Living in space means spacestations and planetary bases. So habitats will need developing. Transfer vehicles from LEO to the spacestations and landers are required. Mars and Moon rovers. Mining and refining equipment.
What are then the next critical set of technologies/capabilities that need to be focused on, in order to make the Space Economy take off?
Quote from: sanman on 10/06/2017 02:14 amWhat are then the next critical set of technologies/capabilities that need to be focused on, in order to make the Space Economy take off?It has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it.
Actually, whether something is profitable or not it really depends on upwards & downwards mass costs. It is even meaningless trying to explore commercial manufacturing in today's price environment. Decrease the transport costs to a decent level, and things may well change. Vacuum may have many manufacturing advantages, however advantages which do not justify current costs. Furthermore, at the cost of sounding an environmentalist, off-planet manufacturing has at least one enormous advantage: its impact on the Earth's ecosphere is minimal. Start to price environmental externalities correctly, and you might see how much more competitive the space becomes (since the great part of byproducts considered "externalities" on the planet are not so elsewhere).Or, in other words: on the Moon you can do ALL form of pollution you like. Start pricing Earth externalities properly, and you will have both addressed the issue of environmental protection, and provided a huge incentive to off-planet production (assuming, again, transportation is cheap enough).
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/06/2017 08:01 pmActually, whether something is profitable or not it really depends on upwards & downwards mass costs. It is even meaningless trying to explore commercial manufacturing in today's price environment. Decrease the transport costs to a decent level, and things may well change. Vacuum may have many manufacturing advantages, however advantages which do not justify current costs. Furthermore, at the cost of sounding an environmentalist, off-planet manufacturing has at least one enormous advantage: its impact on the Earth's ecosphere is minimal. Start to price environmental externalities correctly, and you might see how much more competitive the space becomes (since the great part of byproducts considered "externalities" on the planet are not so elsewhere).Or, in other words: on the Moon you can do ALL form of pollution you like. Start pricing Earth externalities properly, and you will have both addressed the issue of environmental protection, and provided a huge incentive to off-planet production (assuming, again, transportation is cheap enough). I'm having trouble understanding how adding a deltaV of 10 km/s to your materials and then adding additional km/s to deorbit your manufactured goods has a minimal impact on the ecosphere.
It has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it.
Quote from: synchrotron on 10/06/2017 08:12 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 10/06/2017 08:01 pmActually, whether something is profitable or not it really depends on upwards & downwards mass costs. It is even meaningless trying to explore commercial manufacturing in today's price environment. Decrease the transport costs to a decent level, and things may well change. Vacuum may have many manufacturing advantages, however advantages which do not justify current costs. Furthermore, at the cost of sounding an environmentalist, off-planet manufacturing has at least one enormous advantage: its impact on the Earth's ecosphere is minimal. Start to price environmental externalities correctly, and you might see how much more competitive the space becomes (since the great part of byproducts considered "externalities" on the planet are not so elsewhere).Or, in other words: on the Moon you can do ALL form of pollution you like. Start pricing Earth externalities properly, and you will have both addressed the issue of environmental protection, and provided a huge incentive to off-planet production (assuming, again, transportation is cheap enough). I'm having trouble understanding how adding a deltaV of 10 km/s to your materials and then adding additional km/s to deorbit your manufactured goods has a minimal impact on the ecosphere.first, it depends on where you take the materials. Second, I should have specified- minimal impact compared with the impact of producing everything on spot, polluting, and moving goods around the planet.
Space telecomm is a much bigger market than space tourism, about 1000x as big in the 2000s. ~$100 billion versus $100 million per year (at best).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/07/2017 12:48 amSpace telecomm is a much bigger market than space tourism, about 1000x as big in the 2000s. ~$100 billion versus $100 million per year (at best).Tourism could be a big driver for HSF technologies that will help enable colonisation though. communications satellites have been big for a long time without looking like it was a significant driver for becoming multiplanetary, or having millions of people in space.(edited to clarify connection to OP)
Quote from: KelvinZero on 10/07/2017 02:45 amTourism could be a big driver for HSF technologies that will help enable colonisation though. communications satellites have been big for a long time without looking like it was a significant driver for becoming multiplanetary, or having millions of people in space.(edited to clarify connection to OP)Disagree. BFR is driven by comm sats, and BFR is a huge enabler for space settlement.
Tourism could be a big driver for HSF technologies that will help enable colonisation though. communications satellites have been big for a long time without looking like it was a significant driver for becoming multiplanetary, or having millions of people in space.(edited to clarify connection to OP)
Helium 3 mining isn't profitable, especially on the Moon.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/06/2017 08:15 pmQuote from: synchrotron on 10/06/2017 08:12 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 10/06/2017 08:01 pmActually, whether something is profitable or not it really depends on upwards & downwards mass costs. It is even meaningless trying to explore commercial manufacturing in today's price environment. Decrease the transport costs to a decent level, and things may well change. Vacuum may have many manufacturing advantages, however advantages which do not justify current costs. Furthermore, at the cost of sounding an environmentalist, off-planet manufacturing has at least one enormous advantage: its impact on the Earth's ecosphere is minimal. Start to price environmental externalities correctly, and you might see how much more competitive the space becomes (since the great part of byproducts considered "externalities" on the planet are not so elsewhere).Or, in other words: on the Moon you can do ALL form of pollution you like. Start pricing Earth externalities properly, and you will have both addressed the issue of environmental protection, and provided a huge incentive to off-planet production (assuming, again, transportation is cheap enough). I'm having trouble understanding how adding a deltaV of 10 km/s to your materials and then adding additional km/s to deorbit your manufactured goods has a minimal impact on the ecosphere.first, it depends on where you take the materials. Second, I should have specified- minimal impact compared with the impact of producing everything on spot, polluting, and moving goods around the planet.The main waste products from burning rocket fuel are water and carbon dioxide. Plants like both.Waste products from some manufacturing processes are poisonousness. They can be dumped on the Moon but not on Earth. Doubly so when dealing with radioactive substances.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/07/2017 12:48 amHelium 3 mining isn't profitable, especially on the Moon.It's not clear that Helium-3 mining wouldn't be profitable. Helium-3 could be scooped up along with other volatiles bound up in the regolith. What is clear is that it could involve "defacing" significant stretches of the lunar surface through strip-mining. (Hey, just do it on the Far Side, and nobody on Earth will be the wiser)The issue with Helium-3 is that nobody's achieved fusion yet, much less aneutronic fusion, which is Helium-3's main selling point. On the other hand, if some breakthrough happens there (LPP?), then Helium-3's market value could skyrocket overnight.