These entities make money like crazy.

Hundreds of people over many decades have come up with an extremely long list of ideas, most of which will not pan out for various reasons. We will also make many serendipitous discoveries which can only be imagined in a general way now: for example amongst the wide varieities of solar system geology we will probably discover ores of precious metals, gems, or other interesting high-value materials. But guesses today as to where specifically such might be found are likely wrong. It’s also quite probable that vacuum and microgravity combined with ISRU will lead to very useful manufacturing processes, but work on this combination has been minimal. Space industry is a vast virtual space of possibilities waiting to be explored, not a set of projects one can plan out ahead of time.

An exception is the reasonable expectation that we will expand what we’re already using space for. It’s too mundane for alt.spacers, but a big part of space industrialization will be just enhancing and expanding what we already do in space: communications relays, surveillance, and science and exploration of various stripes.

The Next Big Thing in space, I predict, will be moving from a fixed-plan paradigm to a real options paradigm in satellite operations. Real options for space operations will be implemented with multi-purpose satellites that can be reconfigured and reprogram to adapt to market changes while on-orbit, and can be refueled via propellant depots (no fancy cryogenics, just Orbital Express technology with storable propellants). This will require some entrepreneurial genius to identify and sell the end benefits (the real options) to space users (e.g. to comsat operators and spysat users in intelligence agencies) rather than the means (software uploads, general-purpose equipment, propellant depots, and other ways of providing real options). It will also require vertical integration, because it requires designing a whole new fleet of refuelable and reconfigurable satellites as well as any propellant depots and other assets associated with providing the real options.

Focusing too much on the “airline” aspect of space is a bit like focusing too much on the railrod aspect of industrializing economies.

One might poo-poo “trillion dollar asteroids”, but at some point, there will be something in space we will want. The solar system has a lot of mass, and a lot of energy.

If you want to get into space in a big way, figure out how to tap into those two things, in a self-sustaining way.

Railroads were the means by which the US industrialized, not the end unto themselves.

Take any good computer game that has some aspect of economics, like Civilization or similar, and you see the self-sustaining aspect of growth over and over. It makes for an entertaining game, but I think holds a key to understanding about how we will get into space and what we will do once we get there.

I see a lot of the debate here as a chicken/egg conundrum. If we get into space there are things we can do, but without something to do we won’t get into space.

Has anyone here SERIOUSLY thought and put some effort into what to do once we GET there?

I know we have some concepts like “space hotels” and similar, and there is a proven market for that.

But what ELSE is there? The USA was not founded by tourists…

I see a lot of concentration on the supply part of the equation, but not much on the demand side.

AFAIK, the communications companies that operate comsats are on average fairly profitable, as are the contracts to make and launch the comsats, and good profits are also made on DoD space contracts.

alt.space, or at least that portion of it trying to achieve NASA’s preposterously uncommercial goals by commercial means, is quite another matter. Much of it just seems to be charity in disguise — a way for rich people to brag about their far-out investments, rather than a way for rich people to make even more money.

Craig Russell

I’m somewhat puzzled when you say “What you did hurts this fragile industry”, when all I did in my original post was: 1) make a joke based upon an extrapolation of one of Buffet’s comments, which I assume was itself a joke; 2) suggest that the people who do not have a very good understanding of the industry, as a whole, should avoid investing in it.

I can understand that some may see 1) as puerile and unfunny, but I have a hard time understanding how you can disagree with 2). Moreover, if you really believe that what I posted “hurts this fragile industry”, then all I can say is that: a) if it’s that fragile then it’s pretty much doomed, regardless of what I say, or; b) you credit me with far more power and influence than I have, or deserve to have.

Nevertheless, I’m flattered that you put such effort and thought into your response. As I said to Shubber, I honestly believe our opinions are not that far apart – the only difference seems to be that I’m more willing to suspend my disbelief in those cases where I see real engineering progress. However, I’m more of an engineer than a financier, so your criticism of my views may well be justified.

I think I’ll decline the offer to come onto your show, given present circumstances. However, I do appreciate the good work you do there and hope that you continue to interview the sort of people who actually can make a difference.

Dave, had you been a guest on my show, and by the way, you are welcome to be a guest on the show, and had you offered your comment about the Old Space Cadet post, I would have stopped you in your tracts, very politely (I don’t do hit journalism and never will on the show) and I would have held you accountable for what you were saying and suggesting re the original Dr. Jurist post. You would have chosen to either explain your comments in detail, possibly backtrack or do something to further the conversation about why you were making such a comment when none of it could be connected with the Jurist post. I seriously doubt you would have overlooked my stopping the discussion to have you explain. Again, this would have been polite, maybe humorous, certainly giving you the chance to clarify something that needed clarification.

Ok, all of this may be petty. And yes, I got your attention, didn’t I? So next time you post and I hope you post frequently, understand that lots of people see what you and others write and not all are true believers but many really know this stuff backwards and forwards, they know assumptions, reality, they know how to extrapolate and make a good analysis and they can draw rational and logical conclusions from such work. What you did hurts this fragile industry. So I ask you to give some thought to what you are posting next time, to what you are assuming, to how you extrapolate from something. When you do that, all of us and this developing industry are winners. When you don’t, its teaching time if I know about it. And yes, I am about as lacking in diplomacy and PC stuff as anyone can be, especially when warranted and the Cynics site is the place to do it. As I said, never on air, always polite on air and never ever will I do hit journalism or allow that on the air.

I think the point has been made. You clearly got the in the your face tilting to mean spirited flavor of my posts. I hope you got the essence of it all and why I did it and understand it even more with this note. Its not important that you concur and jump on my or anybody’s bandwagon. Just give some thought to what you are doing and does it help or hurt the industry and realize lots of people read this stuff and not all are true believers. Is it truthful and accurate or a wish? A true believer belief? If so, just say so, but don’t lead with phony assumptions and outrageous extrapolations. Some who read will want to believe but we ourselves often get in the way of that.

Final thought as I am now bugging out of this discussion is that you are welcome on the show. I think we talked about this once before by private email. I believe we are around the same age and I recall some of your bio when we had our exchange. I think it was early last year. Anyway, its possible my memory is wrong, hell, once one is past 60, the AARP has a lock on your soul and mind and a few other things and its not fun.

Final thought, everyone go party at a Yuri’s Night Party near you on April 12. Celebrate man getting into space. Let’s hope we can keep doing it, make some money at it and have some fun. Way to go YURI! We love you wherever you are.

If you’re advocating caution, then I’m 100% with you. However, if you’re asking us to take the small amount of evidence we have to date (Shuttle, NASP, X-33, Kistler, etc.) and consider this as exhaustive proof of the likelihood of failure then, to my mind, you’re mistaken.

As you no doubt remember, we’ve had similar discussions over the years and have essentially agreed to disagree. My argument has always been that no one has ever made a serious attempt to actually build an fly a truly operable vehicle – DC-X was sort of in the right direction but even that had its issues – so there’s no way of knowing how close/far we are to/from that goal. NASA has effectively done nothing along these lines after Shuttle and is unlikely to ever consider it in the foreseeable future, though some would argue this may actually be a good thing

Whatever you think is driving XCOR and Armadillo to do what they’re doing (kool-aid, vision or just a sense of fun), you cannot deny that they’re at least doing something that, small as it maybe, appears to be heading in the right direction. However, these comments only relate to the technical/engineering issues – the markets and financing is quite another issue, though no less important.

If any of the alt.space/NewSpace ventures is genuinely trying to con would-be investors with bogus claims, then they should be both exposed and the full force of the law brought against them. However, I do appreciate that this may be easier said than done but I hardly think that this sort of problem is unique to the space industry.

I interact with people from SFF and the like only rarely, so hadn’t appreciated how “fundamentalist” their attitude can sometimes be. Living on this side of the Pond may be one of the reasons why I still have some small degree of optimism, though I do admit that my many talks with Jeff Greason and John Carmack may, over the years, have subtly influenced my opinion.

So, maybe I have drunk the kool-aid and lost what little sense of perspective I may have once had. However, I still believe that something good is starting to evolve but I’m not hailing it as the “opening of the frontier”… I doubt that I will witness this in my lifetime.

If, in your eyes, this makes me a lost cause then so be it. It doesn’t alter my opinion of you: I encourage you to keep arguing the facts because, for the most part, I still believe you’re right.

Now the bad news.

Implicit in the above is the assumption that a first generation RLV – good or otherwise – can be designed and built. It is by no means clear that one can be now or even in the next few decades. To continue with your aircraft analogy, space advocates like to assume it’s the early 1900s when it might just as well be the early 1850s.