Say you had a perfect space launch system.

allo allo wrote:
Yes, $100M would be low, but I am reasonably confident that it's
possible.

Perhaps it would be, of course I cannot say without knowing your idea
(and it would be pretty silly to tell me if you think you can do it).
I just want to mention that investors are looking at things from a
business perspective - so you need to have a pretty resilient plan, to
take care of cost overruns, etc. I have started companies on far less,
of course. But many companies require that level of funding (before
profitability) without a high-risk infrastructure buildout.

I'm not some novice who thinks that we should just wait for cheap
nanotube rope/that the power switching for electric launch systems is
trivial/even that tether capture is trivial.

Agreed. As I have stated many times, I don't really think space
elevators will really work as a business.

Keep in mind that non-trival can be a synonym for expensive. If you
can build an example of the required object with the required
performance, you should be able to get funding (because duplication is
normally trivial!).

-David

On 9 Dec 2004 07:50:02 -0800, David Summers wrote:


allo allo wrote:
Yes, $100M would be low, but I am reasonably confident that it's
possible.

Perhaps it would be, of course I cannot say without knowing your idea
(and it would be pretty silly to tell me if you think you can do it).
I just want to mention that investors are looking at things from a
business perspective - so you need to have a pretty resilient plan, to
take care of cost overruns, etc. I have started companies on far less,
of course. But many companies require that level of funding (before
profitability) without a high-risk infrastructure buildout.

I'm not some novice who thinks that we should just wait for cheap
nanotube rope/that the power switching for electric launch systems is
trivial/even that tether capture is trivial.

Agreed. As I have stated many times, I don't really think space
elevators will really work as a business.

Keep in mind that non-trival can be a synonym for expensive. If you
can build an example of the required object with the required
performance, you should be able to get funding (because duplication is
normally trivial!).

-David


yeah. A space elevator is a proejct on a scale of, say, a subway tunnel
under
the atlantic. You would need to run a lot of trains to make it pay off
compared to planes.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

In article ,
"John Thingstad" wrote:

yeah. A space elevator is a proejct on a scale of, say, a subway tunnel
under
the atlantic. You would need to run a lot of trains to make it pay off
compared to planes.

Though to be fair, this would only be an apt comparison if there were in
existence only a handful of planes, all of them hideously expensive.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

No, it only seems to make sense when planes are really expensive.
Given the choice between a $10 B plane and a $10 B train track, the
plane is a better move for most things. Space elevators are actually
worse off than train tracks - there is a maximum mass limit that the
elevator can hold at any one time, and a trip will take about a week!

"David Summers" wrote:

No, it only seems to make sense when planes are really expensive.
Given the choice between a $10 B plane and a $10 B train track, the
plane is a better move for most things.

Indeed. Airways don't require installation or maintenance. Train
tracks do. If one aircraft is downchecked, another can fill it's
place. If the track is broken, the entire pipeline is brought to a
halt.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

By saying it might be better to go to the AIAA, I mean, well, you could
convince to to post it here if you can come up with a good reason to.

The main reason to post here would be to get feedback on some of the
details of the design. Often there are hidden challenges to a given
design, some that threaten feasibility. That said, unfortunately I
believe the likelihood of the project getting done actually goes down
after the design is made public. It would be hard to make an investor
believe that he will get his money back if your design is available to
your future competition for duplication...

It is a good way to learn more about the complex problems involved in
getting something launched, though!

Derek Lyons wrote:
"David Summers" wrote:
No, it only seems to make sense when planes are really expensive.
Given the choice between a $10 B plane and a $10 B train track, the
plane is a better move for most things.

Indeed. Airways don't require installation or maintenance. Train
tracks do. If one aircraft is downchecked, another can fill it's
place. If the track is broken, the entire pipeline is brought to a
halt.

I believe you are incorrect. Modern air transport relies on
a substantial degree on not inexpensive infrastructure, such
as VOR, radar, runways, weather stations, control towers,
ILS, traffic control centers, and now GPS (though that is a
shared system). Certainly it's possible to travel without
some or all of these things, as is the case with roadways
and automobiles. But doing so would mean just as much a
downgrade in safety, reliability, speed, and throughput as
if automobiles were left without roadways, or trains
without tracks. VOR and radar especially are very much
responsible for the utility of modern commercial aviation.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
"David Summers" wrote:
No, it only seems to make sense when planes are really expensive.
Given the choice between a $10 B plane and a $10 B train track, the
plane is a better move for most things.

Indeed. Airways don't require installation or maintenance. Train
tracks do. If one aircraft is downchecked, another can fill it's
place. If the track is broken, the entire pipeline is brought to a
halt.

I believe you are incorrect. Modern air transport relies on
a substantial degree on not inexpensive infrastructure, such
as VOR, radar, runways, weather stations, control towers,
ILS, traffic control centers, and now GPS (though that is a
shared system).

The you haven't paid attention. Those things are a web, and the
failure of one item in a single location does not mean total, or often
even significant stoppage over an entire route.

Breakage of a track OTOH brings the entire track to a halt.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
"David Summers" wrote:
No, it only seems to make sense when planes are really expensive.
Given the choice between a $10 B plane and a $10 B train track, the
plane is a better move for most things.

Indeed. Airways don't require installation or maintenance. Train
tracks do. If one aircraft is downchecked, another can fill it's
place. If the track is broken, the entire pipeline is brought to a
halt.

I believe you are incorrect. Modern air transport relies on
a substantial degree on not inexpensive infrastructure, such
as VOR, radar, runways, weather stations, control towers,
ILS, traffic control centers, and now GPS (though that is a
shared system).

The you haven't paid attention. Those things are a web, and the
failure of one item in a single location does not mean total, or often
even significant stoppage over an entire route.

Breakage of a track OTOH brings the entire track to a halt.

And A) is easily repaired and b) of course tracks tend to form a web also.

And of course there's other factors involved too.

Try moving the coal out of Powder Basin and we'll see what's cheaper. :-)

Or try doubling the number of passengers/hour between DC and NYC and see
what's cheaper.



D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL