> 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

Well, that's evidence on my side, the .comers that failed didn't initially write their business plans expecting failure! LOL

IMHO your space business plan has less of a chance to succeed than the worst .com business plan. At least they were trying to follow some better proven models...

> 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.

Well, just because you were able to "convince" a few space cadet investors does not mean that your plan will be successful! I guess that there are enough rich people out there who want to be (wanabe) astronauts! LOL

Here is another YADA for you, some people also want to win the Tour the France 7 times, but they just can't... LOL

> 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?

In the telecommunications industry, obviously...

> > 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.

I am sorry, but you are the one who is in denial here...You desperately hope that your business plan will succeed, so you ignore and deny all other responses that are against you. Once again, this is the ONLY realistic answer on this issue...

In other words, the chances of your plan succeeding are miniscule since there is no proven model of space commercialization. This is as REAL as it gets...

> 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, the real fact is that there is no evidence for your space business model since there is no space commercialization going on. Essentially, you are just trying to extrapolate an aircraft industry model and desperately hope that it may work for space commercialization!!!

Your twist of words will take no where...

> I have never claimied that the possition DOES exist. I have argued that the possition
> CAN exist.

That is only wishful thinking on YOUR part, but, of course, you have no evidence to support your position, nothing, zilch...

> Again this is YASA.

Whatever you call it is still irrelevant, your twist of words will not just magically turn your position into reality! Not even the cash of these rich investors that you claim to have...

> 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.

Like I said, you can try to twist words all day long, but the fact still is that your naive extrapolation of the aircraft industry towards space commercialization is no real evidence that it can succeed...

> 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!)

Well, the space shuttle is also still flying after several have already crashed and that is with NASA! However, space commercialization is a much different concept...

I am sure that you can continue to experiment all day long with the money that you claim that you have received from your rich space cadet investors, but to then come here with a straight face and tell us that your commercial space plans will succeed is what weird at best!!!

> Those inital rich people, as I have said will invest.

Of course, what else are they going to do with their fiat debt based money, collect more interest? LOL

> 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.

That is what you desperately hope, but, of course you have no proof of that!!!

> > 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.

Because they are for "aircraft industry" which is a much different market. WOW, it seems to me that you don't have a basic concept of what a market is.

Case in point, and using your aircraft industry as an example, commercial supersonic flights like the Concord, were cancelled because of a combination of saftey and costs. I guess there aren't enough rich people who were willing to pay for it!!!

That business failed. So, why don't you use that example as the comparison to your space cadet business plan!?

Now, if you can't see this, then you head must be clearly out there in space...

> > Well, you can continue to bang on your chest all
> > you want but
>
> I haven't banged on my chest once.

Hello, it was a figure of speach...

> 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.

It is your argument who is burning now...

> > 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.

It is you who is getting desperate. Maybe you hope that your plan doesn't end up like the commercial supersonic flights!!!

> The aircraft industry is a great analogy here.

So why don't you use the Concord as an example!? Maybe because it was a failure!!!

> 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.

This YADA of yours proves nothing, but it still is entertaining to read...

> 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.

I guess that they will just have to cross their fingers and hope to survive their ego trip and have a nice view from up there for a few seconds/minutes!!!

> 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

Look, you can certainly continue to try. I am not here to stop you from doing that, but the reality of it still is that your space plan does not have any proven business model(s) to support it...

History has proven several times that in many cases it cases insane people like Howard Hughes to blindly push things through...He never took no for an answer...

Based on your responses here you seem to fit that same profile, but what do I know!!!

> > Again, you simply cannot extrapolate Earth based
> > transportation business models!
>
> Why not. You have failed to show why this model won't work

Duh! Because it has never been proven for space!!!!!! LOL

> > Your logic is
> > reverse twisted logic...
>
> No it is balanced and well reasoned, if (and I have never denied) a touch optimistic.

To me it is idealistic and definitely optimistic but certainly not realistic...but then again, people like Howard Hughes lived in their own person reality worlds. He didn't even want to come out of his room for many, many days at a time...

> > 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!!!
>
> 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? Please give some real evidence to support your possition

The Concord failure would be one example,

Other evidence is that you just don't have any proven example of execution for such a space commercialization business plans. You would need to have an insane CEO like Howard Hughes and even that would not guarranty any success...

Then there is the issue of safety for the passengers doing the brief space ego trip...how many will just 'cancel' their space flights after the first incident that you will have? Maybe you should collect the money up front and give no refunds! LOL

Howard Hughes was his own test pilot and he got burned a few times, literally, but then again, this seems to be the spirit of your argument here...so, good luck man...

+wirelessguru1