Re: Getting Mega Projects Done

From: David Summers (david_at_ualmiles.com)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: 28 Nov 2004 10:19:32 -0800

Earl Colby Pottinger <earlcp@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<TL6dnSZeebPb5DTcRVn-uw@look.ca>...
> That is a poor example, first cruise ships are making money hand over fist

Agreed, bad choice of example. I was trying to show how technical
risk is dealt with already in many business plans. I typically can
changed the level of profitability, but normally doesn't determine
success of failure. (Because there are more than one way to do
everything)

> Basicly you need enough money to stay in business for the time it takes
> business to trust you and to take off, and that can be years. Assume that
> tomorrow you can offer to put a capsule in orbit for $100.00 with zero
> government problems too! How long before people take you up on your offer?
> I would say at least one to two years, first they have to design one, test
> it, add the features they want, add a recovery system if they think it is
> needed, test it more, get insurance, transport it to your lanuch point, check
> it out again that transit did not damage it then lanuch. Less than a year to
> do that, you are dreaming, or they are sucidal fools. Even a simple sat.
> will take months to design and assemble.

True, so presales of launches would be essential. And then the buyers
are taking on some of your risk of failure. Everything would be much
easier with an existing market, but then we wouldn't need the
launchers so much if the market was already being served. Even with
this, if you want a tourism market for sustained profits you will need
to operate for at least a year with no loss-of-life level problems.

> No, you could not, too many congress people need to protect jobs in thier
> area to just disband NASA like that, first you need to spread your money to
> cover most of the areas affected. By the time you are finish you will find
> youself so messed up you will be no better that the present NASA is (if you
> are even that good). If all it took was money ERON would still be in
> business. Don't think you can buy out the government it's budget hits
> trillions, you are always small fry to them. If however you are doing
> something that the government does want done, then that is where you money
> directs who gets the contracts and what outriders can be added to a bill
> before congress. Think money buys freedom, ask OTRAG or Dr. Bull.

Your right, I overstated things. Politics is manageable (by
politicians), but should not be underestimated. Normally I would not
even get involved in a venture with such complex politics, but it is a
somewhat special situation.

> Problem is to figure out the risk the same investors are going to want a lot
> of details on your new material appoach.

Um, why do you think this is a problem? They almost certainly would
not fund you and then tell your competitor...

> > So I guess we really have to have a project under $20B, so that the
> > existing $1-2B revenue stream can support it...
>
> Problem, there are other companies planning n building BeanStalks for less
> than $10 Billion, you may have already priced yourself out of the market.

Well, I would prefer to keep the discussion generic (thats why I
started this thread in sci.space.policy ;-}), but I don't see any
beanstalks being built. They all seem to require a lot of
unobtainium. Admittedly, the unobtainium seems to be right around the
corner. But it will still be expensive, and you still need an awful
lot of it. (In other threads I have explained my reasoning why I
believe a beanstalk will not be viable as an operational structure
from a financial perspective. To put it simply, agregate damage
limits the useful life and the slow throughput limits the total mass
delivered.)

My project was constrained to using only off the shelf technology. It
is technically doable but as we have discussed that limitation leads
to rediculously large budgets. That's why I want to know where to
direct my efforts now. I can make it less expensive by increasing the
technical risk, but that puts the implementation time frame much
further out.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Black October
    ... Panic serves no purpose and the 'smart money' knows better. ... If you mean the market drops 1000 points, ... market was "unsinkable," that the uncontainable debt crisis was ... country's ability to survive a financial crisis. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: do you know anyone who isnt brainwashed in some major way?
    ... You can substitute the unit of exchange of your choice, boots. ... It is the essence of capitalism. ... because they exploit your inability to market it. ... It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: OT - National Debt
    ... When you look at it look at the stock market growth curve and you will ... Both resulted in a lot of money paid in salaries, bonuses, ... If you want my politics I don't like any of them very much. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
    ... enterprise makes money on something one competitor can do that another ... Commerce is not the be-all and ... to make money (this will put uneducated workers out of business ... that market hasn't contracted because of the hobbyist. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Housing Bubble Smack-down
    ... In 2000 the total value of homes in the US was $11.4 trillion. ... the withered remains of Milton "free market" Friedman. ... calls "the largest equity bubble" in history. ... And the way you sell more money is ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)