Fascinating tech, but seemed to go nowhere.
There are now several 'manufacturing in space platform' companies, like Varda. It's not enough to just be a platform. There needs to be an actual killer app.
Has this sort of thing actually worked out historically? I’d expect factories to be build in space if it was economically beneficial, and I’d expect cheap space flight to be a requirement rather than an outcome. We didn’t start working inside cities to justify busses, right?
More info: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kmdbUZYWIJ5wujPDRfBvD
Concerning the business model, I can't help but think that small processes don't generate much material, resulting in a high cost. If there's a market for the result, then their business model is always at risk that some Earth-based chemist develops a cheaper method which works at 1 gravity.
That seems like an awful lot of risk.
I imagine trade was a big driver for a ton of maritime / transport technological achievements prior to space, and is a good example of "Lots of people can get rich and get things they want for cheap at the same time", which benefited from reliable transport from afar.
As for factories directly, demand of any kind spurs innovation of production, innovation spurs learning and cost reduction, reduces prices, increases demand ... so there's somewhat of a virtuous cycle there.
All I think they are saying is "let's do that for space - find me a nail for our current hammer'
If an asteroid is captured, or large scale mining of the moon takes place - it would not make sense to ship raw materials to earth vs. final products.
Which gives us a rough roadmap for where this industry would go if it goes anywhere, we’d expect that manufacturing of gravity sensitive or highly toxic products would move to space first, followed by energy or resource intensive industries.
So similarly, spaceflight needs some initial process, say mining or a zero g industrial process, that would drive the further building of infrastructure and productivity.
It is chicken and egg problem. Higher volume makes things cheaper^1 because of manufacturing scale and diluting R&D expenses. Higher volume also means more working capital and higher ROI on R&D. That R&D can make things cheaper (or same price but better features) which drives volume. Industries can start from either end of this. For example there a lot of battery chemistry and solar cell advancements are because high volume drove R&D investment. Current boom in battery manufacturing largely comes from one U.S. company and China making EVs a priority and driving volume. That volume is driving R&D which is increasing capability and driving down unit cost and factory scale up which is driving down unit cost. On the other end of the spectrum are VC backed companies burning cash to make up volume in hopes that R&D will catch up and make them profitable.
Note 1: there is a huge assumption here about input availability and pricing model. For example plastics currently enjoy being dirt cheap party because they are a byproduct of oil production. On the other hand Helium supply is limited and it's price reflects that.
Meanwhile we've been losing the ability to make all kinds of stuff to China, or severely degrade the skills and expertise of the people in places like Boeing compared to the nerds that build the original planes in the 60s and 70s...
Surrey, sure, applications and planning will set you back a decade and half a billion before you break ground.
Lam Dong on the other hand....
This has been tried for decades. It has not proved all that beneficial. Certainly not enough to be a clear economic advantage for doing more in microgravity.
