Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Space: A sudden light

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: Space: A sudden light

#11

Post by nickff »

chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

There is only one business plan for the 'air industry', "transportation", which was totally unforeseen in 1905, yet it seems to be quite large.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#12

Post by mikeash »

chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

Tourism hasn't really paid off. Imagery seems to be doing OK, but is a fairly small business. Science isn't doing much for business at the moment, and asteroid mining is still theoretical, so I generally agree on those.

But communications? There are how many hundreds of commercially operated communications satellites in orbit right now? From a quick perusal of SpaceX's launch history, communications makes up nearly half of their business so far. Seems like pretty good business to me.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#13

Post by chris_va »

nickff wrote: post #11
chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

There is only one business plan for the 'air industry', "transportation", which was totally unforeseen in 1905, yet it seems to be quite large.

Don't get me wrong, it will get there eventually, but the current market economics aren't exactly primed for explosive growth.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#14

Post by nickff »

api wrote: post #4

This is notable because The Economist penned this a few years ago: http://www.economist.com/node/18897425 Of course economists are on par with Ouija board users at predicting the future.

Most people (especially pundits) are terrible at predicting the future. If you want to get better, you should read "Superforecasting" by Tetlock.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_Political_Judgment:_How...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting

Re: Space: A sudden light

#15

Post by chris_va »

mikeash wrote: post #12
chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

Tourism hasn't really paid off. Imagery seems to be doing OK, but is a fairly small business. Science isn't doing much for business at the moment, and asteroid mining is still theoretical, so I generally agree on those. But communications? There are how many hundreds of commercially operated communications satellites in orbit right now? From a quick perusal of SpaceX's launch history, communications makes up nearly h…

The problem with communication satellites is that the technology isn't as good (throughput, latency, cost) as a ground based system, except for handling coverage gaps.

Coverage gaps on the ground are slowly going away, so eventually this business will likely decline.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#16

Post by mikeash »

chris_va wrote: post #15
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tourism hasn't really paid off. Imagery seems to be doing OK, but is a fairly small business. Science isn't doing much for business at the moment, and asteroid mining is still theoretical, so I generally agree on those. But communications? There are how many hundreds of commercially operated communications satellites in orbit right now? From a quick perusal of SpaceX's launch history, communications makes up nearly h…

The problem with communication satellites is that the technology isn't as good (throughput, latency, cost) as a ground based system, except for handling coverage gaps. Coverage gaps on the ground are slowly going away, so eventually this business will likely decline.

Now you're changing from "so far" to attempting to predict the future, which is rather different.

As far as the future goes, throughput and latency both improve dramatically with low-orbit systems. Cost is high (see the massive failure of Iridium to see how that can go) but is coming down pretty rapidly right now.

And given how many satellite dishes I see on buildings in cities, it seems that there are use cases beyond handling coverage gaps.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#17

Post by pjungwir »

chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

I keep daydreaming about what a killer business might be. A few other ideas that probably won't pan out but are interesting to think about:

- Since nuclear reactors are dangerous, what if we build them on the moon instead? Is there any way to generate energy there and get it back to earth?

- In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress the moon-dwellers fight earth by hurling rocks (maybe just threatening?), which strike with more force than nuclear weapons. What if you could use the gravity gradient to generate electricity instead? Instead of windmills we could drop rocks. :-) Of course if this actually worked we would solve global warming just in time to discover global massing.

- Or if we had a way to transfer energy, we could just put big solar arrays up there.

- I keep hoping that something will turn out to work much better in zero-gravity, like manufacturing or farming or energy production or some medical procedure.

- Since superconductors require low temperature, what if we put them in space? What if our biggest supercomputers were in orbit? What else might superconductors be good for? What if quantum computers are easier to build in vacuum?

As soon as something gets a toehold, then there will be economic incentive for mining, so that you don't have to launch all the stuff the other industries need.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#18

Post by chris_va »

mikeash wrote: post #16
chris_va wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with communication satellites is that the technology isn't as good (throughput, latency, cost) as a ground based system, except for handling coverage gaps. Coverage gaps on the ground are slowly going away, so eventually this business will likely decline.

Now you're changing from "so far" to attempting to predict the future, which is rather different. As far as the future goes, throughput and latency both improve dramatically with low-orbit systems. Cost is high (see the massive failure of Iridium to see how that can go) but is coming down pretty rapidly right now. And given how many satellite dishes I see on buildings in cities, it seems that there are use cases beyo…

Mostly fair, but...

Latency to space is always going to be slower, as you are going to add a few hundred miles, and power requirements for high-bandwidth applications require large solar panels which are incompatible with low-altitude sats (too much drag). Then there is also a problem with non-geo sync orbits and directional antenna tracking. This is actually a huge problem. Current small sats point directly at their ground stations as they go over, which means they are only talking to one receiver at a time. There are some meta-material antennas that I have seen that might solve some of these problems, but not fully.

Any satellite dishes you see on buildings, right now, are pointed at a geo-sync satellite instead of LEO. Half of those are now pointed at a ground-based microwave receiver instead, and the current trend is away from satellite.

Anyway, time will tell, I guess.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#19

Post by ChuckMcM »

chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

I would agree this is generally true. There isn't anything that is easier to do in "space" than it is on the planet. But I think that might not be as true for other planets.

You could, for example, put radioactive waste in an open pit on the moon. Nobody is going to "accidentally walk by it unprotected" as the radiation levels on the surface of the moon are "naturally" higher than anything we've got in our waste pile due to a lack of atmosphere between the Sun and the Moon.

Now the first thought would be "Gee Chuck, sending a Kg to the moon is pretty freakin' expensive." But if you pause and consider the money already spent on Yucca mountain and other projects, and the fact that it still isn't operational, and the on-site nuclear waste storage issue continues to make nuclear plants riskier rather than safer, then is is too freakin' expensive? Remember you don't have to "land it gently on the moon" you could literally drop it from orbit if the impact plume was pointed away from the earth.

Solves a real problem perhaps? Perhaps not. Hard to say definitively.

Re: Space: A sudden light

#20

Post by nkrisc »

pjungwir wrote: post #17
chris_va wrote: post #9

The real problem with the space economy is that there are really very few business plans: - Space Tourism - Imagery Acquisition - Communications - Science - Astroid Mining (pending) ... And it turns out that none so far have been good businesses, and the small sat form factor is really limited. I really really love space stuff, but I don't see any of these creating explosive growth in the short term. Eventually the c…

I keep daydreaming about what a killer business might be. A few other ideas that probably won't pan out but are interesting to think about: - Since nuclear reactors are dangerous, what if we build them on the moon instead? Is there any way to generate energy there and get it back to earth? - In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress the moon-dwellers fight earth by hurling rocks (maybe just threatening?), which strike with mor…

> Since nuclear reactors are dangerous, what if we build them on the moon instead? Is there any way to generate energy there and get it back to earth?

Yes, but it has its own drawbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(short_story)

Post reply on HN