> You've not seen many business models if they all predict success.

Well, IMHO one would have to be insane, literally, to write a business model that predicts failure! They wouldn't be able to get a single investment $$$ for it...

> I've seen loads, some good, some bad, some which can show success some which can show
> failure. Once again you are setting up your strawman arguement.

I have also seen loads of business plans! It is the person who is reviewing them for investment purposes who will then determine if he/she likes them or not, but the persons who initially wrote them didn't specifically write them to predict failure!

My argument is not strawman or tinman, but rather the ONLY realistic position on this issue.

> Only this time you are just plain trying to avoid giving an answer.

I have already given you multiple answer on this topic and just because you don't seem to like them does not necessarily mean that you are right and that I am wrong! On the contrary... Maybe you are using the same criteria that you use to make your business model analysis!!!

> This discussion has been going on for a few days now. If you haven't found anything to
> support your possition it probably doesn't exist.

Again, on the contrary, it is your position that does not exist and it is only science fiction...If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell you at this stage!!!

Space commercialization does not exist today, it is only in your imagination...

> I have shown you a very successful model. That of the aircraft industry. Why are they
> different?

WOW! It is truly unbelievable to me that you cannot see the difference!!!

One has to do with Earth based transportation with a very large defined market and an alternative to other slower forms of transportation and the other model is a complete unknown, crap shot, no real market besides some initial potential rich people who want to take a trip outside the Earth gravity to see the view from there!!!

You would be grounded at the first failure...

> You have failed to show this again. Stop avoiding answering the question by just
> pretending that it doesn't fit I have gone over why it fits (ie commercial enterprise
> and competion bringing the price down).

It is you who is failing here desperately trying to suggest to me that your unproven business models are real! LOL

Well, there is no chance whatsoever that I can buy your absurd perspective on this!!!

> It is YOU who have failed to show how it isn't relevent. Just saying it isn't, as you
> are doing above, doesn't make it so. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE YOU ARE BASING THIS ASSUMTPION
> ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, you can continue to bang on your chest all you want but you still cannot prove to me that your space commercialization concepts are real! Aircraft industry has nothing to do with sapce commercialization. For example, these critical issues of re-entering the Earth athmosphere due to the friction heat that is generated are critical issues that the aircraft industry does not have to deal with and there are many, many more issues that Astronausts have been training for many, many hours and days which you want to try to "trivialize"...

Your argument is completely out of tune with the natural reality of space travel...let alone the commercialization of it!

> I am not speculation though. I am applying a logical business model, that has worked
> previously in simlar industries in the past. You STILL haven't managed to show how it
> isn't relevent.

Again, you simply cannot extrapolate Earth based transportation business models! Your logic is reverse twisted logic...

> And as for this silly point B arguement. If that is true, how did we ever get to the moon?

Again, getting to the moon and land there for a few minutes, hours or even days by trained astronauts is much, much different than space commercialization! If you can't see this difference, I am truly amazed to say the least!!!

--wirelessguru1