Once again a very insightful analysis, but here are the problems with it the way I see them.

Let's look at your goals (regrouped together here for ease of comment):

> ADEOS, XM<

EPG-"But unfortunately the servicing costs are higher than replacement costs"--

But once you have orbital maneuvering capability you can ask yourself the question "Am I willing to spend $60.0Mn (10%) to save a $600.0Mn investment. $660.0Mn for data versus $600.0Mn for effectively no data.

Businesses are faced with that kind of decision all the time. It's not easy, and it's not always possible, but sometimes it can be done. Insurance companies especially are interested in this sort of thing.

Once the infrastructure is in place the costs for these kinds of things goes way down because any particular one is but a marginal part of the whole.

-You've got a trans-LEO vehicle,
-you've got some techs who aren't busy at the moment assembling satellites in microgravity (much more efficient since you aren't designing for an Earth launch),
-you're headed out to GEO anyway to pick up some dead sats for forensic analysis and salvage,
-might as well grab Rock and Roll and bring them in to replace the solar panels.

Your costs? Well, the team is already up there anyway-

-inspecting freshly launched satellites to ensure that they're functioning properly (partially underwritten by insurance companies),

-assembling cheaper satellites from components launched from Earth (packed in aerogel perhaps?) and bolted to the recycled buses of salvaged satellites (paid for by the companies desiring the satellites or sending out the probes),

-performing forensic analyses on the dead sats they've retrieved from GEO (paid to do so by a company that wants to clear out its broadcast slot and not have to waste so darned much fuel in collision avoidance maneuvers or worry so much about getting smacked by junk, also by insurance companies),

-cleaning the instruments on their station (billed to the sponsors or operators of those particular instruments),

-picking up the nanogravity freeflyers coming in for rendezvous after a production run around the farside of the Moon and processing the payloads for return to Earth on the next ferry run (paid for by the companies undertaking the production under such wonderful conditions),

-rendezvousing with returning libration point sats and conducting servicing and upgrades on them before returning them to station or sending them to a new destination (paid for by the government, of course, since they're NASA and NOAA sats),

-stowing fuel stockpiles sent from the Earth or the Moon,

-doing secret hush-hush non-projects for an unidentified government office that doesn't exist in the budget,

-putting together the first solar power sat arrays (paid for by the energy companies),

-assembling the components for a real Mars mission done right,

-fixing stuff, because that's what machines keep us around for.

We do not have the capability to do anything Trans-LEO right now, so of course it's ridiculously expensive to do any of the above by themselves.

Enable the kinds of activities that I've described above, and many more that none of us can foresee, and you're spreading the costs amongst a far larger number of cash flows. The costs become marginal. You're there anyway, might as well...

Done right, infrastructure investment is an enabler for business and commerce. The investment is going to be made anyway, might as well piggyback on it. This has certainly held true for things like the Interstate Highway System. We all know what it was intended for, and the absolutely amazing level of prosperity it has enabled.

> SOHO, NGST, Genesis<

EPG-"Same thing: Replacement costs cheaper than servicing costs"-

Same answer

> duct tape!<

EPG--"The ion/plasma engines being adopted for communication satellites are extending their lifetimes to the point at which their electronics become obsolete"--

Xips is turning out to be a little more problematic than first thought, and can you ensure 100% reliability of all components? (And if you throw ISO 9001 or 6 Sigma at me I'll smack you upside the head with 'em. LOL)

> cleaning out the garbage. <

EPG--"Problem here is that that very same space junk makes this too dangerous for human crews - particularly unexpended hypergolics"--

Exactly the reason you don't want to just send a robot out there; you risk losing both your expensive robot and the useful satellite. People at least are capable of analyzing the situation and making educated guesses. It may be as simple as unbolting the hypergolic fuel tanks and ditching them before retrieving the satellite. A waste of good fuel tanks though.

>LEO and GEO are just too darn crowded<

EPG--"Not too bad a reason, but not sufficient in and of itself for the infrastructure."--

Not in and of itself, no. Just add it to the list above. And thanks, I'm kind of making these up as I go along.

> stable platform, Crater counting and dating <

EPG-"Absolutely right."--

Darn tootin'

> regolith rocket fuel, life support<

EPG--"Maybe this could be done cheap, but primary use of Moon is for man tended impactor detection. You don't NEED a fixed base for that, but if fuel cycle can be done right, then an extension is possible... Al/LOX may be a contender..."--

Right and you use the oxygen for life support so you don't have to lug it from Earth. Industry is going to need to be a big early investor. A NEO scope doesn't give them a reason to do so. Getting the good stuff out of the regolith does.

A fixed base of operations helps in the logistics so you don't have your limited crew scattered to the four corners of the Moon, complicating logistics and communications.

We will be mining the Moon for Oxygen and Hydrogen. This will be the de facto fuel for cislunar operations. I think Al/LOX is a very strong contender, but will end up as the "diesel" of cislunar space. I'd love to have a piece of that action, though.

>*Mining SPS materials from the regolith
*Mining industrial metals like titanium, aluminium, iron and so forth
*Looking for PGM asteroid remains so we don't have to tear up our own planet to get it<

EPG-"Transportation costs outweigh production efficiencies."--

Done for that alone, yes. As part of a larger economy, no. It becomes a marginal additional cost. 20x cheaper to lift from the Moon than from Earth. Besides, lifting titanium framed solar cell hexes from the Moon is going to be a lot cheaper than from the Earth. We have to think bigger-picture than just mono-mission quixotic quests. We have to start thinking about how each component feeds into the bigger picture.

>*Practicing for Mars<

EPG--"While the "Mars Enthusiasts" are fixated on Mars and buy a lot of magazines and create a lot of noise, the general public does not give a s**t about sending their money to Washington to pay for sending men to Mars"--

We're going there eventually, EPG, we might as well start getting ready for it. Small investments now can have large payoffs later. I'm hoping that the powers that be in the Mars community know this, and that they're thinking enough to adapt their strategy as the situation develops. They could end up with a Mars mission done right, with myriad capabilities, versus a hardscrabble, neglected scientific outpost.

>-So the ISS becomes more than just an isolated science outpost. <

EPG-"We can do the man tended Moon impactor detection on an international basis for a lower cost, if the architecture is modular."--

We THINK we can do it cheaper. EPG, most of the cost projections for this stuff are wonderful mental exercises but rarely do they actually reflect what comes after. That's why I've tried so hard to stick to value-added concepts, because I'm not going to make an educated but ultimately meaningless guess at specific numbers. It's a fool's errand.

> caplet. One supply assembly line with a few auxiliary feeders. One. <

EPG--"Not bad. I tend to think in terms of existing production lines and technologies. We currently are building modules for ISS, and I see those same factories being used to build the components for the man tended Moon based impactor detection facilities after ISS is finished. I don't want to see a further reduction of our capabilities in aerospace.

Our ISS partners also have their own production facilities for ISS, and you can call me cheap, but I'd like to see them returning to the Moon with us."--

No reason the caplet couldn't be a small, modified ISS module knock-off. Should be just about the right size to house a few folks for a couple of days. Just make it launchable on a Proton, D-IV, or A5 or A5 (Atlas and Ariane).

EPG--"Bottom line, we have a limited space budget, and a very pressing need. I suppose if you have enough money you can buy a Corvette instead of a Geo, but both will get you there...

You left manned travel to KY 26 or Phobos and Deimos off of your list of goals, and these probably take second priority after the Moon based impactor detection facilities... "--

Oh man, even twenty-three reasons isn't enough! Cryin' jiminy. I'd agree though that such a project would be of lower priority than NEO detection. Besides, I'm not proposing a Corvette. A pick-up, perhaps . Ooh, no, no. Bad STS flashbacks. Umm, jalopy. Kind of put together with pieces from here and there. Not necessarily pretty, but certainly useful.

EPG-"Mark is upset that your analysis agrees well with those of many other serious professionals, but the problem is money..."--

And always will be. I know, I'm a banker by trade. That's why it is imperative that businesses see a reason to go into space. Insisting solely on a Moon NEO detector is no different from insisting solely on a trip to Mars in that regard. Neither provides a really compelling case for them to put up the money. Give them capabilities and they'll realize the potential.

Here's an example:

I have a business idea. I want to make a novelty item. Sort of like those really cool ecospheres.

I want to make vacuum spheres.

The production will take place inside a Hitchhiker payload (a bigger GASCan). The exact process is secret, of course, but what will be produced are hollow glass spheres. They will contain the vacuum of space.

Upon return to Earth, they will be scanned for atomic content, and then each one will be individually numbered and sold at great price to wealthy people eager to own a piece of space. Investment bankers with fat-a$$ bonuses that shop at Hammacher-Schlemmer, that sort of folk.

It's a beautiful capitalist dream. You're selling absolutely nothing at a reasonable price.

It's feasible, but it's not possible. The line for hitchhiker payloads is at least fifty deep. Few of them are paying customers, but paying your own way does not move you ahead in the line. The costs of certifying the payload to NASA's requirements would completely destroy your margin. And it's questionable at this point whether the existing payloads will ever fly.

There's no capability, so we see only limitations.

I won't accept that.
Ken