Let us stop picking on Nasa!

"Alan Anderson" wrote:

Space Adventures and Incredible Adventures *are* selling zero-G parabolic
airplane flights right now, and making profit.

True, but it is worth pointing out that Space Adventures and Incredible
Adventures did not have to finance the design and construction of their
aircraft from those profits. They are merely piggybacking off infrastructure
developed for totally different reasons.

The questions then become: If Space Adventures and Incredible Adventures
*did* have to finance the design and construction of their aircraft what
would they have to charge to make a profit? Would there be a large enough
market at this price? What are the implications for space tourism, which
*will* have to design and develop their own spacecraft?

Jim Davis

"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.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...
"John Ordover" wrote:
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.

You are hi-larious John. Are you saying all the web companies
failed? Even Yahoo, and eBay, and Amazon, and google, and
NewEgg, and all those porn companies too? Even all the web
based businesses with current positive profits and positive
growth (and there are literally thousands of those)? Wow, I
wish my failures were so lucrative.

I said the web -boom- not all web companies. There are a few that had
a good business model or enough hype (like Amazon) to build a big
enough war chest to keep on keeping on. But for every Yahoo and Ebay,
there were a hundred Webvans and Pseudo Onlines and Pets.com.

What was the problem? They had everything going for them except
customers. They never identified a customer base they could serve
better and faster and cheaper than tradiational companies.

Yahoo and Google, btw, followed the "picks and shovels" investment
model - they set up a site that provided access and guides to the web
as a whole, rather than being dependent on any one thing. Amazon
still hasn't shown more than a tiny return on its massive investment -
it keeps things running by investing the money that was invested in it
in other instruments. Ebay was a work of brilliance - particularly
making those buying and selling do their own fulfillment.

So yeah, a couple of things that -had customers- worked. Where are
the customers for what product from space?

I think you mean "given a survey", since I am not super-
rich. Regardless, 2 tickets have been bought for trips
to space at multi-million dollar prices, and XCOR (through
Space Adventures) already has about 100 reservations for
sub-orbital flights at circa $100k a pop. That sounds
like hard data to me. Judging by the continued efforts of
XCOR and Space Adventures to pursue these markets I would
have to say that they think so to.

Oh, please - Space Adventures is just agenting for the Russians, who
are nowhere near to making a profit. They don't make a profit off the
vomit comet they run either, or their space training thing. They just
recoup a minor amount of the cost their government and hours paid to
build the facilities.

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.

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
John Ordover wrote:

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.

Are you now claiming that all of the .com and web ventures failed?

Mike Walsh

No, I am claiming that all those that worked off a dream, rather than
indentifying a specific customer base whom they could serve better
than anyone else could, a base large enough to pay back the investors.
Since all of the space companies working for travel fall into that
category, they will all fail.

The major success on-line is Ebay. Ebay was a work of brilliance -
what makes it work is that they don't have to pack and mail anything
they broker the sale of. But the Ebays are few and far between.

(John Ordover) wrote in message . com...
(geoff) wrote in message . com...
We only need a low cost space launcher for all these dreams to come true.

Aboslutely true.



Travel within space using nuclear-electric propulsion and the construction
of space bases is well within present technology. But we have no idea
how to get into orbit with an affordable reusable vehicle. NASA's latest plans
seem to suggest that the quest for such a vehicle has been postponed for the
foreseeable future.

The lack of profit-making technology is indeed the problem.

I couldn't agree more "Let us stop picking on Nasa!". I believe we
should have flushed that nasty NASA toilet decades ago (at least doing
such by the end of our perpetrated cold war against the USSR),
including of all those commodes that have been overflowing within the
adjoining NSA/DoD stalls and, get with the program of our doing what's
morally right and commercially possible, of our achieving what's most
obtainable (as in within a local laser area code of communications
reach) and doing such from existing technology, where preferably
that's excluding anything shuttle or ISS and, if need be excluding
anything NASA.

What we've needed as a clear objective may have been right next door
all along, at least as of potentially being exposed nearly 14 years
ago and, most certainly as of my recent discovering such specific
worth as of nearly three years ago, offering way more evidence for our
reconsidering what's existing on Venus, more than all of everything
other that's been explored to date (no lie).

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/calling-venus.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/can-do.htm

Be sure to check out the "UPDATE" page, as that's become more current
than my index. Unfortunately, I have far more questions than answers,
however, some of my answers have become quite testy to say the least.
I have several pages on commercial enterprise, those which I'll update
and share with whomever isn't planning upon tossing out more flak just
for sport.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

(geoff) wrote in message . com...
We only need a low cost space launcher for all these dreams to come true.
Travel within space using nuclear-electric propulsion and the construction
of space bases is well within present technology. But we have no idea
how to get into orbit with an affordable reusable vehicle. NASA's latest plans
seem to suggest that the quest for such a vehicle has been postponed for the
foreseeable future.

If there's no cost restraints, no problem with creating a few thousand
new tonnes of nasty CO2 for Earth and, you've got yourself somewhat of
a death wish, I've got just the ticket that utilizes big-time nuclear
energy in order to relocate ISS to Venus L2. Most if not all of this
could be accommodated by other than shuttle and if need be other than
NASA.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-rocket.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-joke.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-03.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/can-do.htm

Be sure to check out the "UPDATE" page, as that's become more current
than my index. Unfortunately, I have far more questions than answers,
however, some of my answers have become quite testy to say the least.
I offer several pages on commercial enterprise, those which I'll
update and share with whomever isn't planning upon tossing out more
flak just for sport.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

John Ordover wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
John Ordover wrote:

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.

Are you now claiming that all of the .com and web ventures failed?

Mike Walsh

No, I am claiming that all those that worked off a dream, rather than
indentifying a specific customer base whom they could serve better
than anyone else could, a base large enough to pay back the investors.
Since all of the space companies working for travel fall into that
category, they will all fail.

The major success on-line is Ebay. Ebay was a work of brilliance -
what makes it work is that they don't have to pack and mail anything
they broker the sale of. But the Ebays are few and far between.

This is a much less expansive prediction than what you claimed.

As far as web commerce goes, you seem to be picking and choosing
there. There is a lot of web commerce going on from "brick and mortar"
companies where you have the option of ordering on-line as well as by
mail or going to a store.

As for your predictions on commercial space activity, are you revising
your claim that it will all be gone in 5 years to human space travel
companies?

It is hard to have reasonable on-line discussions if they are based
on sweeping claims that you don't really mean to be taken literally.

Mike Walsh

"John Ordover" wrote:
I think you mean "given a survey", since I am not super-
rich. Regardless, 2 tickets have been bought for trips
to space at multi-million dollar prices, and XCOR (through
Space Adventures) already has about 100 reservations for
sub-orbital flights at circa $100k a pop. That sounds
like hard data to me. Judging by the continued efforts of
XCOR and Space Adventures to pursue these markets I would
have to say that they think so to.

Oh, please - Space Adventures is just agenting for the Russians, who
are nowhere near to making a profit. They don't make a profit off the
vomit comet they run either, or their space training thing. They just
recoup a minor amount of the cost their government and hours paid to
build the facilities.

An entirely different point. Your point was that there was
no market, period. Well, there obviously is a market, and
for a very sub-standard ride in comparison to a true space
ride, in my opinion.


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.

Why would they? Space Adventures is an American company, they
sell flights in Russia 'cause it's cheaper and easier there.
And I don't see how "my way of thinking" requires such flights
and jet fighter flights from every airport, that's just
rediculous. But then again, you, John, are often rediculous
so I guess I shouldn't find that too unusual.

"John Ordover" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
"John Ordover" wrote:
They will all fail. Much like the web boom was, they are driven by a
dream, not customer demand.

You are hi-larious John. Are you saying all the web companies
failed? Even Yahoo, and eBay, and Amazon, and google, and
NewEgg, and all those porn companies too? Even all the web
based businesses with current positive profits and positive
growth (and there are literally thousands of those)? Wow, I
wish my failures were so lucrative.

I said the web -boom- not all web companies. There are a few that had
a good business model or enough hype (like Amazon) to build a big
enough war chest to keep on keeping on. But for every Yahoo and Ebay,
there were a hundred Webvans and Pseudo Onlines and Pets.com.

Oh! Oh! I hear someone laying skid marks trying to
do a 180!

Your new argument is far, far weaker than your old, erroneous,
one. What does the web-boom dying down have to do with *all*
the aerospace startups dying? Well, it has nothing to do with
it now doesn't it? If many of the dot-coms failed but several
survived and remained healthy then why can't at least a few of
the space startups survive as well? Oh, I'll tell you why not,
there's *NO* reason why not. Profit is profit, and if any of
them can maintain profitability then they can stay alive.

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.


What was the problem? They had everything going for them except
customers. They never identified a customer base they could serve
better and faster and cheaper than tradiational companies.

Except for the dot-coms that survived. Your argument is
in need of sharpening John, badly.


Yahoo and Google, btw, followed the "picks and shovels" investment
model - they set up a site that provided access and guides to the web
as a whole, rather than being dependent on any one thing. Amazon
still hasn't shown more than a tiny return on its massive investment -
it keeps things running by investing the money that was invested in it
in other instruments. Ebay was a work of brilliance - particularly
making those buying and selling do their own fulfillment.

So yeah, a couple of things that -had customers- worked. Where are
the customers for what product from space?

John, I have already told you repeatedly. XCOR already
has customers lined up even before they have their
vehicle built. And there's already been two paying
customers for the Soyuz. The customers are *there* John,
open your eyes, the business is there. Even *before* the
ability to truly meet the needs of the customers has been
built the customers still line up!