> No but Richard Branson's probably is.

Well, using your words, that's rubbish!

> you are talking rubish. Even in space there is a point B.... you just need more
> reference points. Anyway stop changing the question I asked you to provide
> evidence and you have provided incorrect retoric.

You are just "ignoring" what I am saying!!!

The "evidence" is is that there are no point B's in space close enough to Earth that can sustain life! Are you for real!!!

> I'm afraid I'm in the camp that thinks the ISS should be decomissioned in favour
> of more scientific /exploration projects. The ISS is more political than it is useful.

I agree with you on that...

> But it doesn't stop your 'point B' point from being completely wrong.

Maybe you are smoking something!?

> We can take systems that will support life with us. Anyway you are veering of the
> topic.... again... you STILL haven't provided any evidence...

What a fertile imagination! LOL

Is this like starship enterprise or starship galactica? That belongs in science fiction. But maybe you have been watching too many sci fi space movies!!!

> Right you missed the majority of the previous comment where I sited the ealy aircraft
> industry as a direct parralell and evidence... if you don't see that you might need to
> actually read what I say instead of what you think I said

You must be dreaming! Aircraft industry is to take people here on Earth from point A to point B. There is absolutely no relationship whatsoever with space flights...

> yes but that is rubbish as I have already said.

Rubbish again! This must be one of your favorite words...

> Technology in areas moves in spurts... this might be space travels 'spurt' in to the
> commercial area. The only real evidence you are offering against this is your pessimism.

Must be because your outrageous 'optimistic' position is a closed mind position, therefore you then think that everybody else who doesn't agree with your lunatic position is pessimist!

The evidence is that there are no point B's in space for you to travel to!

May Richard can give people a quick rush of addrenaline to outer space no gravity and then immediatelly bring them back to Earth and you somehow are calling that type of a trip as space commercialization!

On the other hand, I call it an ego trip for rich people which, of course, is a much, much more realistic position and not pessimistic!

> > First of all, realism is NOT pessimism,
>
> I didn't say it was... where did I say it was.... oh I didn't... you're wrong again

Well, you have been "implying" that my position is pessimistic!?

> > it is a THIRD state in between the middle of optimism (+)
> > and pessimism (-). I am more of a "realist" not a pessimist!
>
> I disagree! You seem to look at everything in the negative. That makes you a pessimist.

That's rubbish...

Tell me exactly how did you figure out what my reference really was!? Compared to your position it may sound negative, but that is only because you have a un-realistic position!!!

> > Also, there is no "strawmen" or "tinman" here!
>
> Oh maybe I should change the word strawmen for unproovable nonesense.

or to 'rubbish' which seems to be you favorite world!

> That isn't evidence though in the area I'm looking for. Here what I'm looking for
> from you is a fully investigated case study showing what you say...

What I am saying is that your position is not realistic! You are dreaming, you have your head in the clouds regarding this concept of space commercialization. There are no business models here on Earth that can even begin to prove or show you that this effort will be successful under today's debt based system! Now, this is the only realistic position...

> not just nebulously waving your hand and saying (proverbially) "just look at what a
> bad way the world is in. Thats proof!" I'm afraid that isn't proof at all.

It proof enough that your are dreaming about space commercialization...

I suppose you are a pioneer!

> > So, do you really think that this "transition"
> > will go smooth?
>
> I think it COULD.

Of course, you're an 'optimist'...

> I've given you an example of one that did (as you have conveniently forgotten.

That's rubbish...

> Ah... not quite! Predictions of the future, in industry are based on models built on
> past experince and evidence. In this area I humbly suggest you join the 'real world'.

Amazing, the dreamer, the one with his head in space is asking me to join the real world! LOL

That is ironic at best...

> I didn't say I was being or feeling kicked. I was interpretting your claims of knowing
> more without demonstrating it.

On the contrary, I've demonstrated more than enough that your concept of space commercialization has no proven business model here on Earth (reality) that can even attempt to suggest or demonstrated that your idea can be successful!

> Erm yes but ANSWER THE QUESTION HERE! Just to remind you the question was "Is this
> really a problem?" There is not even an implied answer there.

Of course there is a REAL problem, you have no proven business model here on Earth for your space commercialization idea! IMHO, at the first failure (accident!) you would be grounded just like NASA...

> You ARE being pessimistic.

No way! I am being realist...

> At least I am honest enough to say I am an optimist.

..and I am being honest enough saying that I am a realist...

> Human nature leads me to that.

So does my NATURE...

> The things I've seen have lead me to that. I was mearly pointing out that I wasn't an
> Idealist like you mentioned previously.... but at least you seem to have changed your
> mind on that.

Well, there are many optimists that are idealists...If you are not an idealist you are certainly not a realist...

> In this world... commercial forces will win out. I've given you examples...
> please give me something other than empty sound bites.

What sound bites!? In this world, natural forces always win out over any and all other forces and that includes commercial forces...Again, that is the "realistic" position...

> Sorry the way you mentioned the global shift in power you made it sounds like a bad
> thing.

That's due to your own personal reality reference!!!

> > You mean it is used, over and over again?
>
> No but that was another empty sound biter

No, it was great 'twist' of your words...again, that is the 'realistic' position...

> > Interesting, so you can only see progress at the
> > macro level and not the degeneration! This is
> > fascinating to me!!!
>
> No whats fascinating is watching you try to answer the question in the way you want
> without actually providing anything to back it up. You have failed to show it.

Well, failure is in the eye of the beholder and to me you have failed...

> > > If you are always glumly looking at the
> > > floor, ok you might avoid some of the dog
> > > muck, but you'll never see the wonders of the
> > > sky (and clean shoes are over-rates!)
> >
> > Well, the problem here is that I am actually
> > looking at the sky and I see it falling down...
> >
> > ..but, ultimately that is still a very good thing
> > I suppose...
>
> thats odd from where I'm sat the sky isn't falling! The stars are slowly creeping
> their way through the sky in the routine they have followed for far longer than
> either of us has existed.

Well, I am seeing all of these new planets and objects poping up in the sky...

..but, maybe we are using different reference...

..and how do you know how long I've existed!? Are you referring to this life cycle!?

> Really though I have a feeling you aren't going to answer my questions and that
> you are just going to pretend that you have again

Your question have been answered multiple times and you still cannot see the light! Once again, IMHO there is no business model here on Earth that shows that you can successfully execute your plan within today's debt based system and if you are trying to convince investors, you are smoking them or selling them snake oil...

Again, this is the only realistic position that one can have on this...

-+wirelessguru1