CEV to be made commercially available

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 12:03:29 -0800, in a place far, far away, "migitah"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

OK, I'll explain it again, and type it slowly this time. The fact
that half *might* do so means--read carefully now--that half might do
so. It doesn't mean that half won't do so,

Actually that is EXACTLY what the Futron survey says. Half won't do
so. I believe, the statement made in a sub-heading was that half the
respondants (well ok 49%) would not go at any price point. Unless you
read that differently?

Yes, this is the part that was stupid. I'm surprised that you
repeated it, but I guess I shouldn't be, after all these years.

It doesn't matter that half won't go, if the other half will. Or even
if a tiny percentage of them will. But please go on with your
illogic.

I see you still havent bothered to actually read any of the in-depth
Tourism marketing studies that have been done.

How would you see that?

Have you been stalking me?

Well a simple search of Google finds a thread where you were exposed
for what you are. A fraud and a liar.

Have you at least tried
to learn their names yet so you can pretend you have.

I've actually helped develop some of them.

Complete and utter crap..I am familiar with some of the people that
have developed the in-depth studies and the wouldnt deal with scum like
you if you paid them.. So please give us the name of this indepth study
to which you now claim to have contributed. Time to put up.

Hint: Of that half, they have very particular requirements at any price
point.

Which is a completely different issue. Thanks for playing, though.

Um no...And you wonder why noone in the industry will touch you with a
10 foot pole.

tobarn wrote:

Complete and utter crap..I am familiar with some of the people that
have developed the in-depth studies and the wouldnt deal with scum like
you if you paid them..


Oh, I bet if you paid them enough... :-)

Pat

On 2 Dec 2005 21:53:25 -0800, in a place far, far away, "tobarn"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

It doesn't matter that half won't go, if the other half will. Or even
if a tiny percentage of them will. But please go on with your
illogic.

I see you still havent bothered to actually read any of the in-depth
Tourism marketing studies that have been done.

How would you see that?

Have you been stalking me?

Well a simple search of Google finds a thread where you were exposed
for what you are. A fraud and a liar.

And yet you can't cite it.

Have you at least tried
to learn their names yet so you can pretend you have.

I've actually helped develop some of them.

Complete and utter crap..I am familiar with some of the people that
have developed the in-depth studies and the wouldnt deal with scum like
you if you paid them.

Boy, talk about "frauds and liars..."

Hint: Of that half, they have very particular requirements at any price
point.

Which is a completely different issue. Thanks for playing, though.

Um no...And you wonder why noone in the industry will touch you with a
10 foot pole.

I don't have to wonder why something is occurring that isn't true.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 07:13:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

OK, I'll explain it again, and type it slowly this time. The fact
that half *might* do so means--read carefully now--that half might do
so. It doesn't mean that half won't do so,

Actually that is EXACTLY what the Futron survey says. Half won't do
so. I believe, the statement made in a sub-heading was that half the
respondants (well ok 49%) would not go at any price point. Unless you
read that differently?

Yes, this is the part that was stupid. I'm surprised that you
repeated it, but I guess I shouldn't be, after all these years.

Rand, just a tip, saying something is stupid isn't any help unless you
actually can articulate why, in your opinion, it is stupid.

OK, what is the point of your comment? Perhaps it isn't stupid.
Perhaps it's simply pointless (which is kind of stupid in itself, of
course). If it's to somehowdenigrate the notion that there is a
market, then that *s*stupid, because many products are successful,
despite the fact that half of consumers, or survey respondents, have
no interest in them.

Again, as I said, address my point being made (about the impact on
their statistical analysis tool) rather than the point you want to
respond to.

Have you considered politics Rand?

It doesn't matter that half won't go, if the other half will. Or even
if a tiny percentage of them will.

It matters very greatly to the size of the market - small errors in
this kind of analysis can compund horrendously. Ask a mobile
telecommunications operator about the market analysis done for 3G
services.

Comparing space tourism to telecoms displays a profound ignorance of
the nature of the market, and its needs.

And that is not what I was doing there. That you cannot see that
demostrates some kind of flaw in your business critical reasoning.


No one is proposing a need
for a market that large, so again, it's kind of nutty to draw any
conclusions about its viability from the fact that half the people
aren't interested in it.

The size of the market is immaterial to the analysis tools used as long
as those tools are correctly applied.

The market is certainly niche, the question then becomes is it large
enough to bootstrap space development.

In the Futron survey they use a Fisher Pry S-Curve (which incidently
are used by the Telecoms and Wireless industry in the same way) - the
input data they assume will dramtically affect the outputs.

This stuff isn't hard, what astounds me is your lack of baseline
knowledge compared to your capacity to argue.

Dave

Dave

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:11:52 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
:McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
::
::Unfortunately, Apollo 2.0 does none of that. There is some lip service
::being paid to commercial resupply of ISS, but the entire foundation of
::Apollo 2.0 is NASA, right down to the launch vehicles and launch facilities.
:
:Nothing stops anyone else from buying the same (or other) vehicles and
:sending people.
:
:Other than the fact that they're insanely expensive, that is. No one
ther than a government would go to the moon the way that NASA has
:chosen to do it.

Note the phrase "the same (or other) vehicles" in what I wrote, Rand.
If they think "the way that NASA has chosen to do it" is so insanely
expensive, they're free to do it some other way. Nothing is stopping
them other than getting the capital and technical assets together and
actually doing it. I'll also note that once the vehicles are designed
and built that they'll probably be a lot cheaper for non-government
types to purchase.

The way to show that NASA is doing it 'wrong' is to go do it better,
not to wank on about how you want the money spent some other way.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Dave O'Neill wrote:

Again, as I said, address my point being made (about the impact on
their statistical analysis tool) rather than the point you want to
respond to.

Have you considered politics Rand?



I'm sure he has.
And I'm sure he thinks he'd be great at it, just as lil' Bush probably
thought he'd make a great president.
Which shows you that Plato hit the nail squarely on the head regarding
the competency of those who strongly desire high office. :-D

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Which shows you that Plato hit the nail squarely on the head regarding
the competency of those who strongly desire high office. :-D


Clinton, Gore, Kerry, the other Clinton, Carter....

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:46:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

:Nothing stops anyone else from buying the same (or other) vehicles and
:sending people.
:
:Other than the fact that they're insanely expensive, that is. No one
ther than a government would go to the moon the way that NASA has
:chosen to do it.

Note the phrase "the same (or other) vehicles" in what I wrote, Rand.

I was responding to "the same."

If they think "the way that NASA has chosen to do it" is so insanely
expensive, they're free to do it some other way. Nothing is stopping
them other than getting the capital and technical assets together and
actually doing it.

rolling eyes

Yes, nothing but that. And of course, "nothing" is stopping them from
doing that, right?

I'll also note that once the vehicles are designed
and built that they'll probably be a lot cheaper for non-government
types to purchase.

But still ludicrously expensive.

The way to show that NASA is doing it 'wrong' is to go do it better,
not to wank on about how you want the money spent some other way.

Folks are working on that.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:25:34 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Again, as I said, address my point being made (about the impact on
their statistical analysis tool) rather than the point you want to
respond to.

Have you considered politics Rand?



I'm sure he has.

I haven't. Or rather, I have, and know that I've no interest in it.

And I'm sure he thinks he'd be great at it, just as lil' Bush probably
thought he'd make a great president.

You're sure of lots of foolish things, Pat.

wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:



Which shows you that Plato hit the nail squarely on the head regarding
the competency of those who strongly desire high office. :-D




Clinton, Gore, Kerry,


Androids don't count.

the other Clinton, Carter....



Nixon.
'nuff said.

Pat