posted 06-26-99 09:28 AM ET        

NB: The Mars Society is an organisation whose aims are getting humans to Mars - this essay is probably going to be submitted as a paper to the next annual conference.

================

SELLING SPACE

The typical view of cheap commercial access to space is that it will not occur until two main prerequisites are met. Firstly, the technology for reaching space must be affordable. Secondly, there must be some kind of economic justification for going into space in the first place.

The problem grows worse. The technology for reaching space being developed by NASA is taking a notoriously long time and incredible amounts of money. Clearly, governments cannot be relied upon to develop spacecraft that will allow private organisations to go into space cheaply.

Private development of spacecraft necessarily requires a large amount of investment. These investors will be looking for some solid evidence that they will be getting their money back soon � so there must be some sort of economic justification for going into space � signs that people will actually buy these spacecraft. Perhaps this economic justification is in the form of space tourism and orbiting hotels, only the companies interested in developing these (the least not being Hilton) are still waiting for cheap access to space.

So we think �Ah, that�s a classic chicken and egg problem. Those developing a cheap way into space require investment from people planning to utilise space commercially, but those very same people are unwilling to invest in space hotels and the like until at least the rudiments of an infrastructure are in place,� all the while patting ourselves on the back for how clever we are to see that cheap commercial access to space will never happen (at least, not for another few decades, until they develop some sort of nuclear spacecraft, and the whole industry will take off, etc, etc�)

Even when, however infrequently, the two prerequisites meet, the partnership is extremely precarious. Recently, Richard Branson was reported to have grand plans for �Virgin Galactic Airways,� and was seriously considering investing in the Rotary Rocket Company. Whether this will ever occur now due to Dan Goldin�s impassioned outburst on the amateur spacecraft developers is doubtful. Politics? No, the problem is confidence, and perspective.

<The thin end of the wedge>

The need for the PC twenty years ago is nothing like what it is now. Its main (and only) uses, at first, were accounting and word processing. Today, we use it for world-wide communication, shopping, research, business and entertainment. The list is endless. Very few people predicted this would occur, and it is unlikely that the first developers of the PC did either.

What those developers did was fulfil the small, yet present, need for an advanced accounting and word processing device. From that, as the technology advanced, it became possible for us to have new needs. We required faster processors for more sophisticated programs, higher quality screens to display graphs and tables. In return, the developers created more user-friendly software, and cheaper hardware; in a stroke, the market was opened for a magnitude of times greater number of users. These users then began asking for entertainment on their computers, and music, and modems and more. Their needs were met, and still they asked for better entertainment, better music, better methods of communications.

This is an example of the close synergy between need and technology. New technology creates new demands, which in turn creates new technology. Unforeseen pathways open, creating ever more demands. The demand for entertainment on computers simply did not exist when computers were first developed as they do now. This does not mean that the demand materialised from nowhere, it means that it was a by-product of enabling technologies which allowed people to think �Well, since we�ve got such fast computers will great graphics, maybe we should make a graphic adventure.�

Take the situation with 3D graphics card accelerators today. Probably not more than five years ago, most computer users did not have a need for graphics accelerators, and most did not envisage them being developed. However, as the complexity of 3D games increased, developers created the first widespread 3D graphics card accelerator, the 3DFX. Suddenly, users could play games much faster and in greater detail than before. Games developers noticed these cards, and consequently increased the graphics complexity in their games yet again � creating a demand for even faster, cheaper graphics cards. Other graphics cards appeared on the scene, for example, Videologic�s PowerVR and the Nvidia Riva TNT. In less than half a decade, a multimillion dollar, highly profitable world-wide market had materialised, as if from �nowhere�.

How did this happen? As you may have guessed from the title of this section, it�s to do with the thin end of the wedge. The first PC and 3D graphics card accelerator developers perceived a need. It may have been a small need, and they may or may not have envisaged the potential of their products. But they took a relatively small gamble, and it paid off incredibly well.

The idea that research in space technologies is stood completely still and will not move until there is a pressing need is not true. What is true is that space related technologies are slowly, yet surely, being researched and developed due to small amounts of government investment. Then again, just because people want to build orbiting solar power stations does not mean that someone will magically create the whole infrastructure to do so; the money has to come from somewhere, and so does the infrastructure. Waiting for the government to develop the relevant technology will get us nowhere. Need-fulfilment does not work that easily.

Luckily, it is not that hard, either. Let�s have another look at the PC analogy. While I wrote earlier that �very few� people predicted that we would use the PC for, well, everything, there were some who did predict that. With hindsight, we can see that in the 1970�s, it would have been impossible for someone to go and try and make a virtual reality system, or just a 3D racing game. Certainly it was possible, but it was not economically viable. By starting off �simple� with �simple� computers, they managed to move, step by step, towards these more abstract yet profitable ventures as the technology became available. This is not to say that a conscious decision was made to start off simple, but it admittedly did pay off.

In the same way, elements of the technology required to construct orbiting solar power stations are available now. Still, it is not economically viable for the time being. First, we must identify a commercial venture that is related, however vaguely, to orbiting solar power stations, and also is economically viable. Take space tourism as an example. Space tourism is nearly economically viable � it might be seen as being �frivolous� and �limited in scope� but there are plenty of people willing to pay frankly extortionate amounts to travel in space for less than an hour. They have a need that can be fulfilled. Even so, not all the technology is in place for space tourism. We need to have relatively cheap access to space � this does not mean nuclear powered delta-winged rockets, or spacecraft flying upwards on lasers. It means that we need to develop a spacecraft that will be just cheap enough to allow space tourism to be economically viable.

That�s not such as large jump, and it is achievable. As we can see, some people agree, including the ever-reliable entrepreneur, Richard Branson of Virgin. Once he (or someone similar) drives the thin end of the wedge in, he will try to reinvest the profits made into decreasing charges for space tourism. This will include creating cheaper spacecraft. Cheaper spacecraft may then allow people to construct space hotels that could just make a profit. And so it goes on.

One of the main follies of dealing with the commercial utilisation of space is the desire to oversimplify the situation. People will say, as mentioned earlier, �We can�t get into space until we have spacecraft that are cheap. But they�ll never get done because they won�t get any investment, because there�s not commercial justification for going into space, and there�ll never be commercial justification until we can get into space cheaply.�

Wrong. You cannot take huge jumps of logic in saying that �X needs Y, and Y needs X�, after all, this does not happen in the real world. In the real world, things happen step by step, and on the margin. Space tourism, or orbiting hotels, or orbiting solar power stations, do not have to very profitable for investors to commit themselves. In fact, they do not need to be profitable at all. They simply have to be viable (there is a difference). Once the thin end of the wedge is in place, the space industry will take on a momentum of its own.

<Are we nearly there yet?>

So, what can the Mars Society do? And how does any of this help us get to Mars? The second question is probably the harder. At the moment, there are no private organisations which are seriously considering a mission to Mars, let alone setting up some sort of colony. For that matter, there are no governments willing to put up the money, either.

Yes, we can go to Mars today � yes, we can develop MarsHabs (and TransHabs), and ISRU facilities, and rovers, and portable nuclear power stations. But all of this costs money, and you get what you pay for. Developing a humans to Mars mission would require a huge amount of money, and at least some new technology. As said before, this money has to come from somewhere. If cheap commercial access to space takes off, this money and new technology will come from other directions than governments � it will come from companies building new spacecraft, or orbiting space hotels. We do not need to pour billions into a humans to Mars mission when the money and technology will come soon enough of its own accord.

Of course, there is the infuriating question asked by all of those in the Mars Society. Why wait? We can go today, we just have to get the money. Ah, and there we have the problem. We cannot assume that this money will come from NASA, or from ESA (and of the Russians, we�ll say nothing). It might appear someday in the far, far future, but not any time soon. In any case, NASA will not be responsible for the colonisation of Mars; private organisations will. So, where will these private organisations procure investment from to go to Mars?

For one thing, they will not need to, at least, not as much as we would do now. If, and when, cheap commercial access to space becomes a reality, the entire industry will suddenly accelerate at breakneck speed, as the PC industry did. Spacecraft companies will be continually undercutting each other, allowing more tourists and companies up into space, who then provide the money for ever more improved spacecraft. Along the way, relevant technologies will be developed for use in a humans to Mars mission, and perhaps more importantly, people will have confidence in space. They will believe that space travel is possible, and believe it or not, profitable.

And so, they will be more confident in putting their money into a humans to Mars mission, or colony. By then, it will not cost as much as it does now, and there may even be a need for such a colony. Space tourism would have taken off in a big way, and other Earth-orbit industries would be burgeoning. Investors will be looking for the �next big thing�, and that will be humans to Mars � if anything, the Mars Society will see to that.

posted 06-28-99 03:54 PM ET            

I know, the PC analogy goes on for a bit. The section on 3D graphics cards isn't strictly necessary, but I wanted to give the reader something that's just happened recently and they might be identify with it. If enough people like it, I might put up something else I wrote which was the product of numerous tiring 'Arts vs. Science' debates I have with a friend - it's called 'The March of Science, a blessing or curse, and (my pet topic for the month) Artificial Telepathy'.