There are piles and piles of money to be made owning and operating downstream
assets; a typical comsat can spin off several million per month for a decade
and a half.
But that money is not in transportation; transportation is a public good that
allows the downstream moneymaking but it is not and generally cannot be
profitable of itself.
Bill
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Sep 16, 2015, at 9:27 PM, KEN BIBA <kenbiba@xxxxxx> wrote:
Oh … perhaps.
The reality of smart money finding new space is rather interesting.
Transportation might NOT be the high return … but it is necessary to loft the
infrastructure to orbtit that DOES have great ROI.
I was intrigued to be at an investment conference on “New Space 2.0” last
week that had almost zero interest on transportation .. but HUGE interest on
way value comes from the information generated from satellites in orbit.
I thought it very significant that most of the interest is coming from hedge
funds looking to use deep learning analysis of satellite imagery to predict
retail sales (or building construction or agricultural futures) from imagery
from micro sats launched by such systems as Rocket Labs.
This is real folks.
K
On Sep 16, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 17/09/15 00:48, Bill Claybaugh wrote:
Or is it just another urban legend that airlines make no profit?
Why do people continue to finance them?
Sounds like an urban legend to me, but what do I kno?
Indeed; see Warren Buffet in the 22 November 1999 issue of Fortune magazine.
In one word - glamour. People invest in airlines, and spaaace, for glamour,
not for profit.
That is of course the reason why no-profit pricing continues to exist in the
airline industry - the extra, nan-balance-sheet, profit of glamour.
-- Peter Fairbrother
