Why space colonization never happened as envisioned

I would imagine that technology will move in such a direction that
"mom and pop" cell towers will be possible in remote areas - or even
personal ones. You'd have a cell phone that connects first to the
tower on your roof, then elsewhere.

Satelites just aren't competitive in telecom, because the risk of
having a cell tower fall down as opposed to having a satelite blow up
on the way to space or malfunction when it gets there or wind up in
the wrong orbit is simply too high.






19 Sep 2003 08:51:43 -0700, (Len) wrote:

"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message ...
"Len" wrote in message
m...
"Dave" wrote in message
...

...snip...
I was a bit clumsy in my explanation, but I did
not mean to imply that remote areas could supply
an adequate market. I think that most of the
revenue would have to come from poorly served
medium-population density areas. Even in the
United States--which I do not regard as the primary
market--there are many cellular dead spots in
rather high-density areas. I think that there is
a reasonable chance that a large satellite network
can be significantly cheaper than a network of
telecom towers serving all of the medium-density
areas of the world.

I think this is an aspect of the design of the system in the US rather than
mobile phone networks in general. It amazed me when I lived in CA how
quickly the network coverage dropped from digital back to analogue to
nothing. A GSM cell can cover tens if not hundreds of Kilometres and they
are really really easy to errect in compariosn to CDMA cells.

I suspect that with the new GSM networks in the US you'll start to see more
medium density areas covered because the technology and opportunity cost are
much lower.

Hey, technology is supposed to get better--especially
with real competition. My point is that a good big-LEO
satellite system is yet to be tried. I agree that a
good GSM system is likely to be tough competition in
medium-density areas. And fiber optics probably owns
the high-density market. However, some additional clever
thinking and design on a basically good huge-LEO system
may be able to compete in medium-density market. In
remote areas and ocean areas--75 percent of the Earth's
surface--it would be no contest, although the number of
potential customers is quite low.

The big problem, I admit, is that the large
satellite network cannot be attacked one area
at a time. However, this type of investment
was made in earlier systems--and with, IMO,
very poor market justification.

Now, back to the remote areas. I think that
potential customers in remote areas--while
perhaps not adequate to justify a "huge-LEO"
system--can contribute signifcant revenue.
For one thing, there is a significant
amount of traffic transiting remote areas that
could be a very interesting market. My basic
premise is that there is more potential total
revenue from remote areas at low cost to the
ultimate consumer than there is at much higher
cost. In other words, I think that the remote
market is highly elastic. My focus on remote
areas is that potential customers in remote
areas might be willing to fund the "proof-of-
concept" phase, because of the disproportionate
potential value of such a system to remote
customers. Moreover, I think that obtaining
the "proof-of-concept" money--while relatively
modest--is the hardest part of the whole plan.

The problem is existing sat phone networks do cover the small market well.
That was the death knell along with GSM roaming for Iridium et al.

Iridium was a great technology, it worked and was effective.

I agree, Iridium is great technology; however, it
was a very poorly thought out business concept with
respect to economics and the real market. I tried
to convince the Motorola folks of this years before
Iridium was deployed; the most I was able to do was
to get a response that they hoped that I would be
operational when it came time to replace satellites.
Post-bankruptcy Iridium Satellite LLC seems to be
modestly successful--since they were able to buy
$6 billion of assets for $25 million. This allows
them to offer services at more competitive prices.

One strategy might be to address the future Iridium
market with modest prices in remote areas, but not
dirt-cheap, prices. Perhaps there would be sufficient
remote-area customers willing to pay a modest
premium for remote-area and ocean-areas to be
the primary justification for a huge-LEO system.
$1000 per year flat rate per 20k channel from 1 million
remote- and ocean-area customers should do the trick.

The same huge-LEO system would then serve medium-
density and other areas at prices competitive with
alternative services under a two-tier pricing system.

It was also a poorly run business sadly.

Poorly run: starting with the adopting a basically
unsound concept.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
I think Len's "product" is workable, if it can compete on cost and
quality with exisitng GSM and future 3G services.

Whilst competing on cost may be difficult in small markets, there are
many people like myself who are fed up with being ripped off when
roaming abroad. For a business person who travels a lot, such a
satellite phone would be an attractive proposition.

The counter argument would be that roaming costs are only such a rip
off because the telcos are in a position to screw foreign customers.
If the sat system took off, roaming charges would have to fall
dramatically.

In theory, the system Len describes would be a more attractive
proposition than paying billions for licences for 3G. The issue is
that this is a sunk cost. A telco could have said: "Instead of
spending $20 billion to buy spectrum licenses to cover Europe, we're
going to spend $5 billion to implement Len's system."

In theory, it could still happen, as aside from buying an operator
it's the only way into the 3G market in Europe.

Thanks for your input, Alex. I appreciate positive
and constructive negative input. It helps to get
my own thinking in order. In fact, thanks to your
input, Dave's input and even John O's input, I am
developing what may be a better strategy.

Perhaps yacht owners, residents of Alice Springs
and other parts of the Outback, cargo ship operators,
cruise ship operators, airline operators, etc. may
welcome a remote-area, and ocean-area telecom service
that would make each 20k, 24/7 channel available for
$1000 per year flat rate.

I might start a telecom club of such potential customers
who would like to see the type of huge-LEO system that
I have in mind become a reality. For a $100 per year
membership fee, they would get a newsletter and other
info on the progress of the system. The membership fees
would be used primarily to advance the "proof-of-concept"
phase. Subject to our being able to do all the wonderful
things we hope to do, each annual subscirption fee would
also entitle the subscriber to the privilege of buying a
$1000 contract for one year's 20k channel services for
no more than $1000. A substantial number of subscriptions
--plus a successful "proof-of-concept" phase should be
quite useful for obtaining funding for the operational
system.

Customers would be able to contact any other customer
within the system anywhere in the world within +- 65
degrees latitude--subject to any fees levied outside
of ocean areas by government, etc. Access to
other telecom systems could involve additional charges.

I do have a more detailed idea of how I would go about
the technical challenges; but I choose not to disclose
more at this time.

So thanks for the input: ganz kewl, dudes.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

John Ordover wrote in message . ..
I would imagine that technology will move in such a direction that
"mom and pop" cell towers will be possible in remote areas - or even
personal ones. You'd have a cell phone that connects first to the
tower on your roof, then elsewhere.

Satelites just aren't competitive in telecom, because the risk of
having a cell tower fall down as opposed to having a satelite blow up
on the way to space or malfunction when it gets there or wind up in
the wrong orbit is simply too high.

A space transport is going to have a much higher
reliability than what you are indicating--or it
does not deserve to be called a space transport.

Let's say that you would like to get complete
coverage of 150 million square miles of ocean
area. Which do you think would be cheaper?
75,000 Texas Tower cellular towers or 4000 mass-
produced satellites launched from a space transport
into 700-km low-Earth orbits? Which do you think
is more likely to topple over in hurricanes and
typhoons?

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

I have some ideas that I'd like to propose, but your e-mail bounces back.

(Len) wrote in message . com...
(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
I think Len's "product" is workable, if it can compete on cost and
quality with exisitng GSM and future 3G services.

Whilst competing on cost may be difficult in small markets, there are
many people like myself who are fed up with being ripped off when
roaming abroad. For a business person who travels a lot, such a
satellite phone would be an attractive proposition.

The counter argument would be that roaming costs are only such a rip
off because the telcos are in a position to screw foreign customers.
If the sat system took off, roaming charges would have to fall
dramatically.

In theory, the system Len describes would be a more attractive
proposition than paying billions for licences for 3G. The issue is
that this is a sunk cost. A telco could have said: "Instead of
spending $20 billion to buy spectrum licenses to cover Europe, we're
going to spend $5 billion to implement Len's system."

In theory, it could still happen, as aside from buying an operator
it's the only way into the 3G market in Europe.

Thanks for your input, Alex. I appreciate positive
and constructive negative input. It helps to get
my own thinking in order. In fact, thanks to your
input, Dave's input and even John O's input, I am
developing what may be a better strategy.

Perhaps yacht owners, residents of Alice Springs
and other parts of the Outback, cargo ship operators,
cruise ship operators, airline operators, etc. may
welcome a remote-area, and ocean-area telecom service
that would make each 20k, 24/7 channel available for
$1000 per year flat rate.

I might start a telecom club of such potential customers
who would like to see the type of huge-LEO system that
I have in mind become a reality. For a $100 per year
membership fee, they would get a newsletter and other
info on the progress of the system. The membership fees
would be used primarily to advance the "proof-of-concept"
phase. Subject to our being able to do all the wonderful
things we hope to do, each annual subscirption fee would
also entitle the subscriber to the privilege of buying a
$1000 contract for one year's 20k channel services for
no more than $1000. A substantial number of subscriptions
--plus a successful "proof-of-concept" phase should be
quite useful for obtaining funding for the operational
system.

Customers would be able to contact any other customer
within the system anywhere in the world within +- 65
degrees latitude--subject to any fees levied outside
of ocean areas by government, etc. Access to
other telecom systems could involve additional charges.

I do have a more detailed idea of how I would go about
the technical challenges; but I choose not to disclose
more at this time.

So thanks for the input: ganz kewl, dudes.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
I have some ideas that I'd like to propose, but your e-mail bounces back.

My mail box has been filling up with the fake
"Microsoft Security Patch" crap. I've been
diligent in cleaning it out; however, the
volume is such that several new ones show up
while I'm deleting old ones.

I hope that I haven't lost other legitimate
messages.

Sorry. Try again.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

Jdavis wrote in message ...
Len wrote:
John Ordover wrote in message . ..

Inadvertently, you have made the point of this whole
thread. The problem is economics--perceived economics.
Your premise is that it is too expensive. Get the
government out of the way, and entreprenuers can do
enough to make it self-sustaining for an investment
of $1 billion, perhaps far less.
snip
The proof-of-concept phase might only involve a few satellites.
The operational phase, however, might involve thousands of
small satellites that would be fabricated and launched for
$1 million or less per satellite. World-wide service, including
ocean areas, mountain areas, remote areas would cost less than
current cellular service. Initial pre-bankruptcy big-LEO systems
had impossible economics. We would be shooting for $7 per week--
rather than $7 per minute. That could have some impact on the
potential market. $7 per minute in remote areas is a specialty
market, not a mass market. Customers capable of paying $7 per
minute do not generally hang out in remote areas; rather they
hang out in high-density areas where they can get good telecom
services at a much lower price. There is a great need for good
telecom services in remote areas--but those services have to be
available at a price comparable to, or less than, normal
telephone services.
snip
Some simple calculations show that you will have to sign up
over 250K users for your space phone. That covers only the
satellite hardware. No launch costs or ground support. This
number is for an assumed 10 year lifetime of the satellites,
Without profit, for a $7/week phone. I don't think
it will work. Not when cell is everywhere you want to be.
Also, bandwidth/available channel problems will kill you.
And don't start with "beyond spread spectrum", Power levels
would have to be too low.
Jim.

Jim, you're right that it is hard to make the
numbers work for remote areas only. See my
other posts that have evolved from inputs like
yours. My earlier strategy was to rely on remote
areas for supporting the modest "proof-of-concept"
investment, and medium-density areas for supporting
the large operational investment. I now think that
charging $1000 per year per subscriber per 20k
channel would make more sense--while still being
very attractive to people in, or transiting,
remote areas and ocean areas. It would work as
well in other areas; however, other areas might
involve other charges from other companies or
taxes by governments.

With respect to power, cell sizes become very
small for a satellite with a phased array looking
essentially straight down from no more than 800 km
altitude in L-band, or a higher frequency band.
Other things being equal, this can give signal
strengths that are 32 db better than Iridium--
enough to work well inside of buildings. Reception
angle should be generally better than ground
cellular systems. Frequency reuse can be 225
times better. The potential number of available
channels is potentally enormous--especially with
a future-service tie-in with someone like Iridium
Satellite LLC that owns 5 Mhz of L-band frequencies
and already has existing marketin arrangements in
most countries. Note that we envisage an
Iridium-type system that is self-sufficient in
remote and ocean areas.

I am quite aware that large numbers of subscribers
are necessary. Actually, we would need more like
a million subscribers that the 250,000 you mention.
This is a formidable barrier. However, I think
that the economics are sufficiently elastic.

Subscriber costs--and consumer-equipment investment
costs--were very high for all of the original big-LEO
systems. These costs do not yield good data points
--other than proving that the system is not
economically feasible, unless the economics are
sufficiently elastic.

Note also that--if by some magic--we could obtain
1,000,000 pre-subscriptions at $100 a pop from
people and companies that would like to see this
type of system happen, then we would have our
"proof-of-concept" funding. 100,000 pre-subscriptions
at $1000 per pop per channel would also give us
the "proof-of-concept" funding.

I suspect that the large subscriber base that
we need would have to come primarily from
world-wide cellular phone users who have fairly
frequent occasion to transit ocean areas and
remote ares. As for people who actually live in
such areas, they are admittedly quite scarce.
However, penetration levels of this potential
market should be relatively high.

If appropriate, we could consider a two-tier
pricing level--with prices within medium-density
areas being competitive with alternate services.
This would be equivalent to an evening restaurant
opening up for the lunch and breakfast crowd.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )