Not valid outside American's border

Scott Lowther wrote:
Christopher wrote:




Last thing the industry needs is some
Islamist loon blowing himself to hell at 350,000 feet... won't do any
damage on the ground, but it'll make a mess of the space tourism industry.



'Islamist loon's' have hardly dented the commercial airline industry.


Blow up one plane in the name of some litterbox god or other, and there
are thousands more planes already flying to take up the slack. Take out
an entire *airline* and there are others. There are hundreds of
thousands of people flying around who *need* to fly around.

Sadly true, I managed 158,000 miles last year and I'll have done over
25,000 by the end of Jan this year. Email, video conferencing and so
forth really don't cut the mustard when you are trying to close
business with multiple companies in different locations.

I've a partner who clocked up over 600,000 last year mostly shuttling
London-Seattle.

None of these is similarly true for space tourism. The number of
SpaceShip Two's that will be built will probably be countable on one
hand. One blows up on re-entry... will they ever fly again? Hard to say.

The lack of analysis on how robust the market is in the event of
vehicle failures concerns me. People still climb Everest even with
high mortality rates, however, the total market for climbing Everest is
a pretty small niche inside the niche of people who climb mountains.

It's a good thing they've got some rich fans backing it, I still think
the industry will struggle to raise private finance from non-fan
sources.

So, for an ideology intent on driving the world back to the 12th
century, the idea of stopping not only a new industry but also slamming
the brakes on western civilizations expansion into the universe has
*got* to be appealing.

If it becomes a fight to the death, I've a pretty good idea who'll win
that one and it won't be the 12th century. I don't think it will get
to that though.

Dave

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

Still, the reaction could have been worse; US airline security is nowhere
near as intrusive as, say, El Al.

Nor as effective.

I love flying. I hate the whole preboard, fit into a cattle car, etc
experience.

At least with Southwest you get what they promise.. cattle car conditions,
package of nuts and a silly sounding flight attendant. They don't promise
any more than they deliever.



--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Scott Lowther wrote:
None of these is similarly true for space tourism. The number of
SpaceShip Two's that will be built will probably be countable on one
hand. One blows up on re-entry... will they ever fly again? Hard to say.
So, for an ideology intent on driving the world back to the 12th
century, the idea of stopping not only a new industry but also slamming
the brakes on western civilizations expansion into the universe has
*got* to be appealing.

This is just stupid paranoia. And all of it would be avoided if Virgin
decided to operate from outside the USA, say British islands in the
Carribean. Of course, the export hassle would have been that much
worse.

Sander Vesik wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:


None of these is similarly true for space tourism. The number of
SpaceShip Two's that will be built will probably be countable on one
hand. One blows up on re-entry... will they ever fly again? Hard to say.
So, for an ideology intent on driving the world back to the 12th
century, the idea of stopping not only a new industry but also slamming
the brakes on western civilizations expansion into the universe has
*got* to be appealing.



This is just stupid paranoia. And all of it would be avoided if Virgin
decided to operate from outside the USA, say British islands in the
Carribean.


Yes, because Islamists *never* attack targets outside the US. Just ask
the British, the Spanish, the Russians, the Dutch, the Danes, the
Israelies, the Greeks, the Indonesians, the Australians, the French...

In any event, Virgin Galactic *does* plan to operate outside the US.





--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Incorrect. Eight US-based airlines, including majors Delta, Northwest, and
United, have declared bankruptcy since 9/11.


The problem here is systematic and has little to do with 9/11 - the
comapnies were already more than sick before then, and propping them up
hasn't and won't have any lasting positive effect. They need to go
through a similar process to the European airlines - or the process the
car industry is going through - to get better.

People may climb Everest despite the danger, but there aren't mad
sherpas regularly shooting climbers off the mountain either. People
will accept a huge degree of risk from the natural world they never
will accept from a human organization or effort. I believe Space
Tourism will be sucessful (though perhaps not as wildly successful as
some are claiming), but if we fail to enact prudent security measures,
we (in and outside the US) will regret it.

Now, people get mad about security measures, but these same people
rarely have better ideas for making flight more secure while getting
rid of the hassle. The FAA regs in question were posted on the
internet for weeks open to public comment, before being put into the
Federal Registry. If you didn't make your comments then, I'm not sure
how airing concerns now on a public message board now is going to be
effective.

People may climb Everest despite the danger, but there aren't mad
sherpas regularly shooting climbers off the mountain either. People
will accept a huge degree of risk from the natural world they never
will accept from a human organization or effort. I believe Space
Tourism will be sucessful (though perhaps not as wildly successful as
some are claiming), but if we fail to enact prudent security measures,
we (in and outside the US) will regret it.

Now, people get mad about security measures, but these same people
rarely have better ideas for making flight more secure while getting
rid of the hassle. The FAA regs in question were posted on the
internet for weeks open to public comment, before being put into the
Federal Registry. If you didn't make your comments then, I'm not sure
how airing concerns now on a public message board now is going to be
effective.

Scott Lowther wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:


None of these is similarly true for space tourism. The number of
SpaceShip Two's that will be built will probably be countable on one
hand. One blows up on re-entry... will they ever fly again? Hard to say.
So, for an ideology intent on driving the world back to the 12th
century, the idea of stopping not only a new industry but also slamming
the brakes on western civilizations expansion into the universe has
*got* to be appealing.



This is just stupid paranoia. And all of it would be avoided if Virgin
decided to operate from outside the USA, say British islands in the
Carribean.


Yes, because Islamists *never* attack targets outside the US. Just ask
the British, the Spanish, the Russians, the Dutch, the Danes, the
Israelies, the Greeks, the Indonesians, the Australians, the French...


As I said - its all stupid paranoia. While radical islamists may attack
pretty much everywhere in the world, most of bull**** resulting from it
is still confined to the inside of US. And the trend is for this to
increase, reagrdless of where the attacks happen.

In any event, Virgin Galactic *does* plan to operate outside the US.


In which case the bull**** rules don't apply to those flights anyways.
But it is still a mistake to operate from inside the US at all and thus
support the security nazis.

Dave O'Neill wrote:
The lack of analysis on how robust the market is in the event of
vehicle failures concerns me.

It's enormously hard to predict, because it's based on psychological
matters. Who would have predicted NASA would have responded to the loss
of seven lives a few years ago by shutting down their manned space
program for an indefinite period of time while still paying the full
cost each year, even though there's a way they could fly safely? Who
would have predicted there'd be a steady stream of tourists climbing
Mount Everest even though a significant fraction of them die in the
process and the rest suffer permanent brain damage? Not me, on either
count. I really have no idea how the space tourism market would react to
a vehicle failure.

If it becomes a fight to the death, I've a pretty good idea who'll win
that one and it won't be the 12th century.

I'd like to agree, but unfortunately that may not be the case:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

Personally, given that the FAA confiscation of American's 2nd amendment
rights on aircraft are THE cause of the 9/11 hijackings, I'd be happy
if the airlines gave us cattle car conditions with a choice of free
peanuts, or free frangible ammo. America is in danger because the
safety ninnies have gotten us away from the militia model of national
defense.