A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 16th 06, 08:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : That is, of course, the heart of the problem. Where there is a market
: : - comsats of various kinds - there is substantial investment and
: : interest; where there isn't one, or where at the very least no one has
: : thought of one, there's no investment and no interest (in the financial
: : world).
:
: : And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private
: : space vehicles recently.
:
: With a $50K ROI?

: No.

How much then?

: When's the break-even point, Rand?

: I doubt if you even know what that phrase means.

Suppose I do, answer the question...

Funny, you seem to be fine when I use ROI (return on investment - fancy
term for 'profit') but you claim I don't know what
"break-even" means. I bet I got better grade in my finance class during
my masters program than you did in yours. Bet?

Eric
Ads
  #43  
Old May 16th 06, 08:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Derek Lyons wrote:

: And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private
: space vehicles recently.
:
: So?
:
: So, significant money disagrees with Mr. Oldover (not surprising, since
: most sensible people do).
:
:
: Significant money disagreed with those who thought the dot com era
: might become the dot bomb era. (And your reply, as quoted below,
: indicates that Mr Oldover is in fact correct, the money didn't come
: from the financial world - it came from the goverment.)

: It came from both.
:
: And I find it fascinating how you define 'sensible people' as 'people
: who agree with your world view'.

: That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that
: you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a
: non-sensible person.

You say that about a lot of people and the list appears to
be growing. Is Derek next, because he isn't another yes-man to you?

: Furthermore, much of the investment in private space is represented by
: a few individuals - not the broader financial world.
:
: Much of that money is state government money.
:
:
: Oh? What private vehicles did which states invest in?

: I misstated it. I meant private space industry more generally, not just
: vehicles. I was referring to spaceports.

You said 'state government money' to many's confusion. Please clarify your
misstatement. Was it related to tax in some form? That was my first
thought when I read it.

Eric
  #46  
Old May 16th 06, 10:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

In article .com,
Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and
fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far
more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space,
maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc.


If you assume today's costs of doing things in space, that's certainly
true.

Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will
utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be
similar is ridiculous.

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #47  
Old May 16th 06, 10:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


wrote in message
oups.com...
I'd guess the money made from the Internet enabled outsourcing of jobs to
countries outside the US is more than the money being made by
"cataloguing
and indexing services", which would include Internet sales and companies
like Google that make money from online ads. Unfortunately, it's really
hard to say how much outsourcing of jobs overseas is enabled by the
Internet. US companies tend to be tight lipped about how much money
they're
really spending on outsourcing overseas due to the public backlash over
things like call centers and customer support centers in India.


Well, call centers and customer support centers aren't internet
products, they are the product of really cheap long distance.


I personally lump applications like email, Usenet news, instant messaging,
application sharing (e.g. Microsoft NetMeeting), and other applications that
involve data being sent around the world using Internet Connections to be
using the Internet. They're not really using the World Wide Web (e.g.
Internet Explorer), but they're certainly using the Internet.

The
outsourcing of jobs has yet to be be shown to help the long-term bottom
line - a lot of companies are finding that they have to pay triple time
to US employees to re-write poorly written code, and that
communications problems cause costly snafus and customer disloyalty.


The company I work for has been at this for maybe 10 years. I really can't
comment about how many people are overseas versus in the US, but for the
company I work for, outsourcing isn't a fad, but a strategy that's working.
It certainly takes time to build up the necessary core level of experience
at an overseas site, but once that's reached, it's pretty much self
sustaining without much help (i.e. rewriting of code) from the remaining US
employees.

While outsourcing looks like it saves money in the short run, in the
long run whether it really is worth it for programming is up in the
air. However, I would argue that it's the -internet- not -the web- (I
realize I'm splitting hairs here a bit) that enables that.


The company I work for has gone well beyond the short run and yes, it really
is worth it, for the corporation that is. Those US employees that remain
nearly all have more than 10 years of experience in writing engineering
software. I've got over 15 years experience. That seems to be the only
reason to keep *us* around is our experience. Anyone with less experience
than the average overseas employee wouldn't be hired in the US in the first
place.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


  #48  
Old May 17th 06, 12:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.



And the fact that most of the world's uranium is found in politically
unpalatable countries, like Australia :-)


  #49  
Old May 17th 06, 12:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Rand Simberg wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private
space vehicles recently.

So?

So, significant money disagrees with Mr. Oldover (not surprising, since
most sensible people do).



Significant money disagreed with those who thought the dot com era
might become the dot bomb era. (And your reply, as quoted below,
indicates that Mr Oldover is in fact correct, the money didn't come
from the financial world - it came from the goverment.)


It came from both.

And I find it fascinating how you define 'sensible people' as 'people
who agree with your world view'.


That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that
you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a
non-sensible person.


I think it is, because you said so in plain black and white (at least
those are the colors on my monitor). Or, you may be playing word
games again.

Furthermore, much of the investment in private space is represented by
a few individuals - not the broader financial world.

Much of that money is state government money.


Oh? What private vehicles did which states invest in?


I misstated it. I meant private space industry more generally, not just
vehicles. I was referring to spaceports.


Spaceports aren't private space industry - they are spots where
private space industry may (someday) ply their trade. Goverments of
various levels have a long history of making such investments - but
it's very much a case of 'if you build it they *may* come'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #50  
Old May 17th 06, 01:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that
you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a
non-sensible person.


I think it is, because you said so in plain black and white (at least
those are the colors on my monitor). Or, you may be playing word
games again.


Yes, that's what Rand does - when his position starts to fail, he
switches to word games and insults rather than back up his position
with cold hard facts.

I am all for the commercialization of space, I simply feel that the
irresitable profit-aking product or service other than comsats of
various kinds has yet to be thought up. The customers are on Earth; to
make money you must provide a service or product to customers. It's as
simple and complex as that.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.