Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Financial base going to be accumulated

Financial base going to be accumulated

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:30 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 15 posts ] 
Financial base going to be accumulated 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Financial base going to be accumulated   Posted on: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:30 am
According to an article under www.xprizenews.org today Branson has already a number of 7000 customers. If all these people pay 200,000 $ he has got 1.4 billion $ revenues. His former announcement that the first flights only will cost 200,000 $ seems to indicate that it will be less.

But the number shows that suborbital flights are accumulating a significant amount of financial ressources in the private space travel sector.

So the financial barriers are going to be reduced by visioneers and enthusiasts that have enough money.

This can prove to be the required basis for the evolution of a future orbital markets too.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:29 am
The article "Space Tourism: Next Steps Taking Shape" ( www.space.com/news/050426_tourism.html ) is quoting Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic as follows: "Whitehorn reported that their business plan projects profitability in the fourth or fifth year of operation"

That far Virgin Galactic's business plan. If they can manage to make that plan reality then this really may be the base for orbital personal spaceflight which they have as long-term goal too according to that article.

This may mean that they will prepare to fund a company or a team competing for the ASP if Whitehorn's fifth year successfully is over before the ASP is won.

But their funds will be available only if the ASP isn't won in January 2010. But there is the chance and perhaps Richard Branson will fund before the fifth year if he expects or can expect things to evolve as assumed by the business plan.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:34 pm
I think there is a big disconnect here--that I like to call the $10 million --$300 million disconnect.

I remember reading a SCI AM article a few years back when Kelly Kistler and others were just getting started. So help me, it seemed that the spokesman for each company said:

"If we just had $300 million dollars we'd be all set."

It is easy enough to get $100,000 dollars (unless you're Joe-Q-Sixpack like me)--and even $20 million.

But anymore than that eats into assets that are far from liquid--and there don't seem to be many folks of the Branson level that seem willing to fork over that kind of money.

But if you can get that first $300 million--your legitimacy is such that federal funding in the billions is actually likely--as in the case with UCAVs.

In other words--it is easier to go from $150-300 million to $10 billion--than it is to get to that first hundred (or three hundred) million dollar mark.

Between the ten million and the three-hundred million mark is the ocean labeled "Here be Dragons".

That frightens investors who would really have to make a committment to an unproven tech--which needs the money to prove itself.

I'd like to hear from Ekke on what he would suggest be the answer to bridging that gap.

Venture Capitalists will give you at most a few million to keep options open--but no more. But if you are ALREADY in the hundred million dolar range--you are serious and attract investors.

Everyone loves a winner--but it is all but impossible to get that first person on the bandwagon.

They'll help you eat the cake--but not bake it.

So how do we overcome this gap?


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:56 am
publiusr,

you seem to be very well non-informed - the gap you subjectively think to see is filled since long: Branson is a billionair.

It isn't required to liquify any assets - no company and no entrepreneur does that for investments. What they do is taking credits Second nearly never the total sum of the investment is required at once in the beginning - the investment flows in small portions which means that only very few assets have to be liquified per week or per month.

Each investment is planned months or years before it takes place and selfunderstandingly it is planned too how to finance the investment including how and when to liquify assets.

In the end each investment is financed by its revenues if it turns out to be successful and meeting the market demand.

Your numbers are reminding me to people applying experiences and statistics only - without carefuly looking if these experiences and statistics can be applied really. Experiences never can be applied of themselves without looking to their causal-logic reasons and causes and comparing these reasons and causes to those possibly given where the experiences are going to be applied to- never!

publiusr, your behaviour is going to be inacceptable again - so stop it completely. Make public here your background, education, profession, job and occupation to provide information about your competence - your posts sound as if there is no real competence and as if you are trying to hide that.

You have completely overlook that I used an information from Virgin Galactic but didn't estimate, forcast or predict something. I described theoretical possibilities only and didn't claim the "list" to be complete. So you are far away from recognizing what I am saying really.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:21 pm
Ask about something and get your head bitten off.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:14 pm
Your post is the behaviour of someone who thinks he is God - as I mentioned in my last answer to you in the Technology section.

spacecowboy already told you to say where you are occupied - that has to be sufficient. You can't claim that everybody here asks as concition to answer to a single poster.

I repeat it: you haven't recognized nor understood what I said really.SpaceDaily did right in removing your article(s) - and you more and more tend to base answers on interpretations and subjectivity, As long as you go on to do so I will talk to you as I am doing and have been doing.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:28 pm
I don't need to share my private business with you--and you are certainly not God though you act like it. And frankly sir--economists and bean-counters like you are the worst thing to happen to spaceflight.

Why don't you tell us what the difference between a hypergolic and a cryogenic is without looking it up.

I don't think you can.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:03 am
First - I already said something about Economists and so-called bean-counters in another thread: Bean-counters never can be called Economists - they are inferior to them, they are inferior to controllers and the like. Economist isn't Economist - there are Enterprise Economists and there are Political Economists. Political Economists are farer from bean-counters than Enterprise Economists - Political Economists are analogs to Physicists who think about how to apply Physics while Enterprise Economists are analogs to Engineers who not only construct machines etc. but research on new construction methods, testing methods and experimental methods too. Each of these comparisons has its problems but in general they can be applied.

Political Economists are researching the economic world as Physicists are researching the physical world and then base recommendations and so on on their results. Enterprise Economists are searching for Management Methods, Management Techniques, Organization and so on mainly.

So Political Economists never "count beans" but tend to look down at people "counting benas" - in Gemany in the 1950s Political Economists tended to call Enterprise Economists "academic accounters" and when I got my university diploma some of the Political Economists called Enterprise Economists "plate-edge-economists" simply because they had experienced that those Enterprise Economists didn't know the Economics outside Enterprises.

Political Economists struggle to avoid to estimate growth rates and so on except they are forced by law, politicians and so on - because to do so is inscientific. If they are forced to estimate numbers then they provide detailed scientific information around them to take care that they don't hurt scientific rules. For this reason it is extremely difficult to detect the german growth rate in the studies done by the "Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung" (Experts Council for Studies on Economical Growth) - it is surrounded by 250 pages of text including at least 40 pages summary full of "if", "only if" and so on.

That's never "bean-counting".

Enterprise Economists in difference to that really want numbers because they are required to manage a company - as there are revenues, number of units of product sold, market share, costs and much more.

In the two initial posts I referred to informations given by Virgin Galactic only - no Political Economists is responsible for those numbers and all I said is valid if and only if Virgin Galactic provided correct numbers. I trust them.

As far as Political Economists use numbers they do that to look at the behaviour of costs. demand, market, debth investors etc. - numbers are used to get curvatures etc. only but the numbers themselves are of little interest only if at all.

So far some informations to the public only.

Hypergolic propellants are propellants which ignite of themselves when brought together while cryogenic propellants are propellants cooled down to very low temperatures and must ignited externally when brought together. The last half of this may require a little correction.

publiusr, I am at this board since the third of June last year as you could have seen by my profile and at the left side of my posts - you can't know when and where I read what hypergolic is and means. There simply were discussions on a specific team - Interorbital Systems - which applies hypergolic propellants and I read their website too.

What I myself told you regarding "God" still holds.

You are basing your post on interpretations and guesses partially and construct your own personal subjective reality and truth. There are so-called and self-announced life-supporters writing a bulk of books in the world being psychologists mainly. Some of them recommend the people to construct personal subjective realities as base for egoism - explicitly. I randomly have seen the titles of their books in book shops here in Hamburg. And I have observed and experienced twice the behaviour of people behaving like you - they damaged my federation and my sports club. They have been kicked out by the members which count by hundreds. Sufficient reason to be inconfident if somebody is behaving as you do - and to react as I am doing. And most of our german politicians are behaving such a way too - and caused huge damage to nearly all they got control about.

And I am educated to feel responsible in such cases and to go against such behaviour actively.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Financial Barriers to Spacelaunch Development   Posted on: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:54 pm
Re " How do we overcome this gap?" (in funding and investor confidence).
Answer, by demonstrating something that actually works. The X-33 was a nice demonstration that a big budget ($1.2 Billion) doesn't guarantee success.

I know all too well that this (demonstrating working hardware) is the hard way - but suspect that it is also the only way. Dollar bills glued together aren't all that strong, and dollar bills don't burn all that well. Spacelaunch takes more sophisticated (not necessarily more costly) techniques. If you were bright enough, you could have invented the "Scanning Electron Microscope" with a few hundred dollars of materials (and no vacuum system). This Nobel Prize winning technology needed insight, not size. I suspect that something similar will be a component of affordable spaceflight.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:06 pm
Apples and dump trucks. A scanning Electron Microscope doesn't need to go to Mach 25 and return intact to be anorbital craft.

X-33 is a poor example to use to say that spending big doesn't work. VentureStar was a Bad design. Now imagine if that large amount of funding had been given to DC-X--which started small and lean as you say--very cost effective--but was underfunded.

Had DC-X been the X-33 winner, and not the aeroballistic make-work VentureStar winner--who knows how much farther along we would be.

It is up to Blue Origin and Space Island to pursue that tech--and who knows how much Bezos does--or does not want to spend in this project.

It has been said that involvement in aerospace research is the fastest way to "turn billionaires into millionaires."

I don't see that changing. The first to bridge that gap will have an advantage. Rutan's biggest achievement wasn't SS1--but getting himself noticed as the go-to guy for other start ups and almost dead Darpa projects--thus t/Space and X-37.

I predict that he will shepherd many such start-ups and wind-downs; i.e. some new company will come up with a contraption to be tested--they will pay Rutan some of their limited funds for a drop test--get publicity....and fold up. Another project will come along--pay Rutan a bit...and then it dies too.

Over time Rutan will feed off the losses of other space start ups--and try to fund a VLA off the deaths of other less savvy groups. Then that VLA will be used to drop ABM testbeds for the AF, and other, better funded start ups.

In other words--cannibalism. That may be the only way to bridge the gap.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:45 pm
That, publiusr, is totally ruthless, heartless, cruel, and absolutely elegant. I love it.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:39 pm
I learned from the best--ruthless, Stalinist Soviet Chief Designers with all the personality of the Borgias.

Speaking of Cannibalism:

"A Centaur-maker once tried to test me...I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice hypergolic apertif."

Hannibal Publius


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:28 am
publiusr wrote:
In other words--cannibalism. That may be the only way to bridge the gap.

Actually cannibalism is basic to the history of transportation technology, including the railroads.

Rutan makes a lot of money on special projects, including the DCX aeroshell, and (the best example) ROTON – another early (and failed) spaceflight venture!

You missed the point with the microscope: this technological breakthrough was done with thousands of times less funding that previously assumed. What technological breakthroughs are now eluding our minds? Neither big nor finished is part of my point – the first cyclotron could be carried in a coat pocket: a subsequent version weighed a thousand tons. You may know with certainty that your mind is incapable of discovering a way to radically stretch space development funding. I neither know nor suspect that about my own mind.

Please don’t confuse the X-33 and the VentureStar. The VentureStar never became a “design” (in engineering terms), good or bad. It existed as an artist’s concept only. If judged likely to succeed and funded, this “Shuttle” replacement would have cost much more than ten times the $1.2 Billion spent on the X-33 project. (Probably over $30 Billion).

The X-33 project was to build a radio control model as a testbed for several aerospace ideas. I believe only one of these ideas produced promising test results, and that was the advanced electromechanical actuators for thrust vectoring of the engines (I think similar systems are now used in the JSF designs). The much publicized “Aerospike” engines failed to produce the projected 4% increase in Specific Impulse at altitudes below 10,000 feet (no projected increase above 30,000 feet), and showed lower performance and higher weight than standard engines. Everything about the airframe concept failed, from the original aerodynamics of the lifting body, to the practicality of this multi-lobed composite structure, to the ease of sealing the cryogenic honeycomb against destructive cryopumping. (Later tests apparently did succeed is sealing smaller honeycomb samples against cryopumping.)

The X-33 was to be a radio controlled model – large but unmanned – reaching about the altitude of Rutan’s SS1 and modest hypersonic speed. It is a joke to compare Mach 6 to 8 flight to orbital reentry (Mach 24), but that idea was pushed to the public. Originally, the promise was Mach 10 to 12 (up to ½ orbital speed = ¼ orbital energy), but this promise slid steadily downward (finally to less than 1/10 orbital energy).

The DCX demonstrated that neither wings nor parachutes were necessary to land. No proof was necessary since Apollo 11 did this in 1969 on the Moon. That radio control model used no new technology, but was good NASA PR. What an X-33 derivative of the DCX concept could have been is unknown and pointless speculation. Few now seriously believe that a SSTO RLV can be built with available technology in any form. I personally know that the breakthroughs in technology which would make any of these designs feasible could be demonstrated with thousands – not billions – of dollars!

(Please don’t imagine I mean that I know how to make a SSTO – I don’t. I know how to make and test engineering prototypes. If your mind provides the insights to produce the necessary advanced materials – please don’t think that it will take an impossible amount of money to prove that those insights are valid. But don’t draw pictures. The real problems do not lie in “big concept ideas”: they lie in basic materials and the proof can be carried in a pocket.)

My actual point was that, 1) Big Dollar funding will not save a bad design (X-33),
and 2) Really inspired thinking can usually be demonstrated on a modest budget.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:03 pm
Well, I can't say I understood all of that rather long post, but
rpspeck wrote:
My actual point was that, 1) Big Dollar funding will not save a bad design (X-33),
and 2) Really inspired thinking can usually be demonstrated on a modest budget.
I totally agree with the actual point.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:16 pm
rpspeck was right in lauding the DC-X.

It was a true proof-of-concept vehicle. It did not need to prove it could survive re-entry because it was to come down much as a warhead--and we know those work.

For Roton to have been a proof-of-concept vehicle--it would have had to come back and re-enter. We know that helicopters fly near the Earth's surface. All the test article was--was a fancy traffic cone with a fixed rotor blade up top. It might have looked sexy--but I don't see rotor blades being deployed on that thing not tearing off.

DC-X did its toughest work in taking off and landing--and in transition. Chicago Bridge and Iron in Birmingham AL (my home town) furnished the tankage.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use