Re: Establish demand
- From: "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Feb 2007 08:11:01 -0800
On 25 Feb, 15:34, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ian Parker" <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:This in fact happens all the time. A company is mismanaged, goes broke
:Probably what we would come up
:with would be Proton/Soyuz technology, some purchasing of complete
:systems and some licensing. Anyway that is what the management would
:have to decide. Private enterpise would also cater for the global
:market.
In other words, your 'free market' will pick a vehicle that was
created under socialism.
and its assets are then sold off. The Proton is certainly an asset.
Let it be sold.
:Why do we insist that space is developed by socialism? Why doesn't theNonsense. Demand will always find its own level. If there id no demand
:US do what it constantly nags third world countries to do and have a
:genuinely open market?
Because there isn't enough demand to support a real 'open market'.
why talk about new launcher facilities. IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE.
:There is no need for new technology such as hypersonic aircraft toThe argument about monopoly is always present in a capitalist system.
:reduce launch costs. These would come down anyway with the demise of
:Socialism.
No, they'd go up. Everyone goes broke but Proton/Soyuz. Then they
jack up the price on you once everyone else has destroyed their
tooling.
Take a look at the Russian behaviour toward Europe with regard to
energy...
In fact what I would advocate is the purchase of complete Soyuz/Proton
systems. In that way Russian bureaucracy would be circumvented. It
would be preferable from this viewpoint to have a private enterprise
company launching payloads, rather that purchase it from Russia on a
per kg basis. I am not in favor of getting rid of drawings, you always
need the ability to compete.
What I would be in favor of is this. Remove all space launchers from
national bureaucracies - Have 2 private companies purchasing IPR
rights. This might be of the form of one lump payment or a per launch/
kg basis. Then let competition start. The companies involved could
decide on their policies. Proton/Soyuz/Long March are clearly cheaper
than anything else. This might be better technology or simply reflect
low labor costs. If the latter it might be an idea to build Ariane in
Russia or China just as tea shirts are made there.
Comanies would then have to think how they could expand their
business. Attention to the customer is key to most situations. I am
told that although Ariane is more expensive than Soyuz/Long March the
bureaucratic restrictions are less. This is another characteristic of
socialism, the lack of attention to the customer. Arianespace could be
one company. Possibly Virgin Galactic could be another I dobn't know.
If space tourism is viable it should be marketed. Private enterprise
markets and tries to attact customers.
As far as energy is concerned Russia is charging the market rate. The
thing to do is to reduce dependence on imported energy. Space is of
course not like this. In energy you have a large market and a definite
international price. In space governments and socialism have inflated
market assessments. Socialism, I call NASA socialist and all the
astronauts are good socialists in this regard, does not attempt to
market, it does not have to stake its shirt on getting accurate market
forecasts.
Your posting in fact convinces me even more of the truth of what I am
saying. Space is not national virility, it is no different from any
other business. If NASA cannot do a proper market forecast its
bureaucracy should forfeit their shirts as they would anywhere else.
- Ian Parker
.
- References:
- Establish demand
- From: Totorkon
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Establish demand
- Prev by Date: Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Next by Date: Re: Establish demand
- Previous by thread: Re: Establish demand
- Next by thread: Re: Establish demand
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
