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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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