Re: Branson and Bigelow to team up for a space hotel?

On 12 Apr 2006 04:27:13 -0700, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Cardman wrote:
On 11 Apr 2006 17:37:57 -0700, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Orbital refueling was the 20 flights to get 2 to a lunar free return
trajectory. which you said was a lot of flights! lol.

It is not so many in a commercial depot refueling market.

???? This is a nonsensical statement afaict. lol. The number of
launches needed to refuel your spacecraft stage depend on how much you
can haul up per flight - which has nothing to do with the label you put
on the enterprise doing the work! lol.

That is partly correct, but you overlook that in the commercial market
it is not about moving the most amount of mass in one go, but about
obtaining the minimum cost for doing so.

So you are all on about doing things the NASA way, which is why I have
to point out that the commercial market won't be into moving 56 tonnes
of fuel in one go for a long time yet.

They will give you your 56 tonnes of fuel though.

They can
also pick their own rocket size as they feel is required.

???? More nonsense! lol. This is precisely what I was talking about.
You can loft 56 tonnes of propellant to orbit, it takes a certain sized
rocket.

Without question.

I calculated what that would be.

The NASA way...

And for no reason you said it was too big! lol.

It is too big.

For example I have completely no doubt that SpaceX can put your 56
tonnes in orbit for far less than the development cost of your jumbo
rocket.

As NASA has been saying for a long time then obtaining a good dollar
per kg value is not about launching huge rockets but in multiple
launches of a smaller rocket.

And in the commercial sense then when you want 56 tonnes of fuel in
orbit then it is not your place to define how it is done. You simply
put out the offer and see who can do so for a good price.

This is why establishing a orbital refueling depot is a good idea,
when you just offer a price per kg and let those commercial companies
who are interested do the work. They will then optimise their own
efficiency to maximise profit, where over time you can lower what you
pay them to boost your own efficiency.

Then you will have your 56 tonnes of fuel awaiting you in orbit at a
good commercial price. And with having that fuel in orbit then you can
greatly scale back your own Earth launch hardware.

The point of all this price efficiency is to lower the end ticket cost
so that more people can take the trip. As why go for the jumbo rocket
when you can move ten times more people at half the ticket cost?

Of course,if you can dispense with refueling by putting an bigger stage
under the spacecraft you're refueling, so that it doesn't burn any
propellant to get to LEO, and arrives full - well, you've just done
things very efficiently and safely - without all this horsing around.

Multiple launches provide redundancy should one blow up. So what is
the price to replace your jumbo rocket again? Multiple launches also
have increased safety over time due to actual ongoing operations and
safety improvements.

The same entperprise that would refuel your spacecraft by building a
bigger rocket, could build the bigger stage and charge you the same
you'd pay for refueling - and keep the difference in cost (because it
would cost less!) lol.

Maybe you should look into the cost of NASA's HLV. Not that this is
the best commercial reflection, but the existing commercial market is
just not geared up to build such huge rockets.

The commercial market is not yet into RD180s

???? More nonsense. Your statement is meaningless, and has no
relation to the context of what I've said.

Facts are, the RD180 is being used on the Atlas rocket and was built
for American buyers and based on the RD170. You can buy any number of
RD180s you want today! lol.

Since I trust that you know who makes these Atlas rockets then you
should also be aware that such a massive governmental contractor is
not truly commercial.

If they were so efficient then why is SpaceX currently looking to
undercut their prices by a huge 9/10ths?

Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your plan, when
I am sure that Boeing and LM would love to start cutting hardware, but
to try passing this off as "commercial" possible plan is pure
insanity.

One day the commercial people will get to the Moon, where I am sure
that the ticket cost will be far less than your plan. The
establishment of fuel production on the Moon will greatly help out
here, when just try to imagine the cost of LEO fuel if it came from a
major commercial refinery on the Moon.

If you can minimise the mass launched from Earth, and to minimise the
cost of launching that mass, then you should suddenly discover that
vast volumes of people can afford to go.

Then you would have your reality of people living and working in
space. That is what is commercial market is about and not in taking up
extremely expensive and risky one off stunts.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/engines/rd180.htm

Its a good choice as a building block for a big launcher! One approach
is to have outboard LRBs propelled by the RD180 set, to boost your
siamese twin orbiter to orbit fully fueled - making it available for
lunar operations - as described in my earlier post. Prior to that,you
could do 20 launches to refuel and reprovision 2 orbiters in LEO using
the unboosted siamese twin! lol.

Why wouldn't you use an ELV provider?

They are ten times more expensive. And when SpaceX really gets going
then that could increase to one hundred or one thousand times.

Well, because if the cost
figures of the siamese twin are achieved as I envision it, you'd be a
fool to waste the money.

Why build the parallel LRBs for the siamese twin and not build a larger
refueling rocket? Possible - but its cheaper to built the LRBs and
attach them than to build a separate rocket and have refueling on
orbit. Just boost the whole thing and dispense with the trouble of
refueling in space.

Yes, all well and nice. Now please don't try turning this into a
commercial plan. This is just another hot air rocket plan that will
never get funded. Just like many other plans going back decades.

If you want to make commercial hardware then if you have a good idea
for a commercial Lunar lander then just maybe someone important may
actually listen to you.

when they seem quite intent to build their own.

Who are you talking about?

All real commercial companies are building their own rocket engines,
or at least to buy them from a fellow commercial company. They do so
simply because it costs a lot less, they gain experience, and they can
scale up as needed.

The cost is far less than a new 747 - and if the systems
fully reusable and built robustly, the system should be cost effective.

The commercial market will take things one step at a time.

We'll see if a commercial market will be allowed to develop.

Allowed? Do you work for Boeing or LM or something? :-]

And I just cannot see the US Government putting their foot down and
saying "Sorry, but we are banning commercial operations from space"

And as I
mentioned they will ensure a viable orbital tourist business before
risking serious funding building Lunar landing infrastructure.

???? More nonsense. NOTHING will be done without serious funding.

True, but when talking crap loads of money then a Lunar landing plan
would have a pile that dwarfs the rest.

lol. But, its interesting that what you call serious funding - and I
mentioned $350 million as a figure, is about the cost of buying off the
shelf a 777! lol.

This $350 million is a fantasy value when you want Boeing or LM to
build it. Hell they are already doing one for NASA where their price
tag runs into the billions.

The true commercial companies won't have the interest. They don't have
the infrastructure to build a rocket that big. They are unlikely to
have the development cost. Then customers will want to see working
hardware before they buy tickets.

Space is full of hot air concerning rocket plans that never become
reality. So it is avoiding such insane plans that explains why the
current commercial market has obtained the reputation that they could
actually pull this off.

Anything less is just a hobbyist effort - nothing more.

So now you dismiss the entire true commercial market, even if your
$350 million is trying hard to price itself inside of it.

It may be possible that the commercial market could do a Lunar landing
before NASA does, but they would have to do extremely well with the
orbital business for that to happen.

Go look at the cost of fab facilities today, or automotive plants, or
anything really. You're talking billions of dollars risked on
uncertain markets with new technologies.

Certainly, but before billions of shareholders money will be spent on
space, then first they have to prove that it can be done. Go look into
the share price of SpaceDev to see that investors will expect to see
results.

In time when there is evidence that commercial space can work, and
that future plans are sound, then you will indeed get huge funding put
into commercial space.

What I'm proposing is hiring qualified aerospace firms to hand build a
few airframes, workout the aviionics, and attach proven engines to them
- and operate them efficiently to deliver space tourism!

Space tourism needs to crawl before it can run.

You know nothing about marketing. lol. Are you talking wholesale or
retail? People don't buy the lowest price retail. Go ask your wife if
she wants the lowest price wedding ring she can get - you may learn
something! lol.

Best price for the item that they want to buy.

The competition isn't in retail price, the competition between
manufacturers is in manufacturing price. But you've even got this
wrong, because we're talking about delivering a service, not selling
manufactured goods!

Even commercial rockets are manufactured goods. I am looking forwards
to the day when SpaceX has some real competition.

There are already competing providers of spacecraft technology
throughout the world. The world lacks a commercial spaceline to buy
spacecraft configured for delivery of space tourism services. Branson
and Bigelow are risking some money - but not serious money - to see if
there might be an interest in such services. I think its a good bet.

Well Bigelow said he is in this until like his last dollar, but I am
not his accountant to know his funding breakdown. And Branson seems to
print his own money.

But they'd be fools to underprice their initial offerings, just as
they'd be fools to overprice later offerings.

They are underpricing the existing market. They should certainly have
ample slack, but they also know that the lower their price the more
people can buy tickets.

And they do seek an airline type mass consumer market. As once they
have that then you will have your McDonalds, Pepsi, etc, etc,
throughout the solar system as well.

People are the market. The more people you can move the bigger the
market will be. The key is always the ticket price, where they
certainly know that it needs to fall in leaps and bounds.

If there is only one manufacturer then suppliers
will soon be unable to compete and this item will only be sold at a
few restricted locations.

??? More nonsense. You don't make profits by restricted distribution.

No you don't. However, when price competition becomes extreme then
suppliers have to give up providing the product, when they just cannot
compete with the market price.

A monopolistic manufacturer doesn't have to worry about competition,so
saying there is only one manufacturer and he can't compete makes
absolutely no sense! lol.

With monopolistic manufacturers then consumers seek an alternate
product and manufacturer if possible.

There's no one to compete against! So,
you're terminally confused. lol.

Not yet, when they have not even made orbit yet. However, when a
company achieves success in a new market then there will always be
others looking to replicate that success.

And you're talking about a
manufacturer, where Branson and Bigelow are proposing the delivery of a
service! lol.

The market also competes on services. However, since they are building
a lot of unique hardware to provide those services, then they will
also compete on service quality.

To clarify what really happens, a for-profit monopoly will price at
maximum profit,

Given your line curve certainly.

and use a portion of that profit for R&D to reduce
costs and use a portion of that profit for advertising to increase
demand - how much depends on the details of the technology and the
plasticity of demand in the market.

And there you reach your failing in this concept, when there is no
existing market. So it makes sense to try and minimise the price to
establish a market before you maximise your profit.

That is called establishing your customer base.

From this they will produce - a
new profit curve and a new demand curve will cause a recalculation of
the maximum profit curve, and that will likely result in a lower price,
which in combination with increasing demand will yeild greater unit
sales as well as greater profit.

Yes, for a monopoly. Such a shame that the commercial market has so
few. It mostly turns into people shopping based on brand name as a
measure of quality.

Manufacturers that must compete against one another certainly provide a
reason for those manufacturers to spend more money on R&D to reduce
costs than they otherwise might. But a world full of manufacturers
exist that already make spacecraft. The big problem is current missile
proliferation concerns have caused the governments of their respetive
nations to prop them up in non-economimc ways that isolate them and
keep them from competing. Why? Because they don't want really really
cheap ICBMs available at WalMart! lol.

The problem is not the ICBM, but the warhead. And selling nuclear,
chemical or biological arms in Walmart certainly would be wrong. These
people dropping conventional explosives on the American public get
punished under the law.

As if people want to drop bombs then they can already do so using
commercial aircraft. Looks like Osama Bin Laden did more damage to the
WTC then any Walmart purchased ICBM would have done.

And since people will be in orbit soon enough then let us recall what
heavy "rods of God" can do following reentry and impact. That is more
likely to happen by some bimbo reversing into the Earth's atmosphere
while applying her lipstick. ;-]

THis is the problem Branson and Bigelow face in creating their SERVICE!

They seem to have a handle on that one already, but flights from North
America to Europe should be interesting.

That's why they focus on newbie manufacturers and aerospace wannabes -
they think they're getting a good deal, but I think they quite possibly
could end in disaster -

That is indeed one option, when we have yet to see if space has enough
razzle dazzle to attract the public.

so in that case what they'll do is convince
future generations of entrepreneurs NOT to invest in such schemes in
the future!

And if the current commercial market flunks then they will have to
wait for the Space Elevator to come on-line.

I mean, where is Teledesic?

Broadband by satellite is expensive and limited compared to cable and
telephone broadband.

Where is Iridium?

Obsolete hardware. High prices. Lack of subscribers.

Where is Roton?

Cool testing. Nothing serious.

Where is any of a host of really great schemes involving
aerospace in a way that started to bring competition to missile
proliferation technologies? Gone.

A nice theory. Such a shame that it is wrong. The first two are simply
"bad idea" failures, while Roton was never fully funded... and no
doubt a bad idea.

then they have to obtain cheaper components themselves.

Ever hear of learning curve effects? How about production engineering?
lol. Yeah, you know a lot - NOT! lol.

The optimization of internal efficiency can only go so far.

hahahaha... Yeah, well, explain why Lexus is kicking Cadillac's ass
over the past decade! lol. You know a lot about sales - not.

Except my management of a successful company for the past 8 years.

I intend to soon set a record 20 times gross income increase over a
one year period soon. Usually my business gross income expands at the
rate of 10 to 15 times each 12 months. CONTINIOUSLY!

Well except the time when the Federation Against Copyright Theft
f***ed me over.

I believe those figures speak for themselves concerning the success of
my business plans, which explains why once a group of investors wanted
me to do the same with their money.

The key to successful business

Oh, wait, now you're going to give us the key to a successful business
- oooo..

Just look at my web site for an example. My initial investment was
just 100 GBP. What you can see there was mostly achieved during the
first three years.

Then came the era of pain and suffering. They will be sued soon
enough.

hahahaha...

Laugh all you want. I would have been a millionaire by 2003 or 2004
had not FACT did their best to destroy my company.

That event has now been rescheduled to 2010 or 2011.

is to make customers believe that they
are getting a much better deal than they really are.

ROTFLMAO! HAHAHAHA ...

Dude, you cannot hide what you are - either here, or in the market
place. That's why Lexus is so popular right? People THINK they're
getting a better car than the Cadillac, right? lol.

If people believe that they are getting a super deal then a lot more
people will buy. The key to true success and maximum profit is to
minimise your own costs while doing this.

This is like in buying stock at $30 each and normally selling it at
$120 each, before doing a 50% off special offer at $60 each. Then
throw in extra cheap junk to make it look unbeatable.

Nothing sells more items than word of mouth. News of an unbeatable
deal soon spreads.

You correct to say that the truth cannot always be hidden, but while
you are "fooling" the masses as to the true value, then during those
weeks or months that are subject to a huge increase in sales, then
there is where you make your huge profit.

As I said the market is built on greed. You just have to tempt them
and feed that greed while maintaining a suitable profit while fooling
them into thinking that you are really cutting your own throat.

Ask around. That is the point that almost any supplier would love to
be going through right now.

People stayed away in droves! Why? Because they figured that an all
you can eat breakfast for $1.99 - *HAD* to be shitty! And, they had
denied themselves their whole lives to enjoy themselves in their
retirement, and they weren't going to eat another shitty meal - they
kept eating at the $19.99 buffets at the local hotels! lol.

LOL. The problem in that plan is that a supplier needs to stay in
touch with their customer base. Before people buy at your low prices
they need to see your good reputation.

That is one reason why Richard Branson does well, when he is a good
figurehead for his various companies.

Also lowest price is lowest matching price for the market. Your
example was below that figure. Still, it sounded nice if people had
actually ate there.

So, you, like this guy, don't know *** - life is more complex than
your mind lets you imagine

Thanks, but in my 8 years of running a successful company then I have
really seen everything.

I got an idea for you - read a few books
on marketing - and get a subscription to Harvard Business Review - and
see how companies REALLY make decisions! lol.

Fair enough. They are not going to achieve a 10 to 15 times increase
in gross income each 12 months though. My business model has achieved
that every fully operational year. One following the next with year
two being over 100 times, year three over 1000 times, etc.

I never read a single book on the subject either. You could say that I
am just an awesome goods supplier. :-]

The price you want to sell at is the lowest on the market

Brahahahahahaha...

Customers come in various forms. Some shop quickly where your
available advertising is helpful. Most people though, and certainly
those on the Net, will spend some time looking around to find the best
price.

I am the type of Internet based goods suppliers that put high street
stores out business. Some people do buy from the high street, but most
people are aware that Internet suppliers can have much lower overheads
and therefore much lower prices.

Internet sales is a hard market. The supplier with the lowest price
sells the most. One goal is to keep a close watch on your market and
to stock brand new items that are in demand. You may recall that new
items often provide the greatest profit margin.

Here's a primer on pricing policy - lol.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/mmpricing.htm

And here's where you can really learn it in detail;

http://www.porter-sloan.com/Pricing-Strategy.html?OVRAW=pricing%20policy%20harvard%20introduction&OVKEY=pricing%20policy&OVMTC=advanced

When you can provide an example that can exceed a 20 times gross
income increase over 12 months than I will listen. Otherwise you are
doing worse than my current business model.

and to well advertise that fact.

Depending on plasticity of demand, advertising increases the demand
curve

Advertising can also be an overhead.

when their expensive stock won't sell.

When you said you understand sales, what are you, a stock clerk at a
discount store? lol.

Managing director, manager of public relations, manager of stock
control, accounts manager, advertising manager, workforce manager, and
no doubt a lot more.

the market is built on greed.

No it isn't! Oh, there's a little larceny in all of us, but that's not
the central driving force, profit is the central driving force,

And profit is an aspect of greed.

Maybe the people here should ask themselves how many times have they
used a search engine to find the best price. $1 here. $5 there. They
do so to maximise value and minimise expenditure.

This is not to say that they will spend all their time looking around
to find the very best price, when people often have a search time
limit, but most people often do not just find the required item and
buy.

And this exactly explains why suppliers have to lower their prices to
maintain a good market price, when people often won't pay their high
prices.

and its the possibility that ALL participants can profit in a free
market that make it such a success!

One person's gain is another person's loss.

To be
successful depends on how well you feed that greed.

No, feeding your greed is a recipe for disaster.

Not your greed, their greed.

As I said people will buy an unbeatable deal. That explains why high
street stores offer so many discounts.

What they do not often do is to well advertise their discount to the
public then the next month to throw in extra stuff for free.

One interesting example I have is to tell your customers that this
month's special offer is good, but they should wait until next month
to buy, when next month will be "cut my own throat" better. Oh and to
throw in an extra discount code just for them... and their friends.

Pow. The news of this triple offer spreads like the plague. And sure
enough sales the next month will be like five times higher. Due to the
word of mouth aspect then many customers will be clueless as to the
full nature of your special offer, when they just have all their
friends telling them about this great deal and to go and buy.

So I am a master at great deals. Well except that the key is business
is to ensure your suitable profit. No good really cutting your own
throat after all, unless it is to dispose of obsolete stock.

You are missing out commercial competition.

???? Another nonsensical statement having no meaning whatever.

Line curves do not take into account the line curves of other
businesses.

Suppliers often do not set their prices your way, when they look
around to see what the existing market prices are. Then they can
calculate their profit and to see if it is worth stocking.

Your price should reflect
the market price.

$25 million per passneger IS the market price for commercial space
toursim. lol. That's what a ride on the Soyuz went for. And you said
that was too high- for no damned good reason. haha

Sure some people will pay $25 million. A lot more people would pay
$2.5 million and vastly more would pay 250k.

However, it is nice to start out high,

As high as the market will bear yes.

And your business reputation. It is no good claiming that you provide
low prices if customers find the opposite.

then do a
special discount offer to make people believe that the time to buy is
now.

If you're selling used cars to dumbshits - yeah.

That is what the mass public is all about.

This isn't what you'd be doing here sir. You'd be selling to the best
and brightest and most capable.

You mean the richest.

The problem in your plan is that no one would ever build it. The true
commercial market is a lot more down-to-earth and the history of space
clearly shows that investors won't put their money into risky
projects.

Get your numbers right and you can soon make your fortune.

That's right - and the way to do it is estimate the demand curve,
compare it to what you can reasonably produce - I mean if you can put
300 people in orbit each year, then you've got to generate that volume
at whatever price you pick - and if the price is too low, build a
smaller vehicle at lower cost and recalculate. But this is a highly
technical thing to do - you just can't pull numbers out of your ass -
especially if you're going to be sepnding hundreds of millions of
dollars in the process.

I agree that you do need to be careful with your funding. It takes a
wise manager to sort out profitable schemes from obsolete junk.

There are as yet zero companies that provide space tourism services -
even so, the first company will do itself a grave disservice if it
doesn't figure out an optimal pricing strategy.

You can always ask them. They would want to cover their production
cost, but beyond that they would have an interest in the volume of
customers serviced.

That is not so bad.

Its a parabolic curve man, its equally bad on both sides of the peak!
lol.

You are talking about profit in theory. The reality tends to be
somewhat more harsh. You will find that other companies will affect
your parabolic curve in an almost random way.

Your money is better spent watching the real market than the
projections by your accountant.

You will whip your rivals

Yeah, like the guy who sold $1.99 breakfasts in Florida or the guy who
sold $99 engagement rings! lol.

All about best price for the desired item.

My customers know that I also aim to provide goods with a high
quality, when I fully test each item before I stock them. And if I
don't like it then I don't stock it.

and your profit

You have LESS PROFIT when you're lower than the peak profit point!!!
sheez. Why not make more profit and use that? lol.

Your prediction theories cannot include the restricted accounts of
your rivals.

can be used to buy greater volumes at a lower price.

Greater volumes of spaceships? lol hahahaha... Sheez, you're a trip.

I was not talking about space, but spaceships are possible. Your usual
governmental contractor will offer you an increasing discount on
multiple copies after all.

So having resources to buy in large volumes helps to increase your
future profit.

Look, the big issue for any serious space toursim provider is to get
the vehicle format and other details right. Choose the wrong vehicle
and you're toast. Choose the wrong provider and you're toast. Choose
the wrong features and you're toast. Chose the wrong size and you're
toast. Choose the wrong price and you're toast.

True enough. The profit level is not so important as long as you cover
your development costs.

No reality dude! Why don't you larn a thing or two about a topic
before you post strong opinions about it! lol.

And how many companies have you been the managing director of?

That is the one thing I find about operating a company, when you
always get people popping up and saying that you should do things this
way or that way.

I usually end up telling them that I tried that once and it turned out
to be a bad idea. So a "good idea" is just the theory, when the
reality is a touch more painful.

but in the second case people will soon well know who to buy
from.

You are wrong - dead wrong - If the demand curve is as strong as
indicated, the peak price point is fixed. You are throwing money away
by selling more product for less

First of all is that the peak point will be hardly ever fixed, when
that is not the nature of competition. Then the second case is that
you need to build up a customer base before you start to maximise your
profit from it.

Don't forget that word of mouth is more powerful than any paid for
advertising.

That can increase your profit in the longer term.

Dude, if you are operating at less profit than you otherwise might,
then you are throwing profit away over the longer term. You'll have
more customers at a lower price, but not more profit.

Increased funding can help you to purchase a greater volume at a lower
price that increases future profit. Gross income and net profit are
two very different aspects, where increasing your cash flow can help
increase your future profit.

Money makes money.

Limited volumes are very good if you have stock and your rivals don't.

Branson and Bigelow are selling services - you are terminally confused!
lol.

Did I mention Branson or Bigelow in the above sentence? No...

when a supplier needs to maintain a good reputation.

Dude, you're the one who doesn't understand that high prices bring a
good reputation low prices destroy it

Sometimes. People are not always that shallow. They want products on
reputation, when price often comes in second.

People want to buy iPods. Most people will shop around and find a good
iPod price. The lower price does not mean that the iPod is now crap.

People know it must be good if it costs a lot. They know corners were
cut if it doesn't. lol.

That is not always the case. You may get what you pay for, but the
best item is a popular item. Popular items get subject to fierce price
competition, which ends up having the best item sold for less than
what the lesser item is sold for.

Most people know the higher price due to bumping into suppliers who
still sell it at the Recommended Retail Price. They therefore
correctly understand their saving.

Besides, you're the one talking insanely about greed and lousy products
and all that stuff.

The market needs to recycle into new items at a higher rate due to
competition eventually sucking out all viable profit.

Sheez. I'm just telling you what good business practice is and what I
think today's pricing should be.

You work in theory. You show a commercial managing director that stuff
and he could laugh at you.

Customer demand creates the market. You enter that market by supplying
goods or services to it. Your profit is often dependant of your
awareness and adaption to changes in the market. When you feel like
you are controlling the market, then that is when you do well.

However, the number of tourists launched to the ISS to date is very
minor.

Its not zero that's the point.

And how many seats did you want to fill at $80 million?

How many there would be if there was no launch limit is an open
question,

One that needs to be answered in a reasonable way using good business
practice! Ugh!

Then let Branson and Musk provide the evidence before you start making
Moon plans.

but my point would be that even $20 million is far outside
of the mass market.

What planet do you live on? THERE IS NO MASS MARKET FOR SPACE TRAVEL!
NOT YET! When will it happen? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100
years?

Who knows?

Well since this is like day one then when mass space travel bares
fruit remains to be seen. They do intend to lower prices and increase
market demand though. And with that evidence at hand then maybe you
will get your gigantic commercial rockets or space elevator.

We're talking about TODAY!

And that means working under government contracts while trying to
establish a semi-popular tourist market.

As I said I doubt that many would be willing to buy into your plan.

There are likely to be 1,400 billionaires in 2011 - of these 150 of
these would be willing and able to pay for 300 tickets to orbit and
beyond. These people could be approached today with a program that
would allow early adopters to buy rides today - and give service
providers needed cash to do things right! lol.

The public does not care too much about space. Why should billionaires
be any different?

The goal of any business is to make money TODAY! lol. That's what I'm
talking about.

Then you are welcome to try building a Lunar landing for far less than
what NASA plans.

Now compare space tourist profit to that of a popular commercial
airline.

SpaceX knows that the launch cost has to drop.

How do you know what SpaceX knows?

I have been reading up. As I said without a customer base their is no
market only a potential one.

They are already out-pricing everyone else,

What is their launch rate to orbit?

Zero, but we are hoping for one soon enough. :-]

How many tickets have they sold to orbit?

None. Their Dragon is not yet ready to fly.

How many have they flown to orbit?

Zero. They will actually start one day. Today is not that day.

What are their insurance rates?

A good future question.

If they haven't flown anything to orbit- then their outpricing
everyone else is meaningless.since zero launches at any price makes no
difference.

A fair statement, but they have more customers than I have seen for
any launch service without even launching anything yet. You could say
that people support their plan and put faith into them.

Meanwhile, two flights per month of conventional launchers costing $100
million or so, occur nonstop.

No question. And when SpaceX start launching their Falcon IX then that
will put the Delta and Atlas rockets out of business. Well unless they
are kept artificially afloat by governmental services.

but in time even their prices need to drop
further.

These assertions need something in backof them if they're to be
meaninful. There is a learning curve effect, and there are economies
of scale. This is true in any market. So, yes, putting these factors
into place - but even being VERY generous - it is unlikely that we'll
get below $5 million for an orbital flight

SpaceX are on $6.7 million already. Now lets see if you can imagine if
they start to mass produce this hardware, lower prices, and increased
launches.

That figure could well drop a lot further.

Elon Musk is so confident that he even offered a free launch for the
Space Cadets if they wish to replace the probe that his first launch
attempt recently damaged. So you could already count that one as $3.35
million a flight when they would get two for the single price.

Anyway, as soon as he has recovered his costs then wait and see how
much their already great prices drop by. As this would count as
evidence that the stock market would buy into.

In other words they are trying to establish a new market.

Yes, so they need not be as price sensitive, as the Russians found out.

I cannot see the Russians increasing their launch rate to make more
profit.

That happens a lot, but eventually someone will compete with them and
their price will drop.

When? In 20 years?

I would expect that the other commercial entities could pull together
a rival launch service if needed, but at this time they are working on
cooperation and not competition.

And maybe some good profit is ideal to expand and improve their range
of services. It is no good killing the market before it is born
though.

By then, any competitor will have to deal with the
big kid on the block, and that would be YOU if you took my advice!
lol.

So SpaceX is another Microsoft. That would be no surprise. Innovative
and ambitious one day and a gross monopoly the next.

There are ways to address believability - it depends on who you partner
with, and a whole host of things. Credibility is an issue for
suborbital flight - and they've already done it! lol. So, this has to
be addressed face on - and I think Bigelow and Branson are getting it
wrong here - but thre's one good thing, at least its not my money!
lol.

Yes, you want to do the Lunar direct plan for your average
billionaire. They are starting with something more modest for the
millionaires and sub-millionaires.

It seems to me that maximizing your launch business, launching
anything and everything, is the better option. Having a lower cost
launch system would reflect through many markets.

Maybe companies putting their own advertising banners in LEO may prove
popular, when I doubt that you can top that.

Then they can do hotels and with
success there they can indeed build their Lunar hotel etc.

Space enthusiasts are not the best people to put together a marketing
strategy.

They have the money and you don't. And I doubt that you can question
their credentials. Airline operator, hotel chain owner, etc.

NASA will do a woman around 2018 to 2020. Yes, some woman may be
interested to beat NASA, but equally they could be first woman in
Branson's orbital hotel.

The first Russian man, & woman, the first American woman, the first
Chinese man & woman, the first Japanese man & woman - how many nations
are there? And do we really care about another nation's history? If
I'm from Brazil and I'm the first Brazilian on the moon I'll be in MY
history books forever - that's pretty heady stuff for a mere business
type to be able to BUY! lol. ,

So a name in the history books. Yes you may have a viable plan there,
when individual governments would pay your $80 million. Too bad that
the hardware will never be built.

The Moon is not a question of who is first but who is best,

??? You seem to be talking rationally then you come out with this
totally off-the-wall commentary that has no sense to it whatever.

The commercial people need infrastructure. And by getting that
infrastructure in place then they could do the Moon for peanuts.

NASA will appear sucky by comparison, but they can buy tickets along
with anyone.

We're talking about the value proposition of what is being offered to
prospective customers. Being able to make history is an important
value to some. Now, you are saying something totally different here -
and at odds with what you said above about poor quality and so forth.
lol.

Yes, first whatever on the Moon can have value. It may wear a little
thin when it comes to first whatever on Ganymede though. Space is a
big place with an awful lot of firsts.

where the
commercial people know that one trip to put your boot prints in the
soil is just not the way to do it.

??? If you invest $400 million to get the ball rolling and make $1,600
million in ticket sales, and earn say $800 million back in five years -
and you only did a single flight to the moon - how is that not a
profitable enterprise? Why isn't that the way to do it?

Their intention is not to maximise profit. They need infrastructure to
increase their strength. Remote resource production that they can ship
to LEO or where ever.

Why would boot prints in the regolith be important compared to tens of
thousands of people living and working in space? Once that market is
up there then they can make tons of profit.

Now many are multi-billionaires those 1,400 of them,control around
$7,000 billion in combined assets. 5% of that is $350 billion!!!
Getting just 10% of them to spend 5% of their asset base for something
spectacular in space amounts to $35 billion!!

Yes. And why are you moaning here instead of going to sell this plan
to them? I suspect that they won't offer cash upfront.

So your hardware will never be built when no one will fund it.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
.

Loading