|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 12, 5:14 am, "john hare" wrote:
"Len" wrote in message ps.com... On Mar 11, 12:39 pm, "john hare" wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On 11 Mar 2007 08:23:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Len" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I think there should be some elasticity to the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose for the water/propellant market guarantee. In the case of tourism support, I think the price that tickets are resold should be tied to the cost the government pays for the tickets. I would simply auction them on Ebay. It would be interesting to see how a billionaire (probably with some dain bramage) would do putting up say, 5 biilion for this purpose. 5,000 seats at $1M each for starters. John, perhaps $500 million for 10,000 discounted seats to be resold--or bought back by the company for $2,000,000,000 at $200,000 per seat might be more attractive. These are numbers that my company could live with. I can't remember a discussion that probably happened a few times already. With your numbers, it would seem feasible to get a firm contract from Space Adventures or Bigalow for 1,000 seats at $500,000.00 each. This would give the $500 million in guaranteed revenue at a price that fairly conventional people can believe. I was in Bigelow's office many years ago, but I was never able to talk directly to Bigelow. The answer at that time from the people I was able to talk to was that Bigelow would not invest in an unproven launch vehicle. Perhaps a contingent contract might have been possible; however, even that is now unlikely since it would no be in conflict with neutrality for Bigelow's America prize. I haven't given up on the possibilty of selling rides to others. However, without a real vehicle, I think you run into securiities laws. IMO, if you offer something that sounds too good to be true, many will avoid it because they can't find the hook. In my experience, something too good to be true usually has multiple barbed hooks. I can get twice the price for my work from school construction, which is three times the hassle. I'm well aware of this phenomena The trouble is that some missions do not make economic sense until you get really low numbers. I think the low numbers are realistic, in spite of the "too good to be true" syndrome. This sort of brings us back to square one. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I am hopeful that some potential investors will believe our vertical integration business plan that could be successful, even if only one of the main applications proves to be workable. Lately this seems to be showing promise. Len Once the vehicle was real and flying, other missions could earn the $1 billion needed to fulfill obligations for the 10,000 discounted seats. Len |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 12, 5:14 am, "john hare" wrote:
"Len" wrote in message ps.com... On Mar 11, 12:39 pm, "john hare" wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On 11 Mar 2007 08:23:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Len" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I think there should be some elasticity to the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose for the water/propellant market guarantee. In the case of tourism support, I think the price that tickets are resold should be tied to the cost the government pays for the tickets. I would simply auction them on Ebay. It would be interesting to see how a billionaire (probably with some dain bramage) would do putting up say, 5 biilion for this purpose. 5,000 seats at $1M each for starters. John, perhaps $500 million for 10,000 discounted seats to be resold--or bought back by the company for $2,000,000,000 at $200,000 per seat might be more attractive. These are numbers that my company could live with. I can't remember a discussion that probably happened a few times already. With your numbers, it would seem feasible to get a firm contract from Space Adventures or Bigalow for 1,000 seats at $500,000.00 each. This would give the $500 million in guaranteed revenue at a price that fairly conventional people can believe. I was in Bigelow's office many years ago, but I was never able to talk directly to Bigelow. The answer at that time from the people I was able to talk to was that Bigelow would not invest in an unproven launch vehicle. Perhaps a contingent contract might have been possible; however, even that is now unlikely since it would no be in conflict with neutrality for Bigelow's America prize. I haven't given up on the possibilty of selling rides to others. However, without a real vehicle, I think you run into securiities laws. IMO, if you offer something that sounds too good to be true, many will avoid it because they can't find the hook. In my experience, something too good to be true usually has multiple barbed hooks. I can get twice the price for my work from school construction, which is three times the hassle. I'm well aware of this phenomena The trouble is that some missions do not make economic sense until you get really low numbers. I think the low numbers are realistic, in spite of the "too good to be true" syndrome. This sort of brings us back to square one. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I am hopeful that some potential investors will believe our vertical integration business plan that could be successful, even if only one of the main applications proves to be workable. Lately this seems to be showing promise. Len Once the vehicle was real and flying, other missions could earn the $1 billion needed to fulfill obligations for the 10,000 discounted seats. Len |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 12, 1:38 am, "Michael Turner" wrote:
On Mar 11, 10:24 am, "Len" wrote: Raising money from the public by non-government or other than non-profit entities has generally--and unfortunately and contrary to earlier American traditions --become to be considered as either illegal, immoral or both. If the government underwrites the tickets --even without any price subsidy--then potential investors would have one less, critical reason not to consider investing in the development of a commercial space transport. Although this is government interference in the market to some extent, it also is an attempt to undo some of the harm caused by government handiwork. This takes the discussion into territory that we've mostly handwaved away -- establishing political legitimacy. Let's continue to handwave away the various (and likely) taxpayer objections (the hardest part of the problem, really), and look at legislatures and incumbent launch providers, and maybe the judiciary as well. How do you persuade *them* to follow such a radical change of course? To "undo some of the harm caused by government handiwork", you have to establish that there has been harm. To get launch industry support, you have to make a case that a new policy is remedial -- i.e., that there should be government spending (or tax relief anyway) to get the market back on a track it would have taken long ago, had it not been for the "harm". There are possible precedents for this. For example, when the Judge Green decision came down on deregulating telecom, incumbents (mainly AT&T, of course) complained that they had huge sunk costs predicated on the old order, and deserved to be compensated somehow. And they were. The government effectively admitted "harm" done to the telecom *market* by its support of regulated monopolies. But it also admitted harm that would be done to those regulated monopolies by deregulation decisions that nobody in the industry could have foreseen. I don't think making any such case will be easy. You can point to Space Adventures and the Russians, and say, "look, there are obviously some perverse barriers to commercialization in the American launch industry, if they could do commercial space travel before we could." Well, I don't know about that. If you ran the Russian program in America, paying American salaries, it might cost more like $150M to go to orbit, not $20M -- Dennis Tito wouldn't have happened. Sea Launch uses some Russian/Ukrainian components, and between launches it sends a lot of its operations staff back to Ukraine, where a very modest salary in American terms turns into a very comfortable income indeed. Can you have an effective remediation program for the American launch without also having permanent protectionism? I think there are some plausible components of a remediation argument for more rational subsidies. For example, Kennedy's decision (as documented in The Decision to Go to the Moon) to pursue Apollo as a program commitment that could be abandoned if taxpayers lost interest. The original vision of how the Moon would be done -- build a station, and use it as a base from which to build spacecraft in orbit -- might have been made more compelling than a race to the Moon -- and would have resulted in a longer term commitment, earlier. Then there's the Shuttle program, based on lies. Nixon defended the decision as a long-term cost-saver, but the argument was false. (Did he know that? What did he know and when did he know it?) One can argue that perpetuating the Cold War beyond reason (faulty intelligence used to support the arms race at various points) closed off opportunities to pursue space commercialization, perhaps *with* the Russians, and left the launch industry mired in the cost- *maximizing* economics of the military-industrial complex, as described by Seymour Melman in The Perpetual War Economy. I still think it's a tough case to make, to the launch industry, to legislators, to the judiciary. And even if you could do it, how do you sell the taxpayers on a Vision for Space Industry Remediation? You'd have to paint a very compelling picture of how much brighter the picture would be *now*, based on counterfactuals. -michael turner I generally agree with your comments-- although I think that Nixon merely repeated the lies initially made at lower levels of the Space Shuttle bureaucracy. My comments were make in the context of merely trying to describe the situation --without any real hope of correcting it in toto. Perhaps it might be posssible to chip away at some of the corners. My reference to the "harm caused by government handiwork" referred to a much broader, general domain. For example, the restriction on advertising by SEC Rule 506 for accredited investors may be somewhat overzealous and unnecessary, as some securities practicioners have stated. Many states do allow limited advertising for accredited investors; however, this does not let one of the hook for other than intrastate offerings. A simple modification of SEC Rule 506 might allow the market gurantee approach to be transferred from the government to a large number of more adventurous accredited investors that might comprise a rather small percentage of the total pool of accredited investors. Discounted tickets to an accredited investor could also have tax benefits: if everything worked out well, the accredited investor would have to pay tax only on the discounted amount of the ticket; if things didn't work out well, the accredited investor could have a write-off, if the offerering is structured the right way. Accredited investors are probably the only people who will be able to afford a trip to space on their own resources It would be nice to do something for the little guy. But this pretty much leads to a lottery. Again, we get into the illegal and immoral category --something that can only be entrusted to governments and churches. Len |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 12, 5:14 am, "john hare" wrote:
"Len" wrote in message ps.com... On Mar 11, 12:39 pm, "john hare" wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On 11 Mar 2007 08:23:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Len" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I think there should be some elasticity to the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose for the water/propellant market guarantee. In the case of tourism support, I think the price that tickets are resold should be tied to the cost the government pays for the tickets. I would simply auction them on Ebay. It would be interesting to see how a billionaire (probably with some dain bramage) would do putting up say, 5 biilion for this purpose. 5,000 seats at $1M each for starters. John, perhaps $500 million for 10,000 discounted seats to be resold--or bought back by the company for $2,000,000,000 at $200,000 per seat might be more attractive. These are numbers that my company could live with. I can't remember a discussion that probably happened a few times already. With your numbers, it would seem feasible to get a firm contract from Space Adventures or Bigalow for 1,000 seats at $500,000.00 each. This would give the $500 million in guaranteed revenue at a price that fairly conventional people can believe. I was in Bigelow's office many years ago, but I was never able to talk directly to Bigelow. The answer at that time from the people I was able to talk to was that Bigelow would not invest in an unproven launch vehicle. Perhaps a contingent contract might have been possible; however, even that is now unlikely since it would no be in conflict with neutrality for Bigelow's America prize. I haven't given up on the possibilty of selling rides to others. However, without a real vehicle, I think you run into securiities laws. IMO, if you offer something that sounds too good to be true, many will avoid it because they can't find the hook. In my experience, something too good to be true usually has multiple barbed hooks. I can get twice the price for my work from school construction, which is three times the hassle. I'm well aware of this phenomena The trouble is that some missions do not make economic sense until you get really low numbers. I think the low numbers are realistic, in spite of the "too good to be true" syndrome. This sort of brings us back to square one. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I am hopeful that some potential investors will believe our vertical integration business plan that could be successful, even if only one of the main applications proves to be workable. Lately this seems to be showing promise. Len Once the vehicle was real and flying, other missions could earn the $1 billion needed to fulfill obligations for the 10,000 discounted seats. Len |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 12, 10:32 am, "Len" wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:14 am, "john hare" wrote: "Len" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 11, 12:39 pm, "john hare" wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On 11 Mar 2007 08:23:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Len" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I think there should be some elasticity to the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose for the water/propellant market guarantee. In the case of tourism support, I think the price that tickets are resold should be tied to the cost the government pays for the tickets. I would simply auction them on Ebay. It would be interesting to see how a billionaire (probably with some dain bramage) would do putting up say, 5 biilion for this purpose. 5,000 seats at $1M each for starters. John, perhaps $500 million for 10,000 discounted seats to be resold--or bought back by the company for $2,000,000,000 at $200,000 per seat might be more attractive. These are numbers that my company could live with. I can't remember a discussion that probably happened a few times already. With your numbers, it would seem feasible to get a firm contract from Space Adventures or Bigalow for 1,000 seats at $500,000.00 each. This would give the $500 million in guaranteed revenue at a price that fairly conventional people can believe. I was in Bigelow's office many years ago, but I was never able to talk directly to Bigelow. The answer at that time from the people I was able to talk to was that Bigelow would not invest in an unproven launch vehicle. Perhaps a contingent contract might have been possible; however, even that is now unlikely since it would no be in conflict with neutrality for Bigelow's America prize. I haven't given up on the possibilty of selling rides to others. However, without a real vehicle, I think you run into securiities laws. IMO, if you offer something that sounds too good to be true, many will avoid it because they can't find the hook. In my experience, something too good to be true usually has multiple barbed hooks. I can get twice the price for my work from school construction, which is three times the hassle. I'm well aware of this phenomena The trouble is that some missions do not make economic sense until you get really low numbers. I think the low numbers are realistic, in spite of the "too good to be true" syndrome. This sort of brings us back to square one. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I am hopeful that some potential investors will believe our vertical integration business plan that could be successful, even if only one of the main applications proves to be workable. Lately this seems to be showing promise. Len Once the vehicle was real and flying, other missions could earn the $1 billion needed to fulfill obligations for the 10,000 discounted seats. Len I apologize for the multiple posts. Google kept telling me to try again later. Len |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 10, 2:24 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote: ::Fred J. McCall wrote: : "Eric Chomko" wrote: : : :On Mar 7, 9:49 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: : : (Rand Simberg) wrote: : : : : :On 6 Mar 2007 19:57:23 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Michael : : :Turner" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a : : :way as to indicate that: : : : : : :Somehow I can easily picture a little shrine in Fred's home, centered : : :around a signed first edition of The Road to Serfdom, with incense : : :continuously burning. : : : : : :I think you overestimate the coherence of Fred's thought processes. : : :Such as they are. : : : : Poor Rand. Just look at who he does and doesn't 'argue' with. He : : avoids anyone that might make him look silly while continuing to bleat : : at fools like Eric Chomko... : : : :But Fred it was YOUR shrine that was of discussion yet you chickened : ut and took a swipe at me instead. Picking on me won't solve your : roblems with others on the net, Freddy. : : Who was picking on you? : :You, as you always do. Nothing new there. Poor El Chimpko is getting paranoid in his dotage, it seems. You are clearly older and dumber than I am. : : :As per Rand, I have him right where I want him. : : Standing on your neck ****ing in your face? : :"Hell in the Pacific"? Yeah, I saw that film. Lee Marvin as I recall. I merely described what people see Rand doing to you while you claim you "have him right where [you] want him". Many have said I have gotten the better of Rand as well. So you must WANT him standing on your neck ****ing in your face, because that's what's obviously happening and you say you want it. If that's what you think he's doing then you haven't been paying attention. Rand demonstrates clearly how rude he is and his penchant for ad hominem. I just remind people of that by posting and poking fun at his ego. If he were as sharp as he thinks he is he'd have a Nobel Prize in science. Further, if he's hurting me so badly, then why am I laughing so much between posts? Nuts? Naw, you simply never developed a sense of wit nor an appreciation of one. But that does not surprize me as one can almost feel your tension and rage over cyberspace. :Rand, like you, has an overly inflated opinion of himself. Try again. Okay, you and Rand have overly inflated opinions of yourselves. Better? :Look, you and Rand agree about me. So does most of the conscious universe who reads any of the tripe you post here. Then they don't post it. The only ones that have done so are the ones that are loons or mean asses, like OM. So what? :I'm stupid. See? Even YOU agree about you. Does that make you feel better? Did you say, "oh goody", when you read that? You go ahead and keep believing I'm stupid. :You and me have the same opinion about Rand. Pompous, egotistical :jerk. Yep. So what? :Yet, Rand has you in his killfile and not me. I win by default, :Freddy. No, dear boy, because you miss the reason why that is. Rand has me in his killfile and not you because he easily makes you look like an idiot and that doesn't work so well for him when he tries it with me. Nope. He can't ignore me and get away with what he types. He MUST respond to defend his ego, as I tend to put holes in it. You can't do that the way I can, and he has found you easier to deal with by simply avoiding you. He can't simply avoid me as I'd leave messages behind that he feels the need to defend. He knows that and has ad hominem as his only defense. Freddy, you had me in your killfile once too. And now I'm out for similar reasons to why Rand does not have me killfiled. You could no longer simply avoid my posts like Rand does yours. And remember if being killfiled were some prize, then Brad Guth would be the winner. So he continues to poke you to watch you drool and gibber. Says you. Trust me, I'm laughing a lot more at Rand than any drool of jibber. If you think that's 'winning', well, I wish you the joy of it. How's this? Rand has me like I have you. hahahahahahaha As I said, you must LIKE him standing on your neck and ****ing in your face... You mean like I do to you? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On 12 Mar 2007 11:55:18 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I merely described what people see Rand doing to you while you claim you "have him right where [you] want him". Many have said I have gotten the better of Rand as well. Who? Surely you could name a few, if you really believe this fantasy. |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Mar 12, 2:20 am, "Michael Turner" wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:09 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On 11 Mar 2007 08:23:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Len" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I think there should be some elasticity to the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose for the water/propellant market guarantee. In the case of tourism support, I think the price that tickets are resold should be tied to the cost the government pays for the tickets. I would simply auction them on Ebay. Let me suggest an intermediate stage in distribution that would probably affect the economics only negligibly, while boosting the political legitimacy of the subsidy: Simply distribute the tickets by lottery, to randomly chosen citizens (and *don't* tax the recipients for their winnings, regardless of the assessed value of the tickets, unless they sell them, and maybe not even then.) People who can't, or won't, use their tickets to go to space can sell them on Ebay or transfer them however they like. I think this is the best way to address the equitability issue, which is ever-present in government spending. Everybody gets an equal *chance* to go. Even people for whom the opportunity is valueless in itself get a chance to profit from it. Wealthier people who want to be more sure of going simply pay more, if they haven't won a ticket directly. If they are very wealthy, they might buy a whole ticket. If they aren't, they might buy a better chance of going, at a lower price, by entering privately-run lotteries that award tickets to winners. -michael turner Good idea. First of all, it gets around the legal problems of a private lottery. Your plan would also seem to work with an elastic formula for the government's buying the tickets from more then one supplier with different prices to the government. Finally, a truly low-cost supplier could sell some tickets directly to wealthy people without any problem with respect to undercutting the government's resale price. It's hard to undercut free. Direct sales of tckets to wealthy people would, however, probably set the price for sale of tickets by lottery winners that choose not to go. Priority of flight might affect resale prices, with earlier flights perhaps commonding a premium. The plan should probably include some type of limited liability cap for approved vehicles that have demonstrated reasonable risk. Demonstration of reasonable risk would likely be a part of any plan for the government's buying the tickets in the first place. I suggest that the government would only promise to buy the tickets, subject to demonstrated performance. Otherwise, the government would, in effect, wind up picking winners. On the other hand, Immediate purchase of tickets would have the benefit of putting some development money in the hands of the developing company(ies)--without depending upon potential investors who might be encouraged to invest by market guarantees. This might be workable, if there is a very low threshhold for any and all startup companies to receive small amounts of ticket proceeds. This is not the way govenment seems to like to operate-- in spite of OMB A-109 directing procuring agencies to behave this way. Any initial limitation on the number of companies getting proceeds from ticket sales would likely eliminate any imaginative concepts that might actually hold the most promise for reduced transportaton costs. Much better to spread small amounts of money around, and judge the actual performance, rather than proposal promises. Additional increments might be tied to meeting specific, meaningful, performance milestones. I have to admit to being a little leery of the second approach--even with some provisions for keeping the government from picking winners (perhaps losers from the nation's point of view). Len |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA AND ZERO-G AGREE ON REGULAR SHUTTLE RUNWAY USE | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 5th 06 10:38 AM |
Regular photos, not long exposure? | JimmyK | CCD Imaging | 0 | January 24th 06 05:19 PM |
Are regular eyepiece lenses "bad?" | RichA | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 12th 04 06:10 AM |
Regular access to 3rd Party FITS Images | Dafydd | UK Astronomy | 1 | January 13th 04 10:18 PM |
Fast, reliable, cheap vs CATS | brianwh | Technology | 2 | August 10th 03 05:28 PM |