator with a vision. Someone who sets the bar higher and says "We can do this".

What we really need is a congress that ties NASA's budget to GDP, rather than inflation. If this happens, we will get to Mars(and a lot more besides) no matter how mismanaged NASA is.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-08-24 04:37:19

Nobody has ever done anything like that before, and could present a whole range of issues beyond simply hitting the target from hundreds of kilometers away.

A proof of concept couldprobably be launched for a few hundred million. ISS solar panel truss + microwave transmitter + attitude control. Such a mission would probably answer a lot of questions.

and how about transmitting the power down the cable by HTSC wire?

IIRC, the physics are against that. Superconductors only work below thier tempreature limit AND below a certian level of power flow per unit area cross section.

Value of asteroid materials:
Based on NASA space colony design study. 10,000ton linear accelerator tug starting in LEO. 6,000tons of that is reaction mass. (EG: ground up propellent tank, waste, etc.) Including main tank, an SDV can put ~130tons into orbit per launch. This would require about 76 launches. Say 80 for convenience. ming a launch rate of 12 per year this woudl take under seven years. At $250M per launch this would represent an investment of $20B dollars in launch costs. Add another $10B for R&D + construction. Total system cost: $30B. Tug returns 500,000 ton asteroid to earth a few years later.

Asteroid material is worth: $60/kg.
100tons 'useful cargo' SDV: $2,500/kg.

That's before refining of course. But there is a possibility here for the material to be made into something worthwhile in earth orbit for less than the cost of launch an equivolent amount of material from earth.

Space manufacturing:
There are two issues here. Can things be built in zero G that are exportable to earth? Can spinning create a good enough emulation of gravity to make normal earth style manufacturing practical, and therefore illeminate the requirement for R&D & it's cost.

A common material claim for the future is 10 times less weight for any given strength. (Glassy metal, nano-tube reinforced metal, etc.) Assuming this is true and that the material had to be made in space, there are a few potential buyers.

A 'super material' F-18 would weigh 1,400kg. It could accelerate forward and bank ten times harder than it could at present. You'd have to nail it down on a windy day to stop it flying away, but you could also operate it from the deck of a frigate's helicopter pad. An aerospace company would be more than willig to pay several thousand dollars a kilo for such a material. Unless there were apparent disadvantages, or it could be made on earth for less.

A 5GW SSPS that lasts for 20 years before major servicing will generate $96B of electricity at $0.11/kWh. Since electricity in the US sells for $0.12/kWh you could improve the lives (or at least power bills) of tens of millions of registered voters. Who would then (in theory) support you and your space programme.

ANTIcarrot.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-24 06:22:32

Here is a question, can a federal agency create funds from selling or from the creation of items to sell?

IMO They are probably prohibited from doing so. So how then can Nasa get the needed funds when the source keeps drying up in congress.

If Nasa is a subsidized private organization then probably it would get even less funding from the congress and would need a whole lot more inventive ways to raise the capitol for such exploratory ventures.

We have the ISS in orbit what better place than to try out how to make a profit from making raw materials into something useful.

Science is great but it does not pay the bills unless it can create something that the customer wants.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-23 15:23:25

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#2 2004-08-23 16:08:43

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#3 2004-08-23 17:09:28

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#4 2004-08-23 17:20:32

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#5 2004-08-23 19:53:38

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#6 2004-08-23 21:57:04

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#7 2004-08-23 23:22:45

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#8 2004-08-24 00:06:19

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#9 2004-08-24 00:07:30

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#10 2004-08-24 00:13:30

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#11 2004-08-24 04:37:19

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

#12 2004-08-24 06:22:32

Re: Funding human missions - Lets chat basics

Board footer