|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : : That is, of course, the heart of the problem. Where there is a market : : - comsats of various kinds - there is substantial investment and : : interest; where there isn't one, or where at the very least no one has : : thought of one, there's no investment and no interest (in the financial : : world). : : : And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private : : space vehicles recently. : : With a $50K ROI? : No. How much then? : When's the break-even point, Rand? : I doubt if you even know what that phrase means. Suppose I do, answer the question... Funny, you seem to be fine when I use ROI (return on investment - fancy term for 'profit') but you claim I don't know what "break-even" means. I bet I got better grade in my finance class during my masters program than you did in yours. Bet? Eric |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Derek Lyons wrote: : And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private : space vehicles recently. : : So? : : So, significant money disagrees with Mr. Oldover (not surprising, since : most sensible people do). : : : Significant money disagreed with those who thought the dot com era : might become the dot bomb era. (And your reply, as quoted below, : indicates that Mr Oldover is in fact correct, the money didn't come : from the financial world - it came from the goverment.) : It came from both. : : And I find it fascinating how you define 'sensible people' as 'people : who agree with your world view'. : That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that : you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a : non-sensible person. You say that about a lot of people and the list appears to be growing. Is Derek next, because he isn't another yes-man to you? : Furthermore, much of the investment in private space is represented by : a few individuals - not the broader financial world. : : Much of that money is state government money. : : : Oh? What private vehicles did which states invest in? : I misstated it. I meant private space industry more generally, not just : vehicles. I was referring to spaceports. You said 'state government money' to many's confusion. Please clarify your misstatement. Was it related to tax in some form? That was my first thought when I read it. Eric |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
In article .com,
Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space, maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc. If you assume today's costs of doing things in space, that's certainly true. Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be similar is ridiculous. Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits imposed on fission by uranium supply. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
wrote in message oups.com... I'd guess the money made from the Internet enabled outsourcing of jobs to countries outside the US is more than the money being made by "cataloguing and indexing services", which would include Internet sales and companies like Google that make money from online ads. Unfortunately, it's really hard to say how much outsourcing of jobs overseas is enabled by the Internet. US companies tend to be tight lipped about how much money they're really spending on outsourcing overseas due to the public backlash over things like call centers and customer support centers in India. Well, call centers and customer support centers aren't internet products, they are the product of really cheap long distance. I personally lump applications like email, Usenet news, instant messaging, application sharing (e.g. Microsoft NetMeeting), and other applications that involve data being sent around the world using Internet Connections to be using the Internet. They're not really using the World Wide Web (e.g. Internet Explorer), but they're certainly using the Internet. The outsourcing of jobs has yet to be be shown to help the long-term bottom line - a lot of companies are finding that they have to pay triple time to US employees to re-write poorly written code, and that communications problems cause costly snafus and customer disloyalty. The company I work for has been at this for maybe 10 years. I really can't comment about how many people are overseas versus in the US, but for the company I work for, outsourcing isn't a fad, but a strategy that's working. It certainly takes time to build up the necessary core level of experience at an overseas site, but once that's reached, it's pretty much self sustaining without much help (i.e. rewriting of code) from the remaining US employees. While outsourcing looks like it saves money in the short run, in the long run whether it really is worth it for programming is up in the air. However, I would argue that it's the -internet- not -the web- (I realize I'm splitting hairs here a bit) that enables that. The company I work for has gone well beyond the short run and yes, it really is worth it, for the corporation that is. Those US employees that remain nearly all have more than 10 years of experience in writing engineering software. I've got over 15 years experience. That seems to be the only reason to keep *us* around is our experience. Anyone with less experience than the average overseas employee wouldn't be hired in the US in the first place. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits imposed on fission by uranium supply. And the fact that most of the world's uranium is found in politically unpalatable countries, like Australia :-) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Rand Simberg wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private space vehicles recently. So? So, significant money disagrees with Mr. Oldover (not surprising, since most sensible people do). Significant money disagreed with those who thought the dot com era might become the dot bomb era. (And your reply, as quoted below, indicates that Mr Oldover is in fact correct, the money didn't come from the financial world - it came from the goverment.) It came from both. And I find it fascinating how you define 'sensible people' as 'people who agree with your world view'. That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a non-sensible person. I think it is, because you said so in plain black and white (at least those are the colors on my monitor). Or, you may be playing word games again. Furthermore, much of the investment in private space is represented by a few individuals - not the broader financial world. Much of that money is state government money. Oh? What private vehicles did which states invest in? I misstated it. I meant private space industry more generally, not just vehicles. I was referring to spaceports. Spaceports aren't private space industry - they are spots where private space industry may (someday) ply their trade. Goverments of various levels have a long history of making such investments - but it's very much a case of 'if you build it they *may* come'. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a non-sensible person. I think it is, because you said so in plain black and white (at least those are the colors on my monitor). Or, you may be playing word games again. Yes, that's what Rand does - when his position starts to fail, he switches to word games and insults rather than back up his position with cold hard facts. I am all for the commercialization of space, I simply feel that the irresitable profit-aking product or service other than comsats of various kinds has yet to be thought up. The customers are on Earth; to make money you must provide a service or product to customers. It's as simple and complex as that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|