Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Mar 12, 5:14 am, "john hare" <rdnkt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Len" <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173631944.886914.242000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 11, 12:39 pm, "john hare" <rdnkt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:46422958.512965154@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 11 Mar 2007 08:23:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Len"
<l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I think there should be some elasticity to
the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage
the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose
for the water/propellant market guarantee. In
the case of tourism support, I think the price
that tickets are resold should be tied to the
cost the government pays for the tickets.

I would simply auction them on Ebay.

It would be interesting to see how a billionaire (probably
with some dain bramage) would do putting up say, 5 biilion
for this purpose. 5,000 seats at $1M each for starters.

John, perhaps $500 million for 10,000
discounted seats to be resold--or bought
back by the company for $2,000,000,000
at $200,000 per seat might be more attractive.
These are numbers that my company could live
with.

I can't remember a discussion that probably happened
a few times already. With your numbers, it would seem
feasible to get a firm contract from Space Adventures or
Bigalow for 1,000 seats at $500,000.00 each. This would
give the $500 million in guaranteed revenue at a price that
fairly conventional people can believe.

I was in Bigelow's office many years ago,
but I was never able to talk directly to
Bigelow. The answer at that time from the
people I was able to talk to was that Bigelow
would not invest in an unproven launch vehicle.
Perhaps a contingent contract might have been
possible; however, even that is now unlikely
since it would no be in conflict with neutrality
for Bigelow's America prize.

I haven't given up on the possibilty of selling
rides to others. However, without a real
vehicle, I think you run into securiities laws.

IMO, if you offer something that sounds too good to be
true, many will avoid it because they can't find the hook.
In my experience, something too good to be true usually
has multiple barbed hooks. I can get twice the price for
my work from school construction, which is three times the
hassle.

I'm well aware of this phenomena The trouble
is that some missions do not make economic
sense until you get really low numbers. I think
the low numbers are realistic, in spite of the
"too good to be true" syndrome. This sort of
brings us back to square one.

As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I am
hopeful that some potential investors will
believe our vertical integration business plan
that could be successful, even if only one of
the main applications proves to be workable.
Lately this seems to be showing promise.

Len

Once the vehicle was real and flying, other
missions could earn the $1 billion
needed to fulfill obligations for the 10,000
discounted seats.

Len


.

Relevant Pages