From: slb@suned1.nswses.navy.MIL (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: No markets in space? (was Re: Chemical unit operations in space)
Summary: it is the value/transportation cost that is important
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:44:51 GMT
Reply-To: slb@suned1.UUCP (Shari L Brooks)
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In article <63791@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) 
writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.075544.29047@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick 
>Szabo) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul15.175830.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill 
>>Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>[Without lower costs for launching stuff from Earth, not a lot is going to be 
>happening in space anytime soon]

>>An otherwise fine post, but this statement is a popular misconception.

>>The economics of space activity depend on both cost/lb. of transportation 
>>and value/lb. of the goods transported (eg comsats).  Value/lb. (eg 
>>telephone circuits) has been increasing at a rate several orders of 
>>magnitude higher than the decrease in cost/lb.  If that trend continues 
>>or accelerates, we will be processing materials in space long before 
>>launch cost/lb. comes down significantly.

>You're mixing apples and oranges, Nick.  Beaming signals up and sending them 
>back down is in no way comparable to materials processing.  In space-based
>telecommunications, once you have put your satellite in space, your transport
>costs are finished: you never have to launch anything again.  Materials 
>processing, on the other hand, is likely to be a continuing series of launches
>and retrievals, meaning that launch costs are going to be an ongoing expense.

While this may be true, nevertheless the basic comparison Nick makes is sound.
It is not merely dependent upon launch costs.  This can again be extrapolated
from everyday ground-based life:  there was recently a rail strike in these
parts, and the local agriculture suffered because the market value of the 
goods did not cover the higher transportation costs of trucks.  

While the value of COMSATs has nothing to do with materials processing, and
thus their value is immaterial to the discussion, I might remind you of the
recent shuttle experiments in growing the GaAs crystals.  If production of
these can be set up in space, then perhaps transportation costs to market
will not be as large as other materials; as I recall one of the larger markets
for GaAs is for solar panels.

>I think Bill was right; we're going to need to see a signifigant drop in 
>launch costs before the market really opens up.

I think that there will be no compelling reason to drop the launch cost until
there is an established market.



As an aside.  The value (or rather, usefulness) of COMSATs is decreasing, not
increasing; also, they are getting more expensive relative to the superior 
communications offered by fiber optics.  While fiber optics will never replace
the usefulness of COMSATs in wide area broadcasting and in reaching mobile
users, I think that the days of point-to-point telecommunications utilizing
COMSATs are numbered.
-- 
  Shari L Brooks                   |   slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   shari@caspar.nosc.mil
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |   
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.
Newsgroups: sci.space