wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 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...

See the .com industry for as many examples as you could possibly want of this

See thats evidence... I can point you to some if you can't be bothered googling

>
> > 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!

Exactly. And again you've prooved my point whilst offering up YASA (Yet Another Strawman Arguement). The invester has ALREADY reviewed them and has put money in to them. So they have been reviewed and deemed that they will be successful. So again you're point brings no evidence in favour of your arguement.

OK so if you have studied (and I note you said seen... which doesn't necessarily mean you have studied /reviewed business plans) business plans for real purposes, could you tell me what type of business plan you have studied? What types of industry as well?


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

Deny deny deny. Its a strawman because I asked a question, and you answered another one that you could answer and sounded and was reasonable... but not as an answer to the question I posed.

> > 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!!!
>

No you haven't.

WHERE have you given me this evidence I asked for? Go on where? I have asked for case studies and business models... I've just reviewed the thread again and you haven't pointed me towards any, whilst at the same time you keep trying to change the question to something you can answer.

>
> 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 never claimied that the possition DOES exist. I have argued that the possition CAN exist. Again this is YASA. Or can you point out to me where I have said that the space industry does exist... oopps no you can't do that either because I haven't at any point said that.

> 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...
>

So were the first planes grounded when the first one crashed? (heres a hint the answer is no!) Were cars banned when the first one crashed? (heres another hint the answer is no!)

Those inital rich people, as I have said will invest. Even if not by buying shares, just by going on the flights. Each one that goes will bring the price down on the next generation.

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

How can you say they are unproven. The business models I have pointed you to are HUGELY successful. You have failed to show why this model won't work.


> Well, you can continue to bang on your chest all
> you want but

I haven't banged on my chest once. I just keept trying to get some evidence out of you... its a tough assignment but I'm resolved to keep trying... to keep burning your strawmen and asking for evidence.

> you still cannot prove to me that
> your space commercialization concepts are real!

Actually the article that this entire thread is based on proves that. You are just getting desperate.

> 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"...
>

YASA! The aircraft industry is a great analogy here. When planes first took to the skies their were no landing strips and the first few landed very badly. Then the design of the aircraft evolved to have wheels that would allow the plane to land in any flat field with enough room. Later some even got floats on their design so they could land on water. Later still runways were developed... specialist places where the planes could land and take off in a more standard environment... and the designs of planes followed suit.

Don't try and jump ahead of the technology.... now THAT really is the realms of science fiction. As for the training... well astronaughts currently have many tasks to do in space... passengers won't.

Thats another strawman smoldering on the floor.

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

as you have so often pointed out their is NO reality of commercial space travel at the moment. It needs to be built up... with a sound business plan... as I have said numerous time, and you have failed to show why it won't work

> Again, you simply cannot extrapolate Earth based
> transportation business models!

Why not. You have failed to show why this model won't work

> Your logic is
> reverse twisted logic...

No it is balanced and well reasoned, if (and I have never denied) a touch optimistic.

>
> 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

its no different! I never stated a time arguement. I never even stated that their had to be point 'b' (round trip). That was all your doing. But since we have now been their (and your original, if you can remember back that far, statement about their being not point B to go to) isn't that a valid point B to visit again?

YASA.

Please give some real evidence to support your possition