Are there commerical/industrial possibilities (other than tourism) in space travel?

Inspired about this thread about the proposed new Orion spacecraft – part of a whole new family of spaceships for different purposes in NASA’s Project Constellation.

I’ve argued before that the human race needs to colonize outer space – not just explore, but colonize – to guarantee racial survival, to free us from absolute dependence on one planet’s natural ecosystem. But, of course, you can’t expect people to go to space, nor to fund space travel, for that reason. Nor even because space colonization is Way Cool. Governments do it for prestige and potential military advantages and scientific research – but none of that is going to get large numbers of people living their whole lives, and raising their children, somewhere other than Earth’s surface. For that, you need some kind of economic incentive. At present, the only thing that seems to be in the offing is tourism – short spacehops for the ultra-rich – and, again, tourists don’t go to stay. Is there anything else? Something that could make an L-5 colony or a Moon colony profitable?

Certainly there are untapped mineral resources on the Moon and every planet and moon in the Solar System. There are untapped mineral resources in Antarctica. They remain untapped because the operating costs of mining operations on a continent under a mile-thick ice shield would be too high for the enterprise to make a profit. Lunar mining no doubt would be even more expensive. And the only things we might hope to find there would be metals and stones; I doubt there are deposits of fossil fuels anywhere in the Solar System but Earth, since, as far as we know, this is the only planet that has ever had a biosphere.

SF writers often imagine a future in which we get a lot of our energy from solar power collected by orbital platforms – but then, how would we ship or transmit the energy to Earth?

In 1966, Robert Heinlein imagined a scenario where a lunar colony’s economic importance to Earth would be as a farm. He failed to anticipate (1) that farming technology would improve dramatically in the coming decades and (2) that widespread industrialization would tend to slow population growth in industrialized countries. As it stands now, this planet produces quite enough food for its six billion mouths; if some are starving, that’s a distribution problem. There’s no apparent need to build domed or underground farms on an airless world. (By the same token, I don’t expect any space colonies to be founded just for the sake of “living space.”)

I’ve often read stories where SF writers allude to “vacuum industries” – industrial processes that can be done optimally only in a zero-g and/or hard-vacuum environment – but I’ve never been clear on what these might be.

Any other possibilities?

And, do these new NASA ships – and new private-sector spacecraft such as Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne – change the economic calculations any?

I see a somehwat whimsical possibility of space in the relatively near future as a retirement community, in which space is colonized first by aging baby boomers, accompanied by their caretakers and the families of those caretakers.

I suppose I get the idea from A.C. Clarke’s Islands in the Sky. But as the current oldest population swell ages, an environment where gravity is not a big issue becomes quite attractive. I see LEO stations with all the conveniences, and even moon bases.

Of course much would have to be done to “tame” the space experience, but I certainly don’t think it’s a problem that is insurmountable within the next 20 years.

A space elevator would reduce the cost per kilogram of moving payload from surface to orbit – possibly by a factor of 100 or more – but it would be so expensive to develop and build that I can’t see it happening until a large market demand is already clearly in place. Chicken-egg problem.

Or maybe not . . . according to [url=]this, total cost of building a space elevator according to the design of Dr. Bradley Edwards is estimated at $40 billion – and would be expected to reduce payload costs from $20,000 to $220 per kilogram. (This does not include maintenance and operating costs.) For comparison, NASA’s 2005 budget was $16 billion. The idea is not out of reach if government does it.

Why can’t W make his promises about a space elevator instead of a trip to Mars?

Electrophoresis works better in the absence of gravity driven convection cells. There might be a commercial place for space based isotope separations.

We had a thread debating the space elevator cost estimates.

$40 billion is, I would guess, about 25 times less than it would really cost. At least. I would be really impressed if you could build a working space elevator for a nickel less than one trillion dollars.

A trip to Mars is somewhat feasible. A space elevator isn’t. The technology to send human beings to Mars has been invented. The technology to build a space elevator has not. As I recall, nobody’s even come up with a viable propulsion system.

Are you insane? $40 billion for a space elevator? It cost NASA about $1 billion to not successfully develop a prototype lifting body STO craft. ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33]X-33](]this,[/url)). And that project was crippled mainly by the lack of success dealing with composite fuel tanks to hold the liquid hydrogen.

Until someone uses carbon nanotubes exclusively in a suspension bridge, don’t even dream of dangling several hundred kilometres of the stuff from orbit.

A note: Who says items mined in space have to be used on Earth? Let’s colonize and move out.

On the other hand, people who think they can reduce overpopulation by shipping people offplanet are not reading the current numbers right. Maybe in a hundred years, but not today.

Still, one product? Helium. Lots of it on the moon, less on earth, IIRC.

A mere $40 billion? Heck, Bill Gates could set it up at Redmond as a piece of lawn furniture.

In many cases, we probably wouldn’t. With the energy and raw materials starting out in orbit, why not move the industry up to orbit as well? You don’t ship down energy and metal, you ship down finished products. Saves transportation costs and eliminates the problems of industrial waste.

The X-33/34 were canceled internally by NASA because they were not financially feasable. NASA never gets any credit for doing things in a cost effective manner. If you look at the cost of the 2 land rovers currently on Mars they are cheaper than the earlier attempts. Their combined cost of $500 million was 12% of the original Viking probe. They built bigger/more complex rovers in the same basic footprint.

And the shuttle never gets any credit for advancing space travel. 75% of all the astronauts who ever went into space did so by way of the Space Shuttle. Didn’t mean to hi-jack the thread but NASA gets kicked around a lot and putting 2 land rovers on Mars at the same time is worth noting.

Pardon me if I don’t jump for joy on learning of a possible space-based industry that apparently produces nothing but material for nuclear weapons.

Linky?

Mostly. I understand there’s still the challenge of protecting the crew from the long-term effects of interplanetary radiation, which turns out to be much stronger than previously realized. See this GQ thread.

:confused: To propel what? And what would be the requirements of such a system?

True…but there are already solutions to this problem on the drawing board. Its a matter of testing and then seeing if they are practical. Most likely our initial ventures will be by crews that aren’t 100% protected…so they will be taking significant risks. Probably far less than our ancestors did when THEY explored new areas of the earth though…

I would assume he meant propelling the 62+ mile elevator up and down. I’d say that compared to building the tether and the stable geo-synchronous platform for the elevator, the propulsion system will not be TOO hard to do. The Space Elevator concept though isn’t ready for prime time AFAIK…we still don’t have the technology even for the cables IIRC.
I’ll second the Helium 3 as a possibility for commercial/industrial exploitation on the moon as a good first use. Its rare on earth but fairly plentiful on the moon. Eventually of course the sky is literally the limit. The earths resources are dwarfed by the resources available in the solar system…literally. And as E-Sabbath pointed out, there is no reason that resources gathered in space necessarily have to be shipped back to earth to be processed…eventually we will be able to move many of our industries into space so that perhaps only fully manufactured goods or parts need to shipped down (and of course, shipping stuff down is a lot easier than bringing it up into space), while the majority of our space based needs are made on the spot, so to speak, without having to fight our gravity well to get em up there. Everything thats needed is out there…including the MOST valuable resource of all. Water.

-XT

Not only Clarke and Heinlein, but John Campbell addressed the issue of space industries. IIRC, his essay is the last piece (and the only non-fiction piece) in the collection The Best of John Campbell.

As I’ve read from him and from other sources, some of the advantages are:

1.) A far better vacuum than we can maintain on earth

2.) Microgravity, which is useful in a number of circumstances, such as creating items with no gradients due to gravity and convection, to growing strain-free crystals, etc.

3.) Mining and manufacture for items intended to be used in orbit or elsewhere off the earth.

4.) Support for items that need to be in orbit (communications satellites, GPS, weather satellites, power satellites)

5.) Atmosphere-free astronomy (not a paying industry, admittedly, except for some photo and tourist value)

6.) Access to plenty of hard UV, cosmic rays, and the like. There are actually situations in which you want to have hard radiation bombard something.

Eventually, but in the early stages, until space colonies become more or less self-sustaining, they would have to be justified in terms of financial returns to Earthbound corporations and/or governments, which means producing things for Earth’s markets. Colonizing space will not be like colonizing the Americas was. Settlers can’t just grab a piece of land and start farming and forget the mother country exists.

But what’s it good for? (Assuming we never crack the controlled-fusion nut.)

:confused: Such as?

Yep. Sort of like the initial colonies of the Euro’s in the new world, ehe? The initial start up costs for those were pretty significant too…and the dangers were epic, both getting there and then surviving. Note the numbers who DIDN’T survive.

Eventually though such colonies could very well be self sufficient…in fact, they could be quite profitable, especially with heavy automation. After all, their pool of potential resources, once outside the Earth gravity well, is a lot more than our potential pool stuck on this ball of mud.

-XT

1.)Intentionally creating defects in crystals (this is what I used it for in grad school)

2.) Curing of polymer coatings and paints

3.) Cross-linking of polymers

4.) Surface treatments for materials (UV causes desired chemical change in outer layer)

Well, thats a pretty big assumption. Even assuming that though, its useful in research for fusion, and valuable for that alone (be a hell of a lot MORE valuable though if we figure it out).

Here are some links…sorry for the drive by links, I am between meetings:

Wired

Use for anti-corrosive and cryogenics

ABC

Wiki

-XT