Message-ID: <8bjrj2G00WBw0A7k4E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 02:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #172

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Industry Business Plans
		    Commerical Space News (4 of 5)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 91 03:50:46 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space Industry Business Plans

In article <1647@borg.cs.unc.edu> leech@vivaldi.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>...in the interim SSI has been doing the very R&D you point out is 
> lacking from _The High Frontier_, to the limit of its funding 
> (something that can be partly addressed by sci.space readers giving 
> them money, hint hint).

I agree 100%.  SSI is a very worthwhile cause: the most efficient 
long-term space industry and settlement R&D going on right now.
They (we) still have many problems to solve before _High Frontier_ and
similar scale projects become business plans.   We should all support 
SSI in this effort, and encourage NASA to emphasize research and 
exploration in support of these efforts.  Among the areas that need
work:
	microgravity-based industry:

	* large-scale containerless processing
	* soil-moving and processing machinery 
	* space manufacturing: kilns, furnaces, lathes, drills, etc. 
	* large thin structures: mirrors, lenses, balloons, tethers, etc.
	* large-area vacuum vapor deposition
	* working with asteroidal and cometary material
	* thermal control of powerful machinery in vacuum

	miscellaneuouss:	

	* orbit and surface characterization of all solar sytem bodies
	* Long-RTLT teleoperation
	* high-bandwidth, distributed deep space communications
	* microdevices 
	* superconductivity
		
This list of technology needed or greatly beneficial to space industry
and settlement is rather eclectic, and much of it will be developed 
outside of the space program.  However, SSI is doing valuable work with 
its tiny chunk of funding on several of these technologies.  Kudos!


-- 
Nick Szabo			szabo@sequent.com
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 91 04:27:52 GMT
From: olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@decwrl.dec.com  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commerical Space News (4 of 5)


ORBITAL SCIENCES OPENS MARKETING OFFICE IN JAPAN
  Okura & Company, a leading Japanese general trading company, has 
agreed to market OSC services in Japan, OSC announced on the 29th.  
Okura will market OSC launch products and services in the Japanese 
market, including the Pegasus and Taurus launchers.  It was expected 
this announcement will be followed by a major marketing kick-off at 
the Tokyo Air show in mid-February. 
  [Commentary:  A good move by OSC.  However, the Japanese market 
is very tight, and very few launch services and contracts have been 
placed outside of the small clique of Japanese aerospace firms.  
Hopefully Okura will also provide marketing support for other East 
Asian countries like South Korea, Thailand, and China.  In the past, 
Japanese firms have used contracts with U.S. firms to accelerate 
technology transfer to Japan from the U.S., and have actively used 
this gathered knowledge to then cut the U.S. firms out of the 
Japanese Space Market.  OSC has to be wary Japanese firms will use 
contracts with OSC in a like manner.  Also, they will have stiff 
competition from Japanese firms offering small Japanese launch 
vehicles, and who have a long track record with the two major 
Japanese funding agencies (NASDA and ISAS)]. 
 
SPOT IMAGE PLANNING DIVORCE FROM FRENCH GOVERNMENT?
   A recent press report claims that Spot Image Corp, which operates 
the SPOT Earth observation satellites, is planning to sever its ties 
to the French government.  Up to now, Spot has relied upon the 
French Government to develop and launch its satellites.  However, 
Spot Image is reportedly required to turn over 18 percent of its 
revenues to the French treasury.  Under the new scheme it would have 
to give nothing, but would have to find private sources to finance 
its satellites.  This is expected to take about a decade, if its 
revenues to continue to increase at current rates. 
   [Commentary.  Spot Image is the competitor to EOSAT, the U.S. 
firm that was set up to commercialize Landsat.  While Landsat/EOSAT 
has been languishing due to lack of government support for 
developing new, more capable satellites (which has caused their 
market share to decline), the French government has fully supported 
SPOT.  Will this be another case where the U.S. pioneers the market, 
and lets a foreign competitor move into the market with subsidized 
support, and then lets the competitor take over the market?  
   Revenues in this market segment have been growing at 20-30 % per 
year.  If this level of revenue growth continues, there may be 
enough for a purely-commercial operation.  Assuming each 
Spot/Landsat satellite to cost $200 M to build and operate, with 2 
satellites in an operational constellation, an investment of about 
$400 M is needed.  At current long-term corporate interest rates of 
about 9%, a profit stream of more than $36 M is required to fund the 
investment.  At a 10% profit margin, this needs $360 M in annual 
sales.  Current world sales are about $60 M, which is much too small 
to support 1 dedicated venture, let alone two competitors.  With an 
annual growth rate of 20% however, a sustaining revenue level can be  
reached in 10 years. If Spot can sustain this growth rate, they have 
a chance to go purely commercial in a decade - if they can eliminate 
EOSAT from the running, or if government-supported competitors such 
as the recent Soviet market entry doesn't take a large chunk.  If 
the market has to support 2 firms, or if the growth rate in revenues 
isn't at least 20% per year, then the market viability of such a 
venture is questionable.]


--  
Wales Larrison
Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #172
*******************