Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...


and do not match you claims, you are the one who comes off as having an
inflated ego.

?

Dave, cut it with the innocent act. For the last couple of days you have
been implying that because a large percentage of people don't want to go
orbital that there is no orbital market.

No, I haven't.

And don't claim that you have not,
Ed has repeatly asked you why you think there is no market and not once did
you say there was one. To claim otherwise now is to be lying.

Then could you link to the comments I've made which make you believe
this is my position?

To say there is _no_ market would be stupid, I've never said there is
no market. If you'd like to find where I've said that I'll happily
and publically say I was wrong.

I have said quite a lot that I do not believe there is a "vast" market
(as Rand Simberg described it), nor do I necessarily believe there is
a "sufficient" market (as Rand Simberg also described it) to lead to
space development supporting several 1000 living and working in space
(as, again, Mr Simberg described it) - there might well be a niche
market for a hobby not unlike sky diving or scuba diving. [Something I
do recal saying to Ed before his argumentative and plain daft style
made me give up.]

The problem is do I believe that is enough to bootstrap (which is what
is really being talked about here) the development of space? Sorry,
no I don't. I'm not even sure that it will be large enough to make a
sensible return, let alone self finance the development of more
vehicles - at least not without constant and ever increasing
injections of capital.

I might well be completely and utterly wrong on every count, in this
subject I'd be delighted to be. However, the position I'm taking is
hardly all that controversial, at least outside sci.space.policy it
isn't.

But if you guys want to sit around here patting yourselves on the back
about how great and sucessful space tourism is, then I don't want to
get in your way.

Dave