Sorry, Pierce, but your point is simply wrong.
Airlines--and space launchers--have no profits because it is an inherently no
profit business. That has nothing to do with the cost of the hardware.
When the per flight cost of the hardware drops to near zero--as is the case in
the airline business--the flights will stay prove to generate no profit.
Bill
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
True... and I believe you missed my point. The reason the airlines have had a
total net profit of somewhere near zero is because the much less numerous
makers of commercial aircraft have managed to organize the market in such a
way that they pocket essentially all of the profits produced.
-p
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
There is no difference between the manufacturer of the hardware and the
operator of it when the vehicles are expendable.
Bill
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Sep 16, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The airline industry has made net profits of approximately zero... but the
commercial aircraft industry has made a considerable sum of money in the
same period.
-p
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ken:
In a century, the airline industry has accumulate net profits of zero.
The same economic effects are and will continue to be true of the space
transportation business. Backing from smart and wealthy individuals and
funds does not make it a good idea.
They will ultimately fail to achieve profitability, just like every other
organization in the industry. They will so do for economic reasons that
have nothing to do with their technology or their brainpower or their
wealth.
Bill
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:39 AM, KEN BIBA <kenbiba@xxxxxx> wrote:
Guys:
Thanks for the mockery … sounds like a TRA list!
The question was honestly asked .. I am not a liquid motor specialist …
and was genuinely curious about whether their approach of 3D printing the
motor introduced even more risk.
As everyone has suggested - of course it is risky … part of the reason it
is fun after all.
I do think this is one of the more interesting small payload rockets I
have seen … and hopefully with near term actual results.
K
On Sep 15, 2015, at 11:12 PM, Florin Mingireanu
<florin.mingireanu82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, that rocket engine would be Estes 1/4A3-3T :-)
On the serious note:
Rocketry and aerospace in general involves indeed a great amount of risk.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Anthony Cesaroni
<acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can anyone on the list cite one rocket engine, including all the ones
considered "proven and successful" that don't have any inherent,
"technological' risks?
None come to mind. :-)
Best.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KEN BIBA
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:31 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Rocket Labs
Thanks folks. Anyone have opinions about the technology risks of their
motor? Seems to me to be the big issue.
K
On Sep 15, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Ed LeBouthillierwrote:
<codemonky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
launch system?
Anyone here have opinions or information about Rocket Labs and their
LEO
investors are quality Silicon Valley VCs - Bessemer and Khosla Ventures.
What I find particularly intriguing is that their two major venture
pretty.
I don't have anything profound to add, but I agree that their
hardware is
possible multiple failures early in their launch program. Obviously,
One thing that will be interesting is how they're set up to deal with
Musk/SpaceX had 3 failures in a row with their Falcon 1.
already getting late in the year. They have a flight plan which includes
Their website says a first launch "...planned for 2015..." and it's
preliminary launches in Q3 and Q4 of 2016.
have deep pockets. I wish them the best. None of this is easy.
I certainly like their "spunk." This is a tough business when you
don't
--
