|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
In sci.space.policy jimmydevice wrote:
kevin wrote: In article , says... Concorde -never- cut it. It's a perfect example of creating a service without looking into the market for it. Concorde *did* show an operational profit for many years. People were willing to pay for speed, service, and snob-appeal. R&D expenses had to be written-off. It was expensive to design and build. That's not uncommon in systems that advance the state of the art. It took a while to learn how to operate and market Concorde effectively. Changing times ended her career. But in between, she flew profitably. Did it ever make back it's initial development investment? Was it a Rah-Rah we beat the US, screw the UK and French taxpayers? It did not end up brining back the development money, largely because the production was halted really early on. It was not designed or intended to not bring the money back - it was just not designed to bring it back over just slightly more than 60 planes. Jim Davis -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
In article , "Greg D. Moore
\(Strider\)" says... Actually I've got this idea for building an atomic powered digger and taking it to the South Pole. I think my idea would Swiftly solve the problem. Sigh... I must be getting old. I not only got the joke, but a couple of years ago, I gave the books to my then proto-literate nephew. -- Kevin Willoughby lid Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work for test pilots. -- Mike Collins |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
In sci.space.policy Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
Who picked up/covered Devolpment Cost Write Offs? IRC the British & French Gouvernments. "Botom line The Concord Service was "Government Subsidized". Ralph Nesbitt Which of the two concepts: * write-offs * subsidy is the one you don't understand? -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... In sci.space.policy Ralph Nesbitt wrote: Who picked up/covered Devolpment Cost Write Offs? IRC the British & French Gouvernments. "Botom line The Concord Service was "Government Subsidized". Ralph Nesbitt Which of the two concepts: * write-offs * subsidy is the one you don't understand? -- When a gouvernment funds devolpment costs of a project. Then "Swallows Devolpment Costs" by writeing them off, reduceing unit costs to "Private Customers" so a "Operational Profit" can be shown, constitutes a "Subsidy" IMHO. Ralph Nesbitt Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
Sander Vesik writes: In sci.space.policy jimmydevice wrote: kevin wrote: In article , says... Concorde -never- cut it. It's a perfect example of creating a service without looking into the market for it. Concorde *did* show an operational profit for many years. People were willing to pay for speed, service, and snob-appeal. R&D expenses had to be written-off. It was expensive to design and build. That's not uncommon in systems that advance the state of the art. It took a while to learn how to operate and market Concorde effectively. Changing times ended her career. But in between, she flew profitably. Did it ever make back it's initial development investment? Was it a Rah-Rah we beat the US, screw the UK and French taxpayers? It did not end up brining back the development money, largely because the production was halted really early on. It was not designed or intended to not bring the money back - it was just not designed to bring it back over just slightly more than 60 planes. Concorde was not profitable. But what we gained with Concorde, was a technical and an organizational expertize that has been put in very profitable work in AirBus. Had there been no Concorde, an European corporation like Airbus would not have been competing and beating Boeing. -- __Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
ISTR somebody mentioning a paper, about three or so years back, that
took these effects into account, and concluded that such an enterprise would still be profitable under reasonable assumption (even about the cost of getting to the asteroid etc.) Henry? Here are some cites which were posted to usenet a few years ago. These are also at http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/space/mining.html along with a few online links. * M. McKay, D. McKay, M. Duke, eds., Space Resources:Materials, NASA SP-509, v. 3, US GPO, 1992 (P. 111-120 cover asteroid mining). * J. Lewis, T. Jones, W. Farrand, "Carbonyl Extraction of Lunar and Asteroidal Metals", Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space (eds. Johnson & Wetzel), p. 111-118. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1988 * J. Lewis, M. Mathhews, M. Guerrieri, eds., Resources of Near-Earth Space, U. of Arizona Press, Tuscon, 1993. (Too many good articles in this one to list). * J. Kargel, "Metalliferous Asteroids as potential sources of precious metals", Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99, no E10, p. 21129-21141, October 25, 1994. (The first attempt I've seen at developing price elasticity curves for raw materials) * C. Meinel has a nice article from the 1985 IEEE EASCON on mass payback for various asteroidal return scenarios. * Lewis and Lewis, Space Resources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth. (Don't have a complete citation for this). |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Past Perfect, Future Misleading
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:30:35 CST, in a place far, far away, Sander
Vesik made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In sci.space.policy Ralph Nesbitt wrote: Who picked up/covered Devolpment Cost Write Offs? IRC the British & French Gouvernments. "Botom line The Concord Service was "Government Subsidized". Ralph Nesbitt Which of the two concepts: * write-offs * subsidy is the one you don't understand? When the government writes off the development costs, it constitutes a subsidy. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|