Let us stop picking on Nasa!

"John Ordover" wrote:
Do you see a private company in the US selling vomet comet rides, on a
plane they bought for that purpose? No? Under your way of thinking,
they'd be leaving from every airport, and every airport would have jet
fighter flights.

Actually, there is one. It's called Zero-G, and they're going to be
starting this summer. Instead of buying an airplane, they've come up
with a very creative business model that allows them to use overnight
cargo aircraft during the daytime. They'll be selling tickets at
IIRC $4000 per pop.

Now, how do you prefer your crow?

~Jon

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:21:24 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christopher M. Jones" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Why would they? Space Adventures is an American company, they
sell flights in Russia 'cause it's cheaper and easier there.

Which is a perfect example of how it's not a problem of "technology."
Particularly "magic technology."

--
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:

"Jonathan Goff" wrote:
"John Ordover" wrote:
Do you see a private company in the US selling vomet comet rides, on a
plane they bought for that purpose? No? Under your way of thinking,
they'd be leaving from every airport, and every airport would have jet
fighter flights.

Actually, there is one. It's called Zero-G, and they're going to be
starting this summer. Instead of buying an airplane, they've come up
with a very creative business model that allows them to use overnight
cargo aircraft during the daytime. They'll be selling tickets at
IIRC $4000 per pop.

Hah, I had thought it would have been difficult to match
the Ruskies on cost, but I guess someone found a way.


Now, how do you prefer your crow?

I think he's allergic to crow. Which explains the mountains
of uneaten filet-o-crow meals rotting in his kitchen.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"John Ordover" wrote in message
om...
I am assuming that some people's plans will fail, not all of them.

Mike Walsh

They will all fail. Much like the web boom was, they are driven by a
dream, not customer demand.

Exactly, I mean after all not a single dotcom succeeded.


Sarcasm or redefinition of dotcom ?

You really need to ask?




--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Also, your "war chest" argument is utter bunk. The dot-coms
which had sounds business models and which were profitable or
had robust plans for achieving profitability did so and are
still around. Amazon.com is still in debt and only achieved
profitability well after the dot-com boom died. They never
"built up a war chest" from the dot-com boom per se, they
simply planned and timed their expansion financed from their
investment capital in the same fashion as any other startup
company in any other industry. And eBay has been profitable
since forever practically, and they still are. I could name
dozens of much smaller internet based businesses which began
and remain profitable to this day.

When Amazon IPO'd, they got more capitalization than, picking
randomly, GE or GM. They took that money and managed it very
carefully, and are still running on it. If you check the billions
they brought into their coffers against what could have been made on
that money in T-bills, you'll see exactly how poorly they did and are
still doing.

Jonathan Goff wrote in message ...
"John Ordover" wrote:
Do you see a private company in the US selling vomet comet rides, on a
plane they bought for that purpose? No? Under your way of thinking,
they'd be leaving from every airport, and every airport would have jet
fighter flights.

Actually, there is one. It's called Zero-G, and they're going to be
starting this summer. Instead of buying an airplane, they've come up
with a very creative business model that allows them to use overnight
cargo aircraft during the daytime. They'll be selling tickets at
IIRC $4000 per pop.

Now, how do you prefer your crow?

~Jon

Let's see if they stay in business, then talk about crow.

"John Ordover" wrote:
Jonathan Goff wrote in message
...
"John Ordover" wrote:
Do you see a private company in the US selling vomet comet rides, on a
plane they bought for that purpose? No? Under your way of thinking,
they'd be leaving from every airport, and every airport would have jet
fighter flights.

Actually, there is one. It's called Zero-G, and they're going to be
starting this summer. Instead of buying an airplane, they've come up
with a very creative business model that allows them to use overnight
cargo aircraft during the daytime. They'll be selling tickets at
IIRC $4000 per pop.

Now, how do you prefer your crow?

~Jon

I have been unable to find any information on the company you mention
on the web. Do you have a link?

Since the web failed in your universe, they don't have a
website.


For everyone else in our universe, their website is:
http://www.zerogcorp.com/

"John Ordover" wrote:
When Amazon IPO'd, they got more capitalization than, picking
randomly, GE or GM. They took that money and managed it very
carefully, and are still running on it. If you check the billions
they brought into their coffers against what could have been made on
that money in T-bills, you'll see exactly how poorly they did and are
still doing.

Here's where your ignorance shows through greatly. Amazon's
IPO, like many other dot-coms', "boomed", meaning that the
stock price rose dramatically immediately after the IPO. As
impressive as this seems, it makes the company no extra money
and its occurance is, in fact, a great disservice to the
company. Because, the funding the company gets from the IPO
comes from the stock price they offer, not what the stock
price eventually ends up at (though they do get some
advantages to a high stock price eventually). Any company's
"market capitalization" is in no way related to the company's
value or resources. "Market capitalization" is not a real
resource that a company can just use as if it were cash, it's
not even "real" money for all the stock holders, and not all
the stock, obviously, is held by the company. It's rather
easy to determine how much money Amazon.com raised with it's
IPO, the figure is a mere $54 million, which is a fraction of
the money they have raised from other sources of investment.
And, as I said, even though Amazon's market capitalization has
been in the range of tens of billions of dollars, that "money"
is not Amazon's money.

Note that GE's market cap. is currently around $300
billion, Amazon.com's market cap. was never near that level
(I believe the record high for Amazon's market cap. was
about 20% of that). GM's market cap. is only $20 bil. so
there the comparison may be more apt, though GM has had
quite a lot more cash available than Amazon has so there
the argument breaks down considerably. Specifically, GM's
*income* has been near Amazon's entire market
capitalization for the entire history of the Amazon.com
company.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Here's where your ignorance shows through greatly. Amazon's
IPO, like many other dot-coms', "boomed", meaning that the
stock price rose dramatically immediately after the IPO.

P.S. Excuse me, I meant to say "popped" instead of "boomed",
my fingers got the better of my accuracy there.

For everyone else in our universe, their website is:
http://www.zerogcorp.com/

I just checked out the site. Their last press release was in October
of 2002, and the site claims that flights will begin early in 2003 -
and it's already past the midpoint of 2003 and the site has not been
updated to reflect the lack of flights in early 2003 and a new date
for the first flight or to announce their first flight.

Doesn't seem promising.