

Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of the Space Industry - novalis78
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29AS.1943-5525.0000236

======
king_magic
Uh, is there a version that isn't behind a paywall?

~~~
grinich
Here's the pre-print version: [http://www.philipmetzger.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09...](http://www.philipmetzger.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/Preprint_Affordable-bootstrapping-of-space-industry-
and-solar-system-civilization.pdf)

The final published version is behind paywall/subscription.

Lots of other cool papers from the Space 2000 conference
:[http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplayrbn.cgi?RBN9780784404799](http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplayrbn.cgi?RBN9780784404799)

------
biomimic
Along with rovers that build bricks.

------
FiatLuxDave
Thank you to grinich for posting a readable link.

I have great hopes for In-Situ Resource Utilization and building industrial
capability in space, because I think that it has two-fold answers for the
primary problem faced by the space industry right now: doing something about
the money problem. In short, nobody in government is interested in spending
Apollo-scale dollars on space anytime in the near future. Sure, they might
like to have people _think_ that a big plan for Mars is in the offing, but
when it comes to actually spending the money, it's just not happening.

ISRU answers this on two fronts. First, it allows you to do a lot more with
less, by spending less on putting expensive mass into space. Second, when
taken to its conclusion, it provides for the real missing link: a return on
investment from space which is not just information. Informational returns
from space can be easily met through smaller, cheaper, better probes and
satellites, and thus don't need an industry in space. They also don't require
us to have a growing space industry here on Earth either.

The debate about humans vs robots in space is driven just as much by concerns
about a shrinking/stagnating industry as it is by dreams of a Jetsons future.
Industrial returns from space could provide a growing demand, which
informational returns do not currently provide. Note when I say 'industrial
returns' that does not mean shipping chairs and tables made of moon dust to
Earth; rather I'm thinking in the sense that if I spent to build a factory in
Bulgaria, the return to me is that now I own a factory in Bulgaria and can
benefit from being able to own a portion of the production in Bulgaria- I
don't expect the return to me to be the actual factory output shipped back to
my door. Without some kind of demand (in the economic sense) from space, you
can't even pay the teleoperators back here on Earth, even if you already had a
telefactory built up there right now.

Two weeks ago, I happen to have toured the Swampworks (modeled on the famous
Lockheed Skunk Works) at KSC where the dirt work happens. It's a cool place
with cool and quirky people. I also have a few grad school connections with
people responsible for this work. The robots they have are very cool. They are
doing Good Work.

However, I know that it is NASA's pattern to make really cool plans (up to the
point of demo hardware) which then get shot down for budget reasons before it
comes time to launch them. I'd hate to see this happen to them. It doesn't
always happen. But it happens often enough that startups can look like less of
a risk than depending upon Congress. I'd love to see them do two things: 1)
drop that seed factory to a sub-$100 million cost so that it could be done as
a risky private venture instead of a risky government venture and 2)do an on-
Earth seed factory construction project to demo the process. I realize that
would be a more expensive project than the work they are doing now, but I
think that it would go a lot farther.

