A Monty Python sketch comes to mind, some about castles and swamps...
My first startup was a failure - and the end results could only be described as disasterous. My second one was mostly a failure, in that we did not accomplish our objectives but we were able to sell the result for a tiny profit (basically we made back our salaries as college kids). (At this point the startups overlap, since I decided I better have more than one going at a time. Chronology is based on company incorporation date) The third one was wildly sucessfull, and is still going strong. The fourth one was partially successfull, and was sold (but I didn't really have much stake in it). The fifth one was funded, work started, and then 9/11 killed it dead (Airlines were a big part of the business plan, and our investors backed out). The fifth one was profitable, but closed eventually due to clients drying up (and I wanted my life back at that point!). The sixth one has been successfull so far, and hopefully will provide the highest return yet.
And the sixth one stood up! And that's what you'll get lad - the strongest castle in these here isles!
My advice is to make sure you have a plan for if (when) it falls apart. If you have that plan, you will make better choices and negotiate better, because you will know "I don't have to accept this offer, I can always XXXX."
Good luck! (As for it being slavery, it's not really. It's just hard work!)
All I can really say is that I disagree. I think that what you say is true of large companies in general, but it has always been true of them. I think the economy is built by small companies, and large companies exploit the returns. I think top heavy large companies get replaced by smaller companies, employees get only their replacement value - just like the managers.
I have used this knowlege to position myself to take advantage of the larger companies weakness - and to put me in a position to replace their functionality. I have gone from the lowest income bracket to one of the highest - with no monetary assistance from anyone. I am disabled, but the government did not bail me out - and that made me stronger. I am not bragging, but I really do think the world would be a better place if more of us stepped up and started small companies. And those that do will reap the benefits.
Giving people money always ends up hurting them. Look at past examples: welfare families, lottery winners, etc. It puts you in the wrong mindset. (Mind you, I understand what you are saying - when I was bedridden and the givernment refused to help me I was pretty mad!)
It is interesting that you mention globalization. I grew up living in various countries, and as you say "globalization is leveling the playing field." What I have noticed, though, is that the other countries are starting to become competitive with the US (to the enormous benefit of their populace), not that the US is getting weaker. It is not a zero sum game - and the more people we pull to the top with us the better off we all are!
I guess as I have dealt with businesses, and seen how corporations work at the highest levels, it has made me realize that the people at the top are just people, for the most part just trying to do the best that they can. Of course all you see in the press are the bad apples - but there are over a million companies in the US, so there will always be something bad to talk about. You just have to realize that the view the media gives you is very one sided. (Whenever the media reports something, think this: How could that man (or woman) be a good man that is being taken advantage of by the media?)
The only other thing I want to say is this: business deals are built on trust. There is always a way to wiggle out of a contract. There is always a way to stiff your partner. The reason the economy works is because people are good for the most part, and so you can trust them. Something that worked extremely well for me was to find someone outside my area of expertise (he was a businessman, I was an engineer) and befriend him. He saw things differently than I did - and my friendship allowed me to understand where he stood, which got me to where I am today. (Wonderful apartment on the 54th floor of a high-rise with my daughter crawling all over me!)
Do what is best for you! I wish you all the luck in the world!
I agree that their are problems, but I disagree that they are as widespread as you seem to beleive. To put it simply - those companies go out of business, and the CEO no longer makes that much money. To me, that is the market working propperly. If money were taken away from managers and "given" to employees, fewer people would become managers. (You agree there, right?) Without managers, there are fewer positions for workers. So by "fairly" spreading profits and not paying managers the market value, you change the economy so that instead of having almost everyone employed for what the market will bear, you have less people employed for higher wages.
The most useful person in our present society is someone that can derive excess value from the work of others - managers. Good managers are exceptionally rare - so rare that most managers are doing jobs that they are not qualified for. I beleive that is the real problem.
We need more managers, we need more people that can create value from jobs. Otherwise, we can only play a zero sum game...
More than that - start your own company! It is really hard, but that hard work is what makes this economy work - and the rewards are matched to the effort.
That's why I said ease, not profits, because the word profits seems to confuse people. Since you asked, I'm going to keep spouting my ideas - you may feel free to ignore me if you want.
Management (especially building a new company) is a lot harder to get right than most people think - and it is far more valuable to society than any other endevour I can think of. Thats why the rewards for successfull management are so large. But to get back to the split of "ease":
The worker gets a certain percentage of the profits directly - they are paid. In addition, since society as a whole is better off (and they are a member of society), they receive an additional compensation. The manager almost always gets a larger payment. Since, as I stated earlier, money is the way society evaluates value added - it is apparent that the manager has done something worth a lot more. You probably don't believe me here, but ask yourself these questions:
If the worker decided to leave, what is the cost it would take to replace them?
If the manager decided to leave, what is the cost to replace him/her?
You would have to agree that there is a difference in price. Ask yourself why that difference exists. What is the value created from an additional laborer in the workforce? What is the value created from an additional company in the economy? The ratio of good managers to management required is lower than the ratio of good workers to workers required - so there is a (large) incentive to get people to stop being workers and start being managers.
Society is using money to tell you what it needs - but all you see is that someone else is getting the money. Become what society needs! We need more entrepenours! Do it!
If you do it (to help society, not to get cash), you will get rich in all senses of the word. But you will also learn that it is amazingly hard work, high risk, and worht every penny society pays for it.
Then you can be like me and try to pull up those that follow...
Oh, and on that note, I've noticed a sad lack of appreciation for technical matters on thew part of the so-called business people. The last time I looked, I'm sure the founding fathers meant for the economy to serve us, not the other way around.
Interesting comment. Would it be fair to say that there is also a "sad lack of appreciation for business matters on the part of the so-called technical people." It is one of the most interesting things that I learned from my marriage is that different people have different viewpoints, and that both viewpoints are valid. By trying to see the other viewpoint, we can learn about ourselves.
As for the economy serving us or them, the economy is a machine - it serves anyone that knows how to use it. In the US, that machine doesn't even require a password (nobility, born into the right family, etc.). Those that believe that the economy should be serving them do not understand how that machine works - and therefore only minimally profit from its existence.
For example, what is money? Money is not a source of power, money is not a tool, money is not the root of evil - money is a device used by society to measure the relative value of objects, plans, and effort. This can be abused, of course, but that is the basic idea. If someone else is making more money than you, what that person is doing is (at least locally) more valuable to society. Don't try to tear that person down, try to get yourself to that position - do what they do. The way the economy works it that I make your life easier and we share the difference in ease. (The same statement as you make my life easier and we share the difference in ease.)
I could go on for hours, but you really didn't want to hear any of this, ne? Sorry!
You have to understand that NASA is not in the business of providing space access - they provide science and research. If NASA had a rocket that could fly to the moon and back for $0.20, you would not be allowed to go in it. Only astronauts (and senators, apparently) would be allowed (though if it really was that cheap, friends would sneak on board and be overlooked).
The problem is that NASA, as a government entity, would not be allowed to take you even if they wanted to. Private industry would have to step in.
BTW, the problem is not an engineering one - those are solved, and have been for some time. The problem is a business problem - and a technical writer would almost certainly be useful there!
One of the cool differences between my engineering stats class and my management stats class was the way statistics were explained. In engineering, they said pretty much what you just said...
But in management, they said "You have to weigh three factors: your experience, the gravity of the decision, and the statistics. The propper way to interpret a statistic is: The data, all by itself, makes me XXXXX suspicious." You replace XXXXX with a little (70%), somewhat (85%), very (90%), extremely (95%). I think this is a cool way to look at it - and it allows us to Bash MS with bad data, based on historical information...
The true badness of a nuke going off in space is that the Xrays (I think) ionize everything they hit - including metal sattellite skins, wiring traces, etc. The resulting surge of "static" electricity kills the entire electrical system.
I don't think humans would be bothered too much - we are pretty much transparent to Xrays - though they probably wouldn't survive too long afterwards with no electronics...
You can harden electronics against this of course.
Heh, I seem to remember a chemical Isp in the 850s - something amazingly nasty like flourine - ozone - lithium - Hydrogen.
Of course, you could do one better with radioactive ozone (it's lighter) - that way when your rocket explodes you could spread radioactive goodness all over the launch area!
True, my costs are probably too low in my case - I was using incremental cost, while you make a good argument for total cost. To me, the car and parking are sunk costs (insurance is negligible after those two).
Of course, I have fewer options than most - I am partially disabled, so riding a bike is out, as is walking "too far" - which changes on a daily baises... I wish public transportation was better in my area - a subway right next to my building would be nice...
Don't get me wrong, CTA is great! But once you graduate, your time value vs money value will shift drastically - I would pay >$100/hour to have more time in the day!
BTW - I think we are supposed to hate each other or something - I am getting my EMBA at Kellogg (Northwestern);-}
You say that it is engineering and logistics, but the problem is deeper. As you point out, the direct costs of fuel are miniscule (about $10-$20 per pound), but all that fuel has to be carried in a tank. And the tank cannot weigh more than 1-5% of the fuel weight. And the engine cannot weigh more than 1-2% of the fuel weight. Etc, etc, etc.
Then you have to think about what happens when this rocket crashes or goes off course. You are carrying so much fuel and oxidizer that you will make a spectacular explosion - so you have to get all sorts of government clearances to launch. On top of that, you need insurance - if your payload costs $1B, and you can only prove a 90% safety record, your insurance will be at least $100M.
Of course all this added together only reaches about $1500 per pound, while current launches cost $5000 per pound. The single largest contributer to launch cost is vehicle R&D. Because it is so hard to make a rocket work, rockets are extremely expensive to design. I am sure you have heard how most rockets cost billions of dollars in R&D - well, spread that over 100 launches. You say "Hey, thats only $10M per launch! What gives?
The time value of money raises it's ugly head. If you launch twice a year, then you must earn the amount of money a similar investment (say in the stock market) would have made - otherwise your investors don't give you their money, they invest it in stocks (duh!). So assume really low risk (which isn't really true unless you are doing government launches), so you need a 10% return. Say we spent $2B in R&D. 10% is $200M - over 2 flights, $100M per flight!
The only way around this is a higher flight rate - but there is no market for that. (Remember, your business plan has to deal with the current reality, not a perfect world where everyone comes and uses your rocket!)
It simply amazes me how we have so many business geniuses, but not one of them has even considered space as the next new continent. What ever happened to good old American ingenuity and initiative, eh? Why have we apparently just given up our collective dreams of space exploration and development? Any one care to explain?
I am currently working on this - so perhaps I can give you some insights. The main problems are conflicting visions for the future, and people having problems basing business plans in the present.
For example - it makes no sense to start an aerospace company right now. There are more aerospace companies than there are payloads to orbit (literally - there are 50 orbital flights a year, and hundreds of little space startups). Even if you have "special sauce" that makes you 10x better than your competition, making others believe your rocket is reliable enough to launch their billion dollar payload will take a lot of planning, flights, and sales dollars. Not to mention that you are competing in a government controlled industry, where the winners have already been chosen to a large extent. Progress is being made, but it is slow.
Additionally, the comercial launch people (who are the most likely to be on your side) also have a conflict of interest - they have already launched billion dollar satellites. What happens when you suddenly launch their competition at 1/10 the price? Suddenly they lose a couple billion of their balance sheet. (To be honest, this won't stop them - but it effects them psychologically at least!)
The last major problem is that everything you can think of in rocket design has been thought up and patented or made public. Even though the patents have expired, it means that a startup company that makes a cheap rocket has no IP protection - so the second to market gets to use their IP without having to fund the development, so they would wipe the floor with them. Making information on your super rocket design public is a sure way to kill it. And just to make sure you know, rocket design is still hard! The rocket has to be 80-95% fuel. The engine has to operate at temperatures far higher than the melting point of any possible material - even diamond or tungsten. The engine has to be nearly 100% efficient (except exhaust losses), because it can't weigh much but has several GigaWatts flowing through it!
All of these problems must be addressed in your business plan - and remember, your business plan needs to be convincing enough that your wife would be willing to invest. That's why I am taking it slowly, spending two years finalizing my business plan - making sure that I have covered all the angles. I need to talk to all the stakeholders, and make sure that they will not fight against the project. Hopefully, in one year the public will hear about it. (Of course, the fact that I get my EMBA at that point is also convinient.)
I am optomistic though - the plan has a 10x return in the first 2 years (high risk), 2x return in the next year (medium risk), and a somewhat normal return for the remaining years (almost no risk).
Of course, I could also have answered your question with this line:
What are you waiting for? If you think it will work, why don't you do it? Startups are what make our economy work!
I am taking 3 people from Streeterville (about Erie and Lakeshore) to Logan Square. The nearest subway is about half a mile away - so it is walk ($0), taxi ($5-7), wait, train ($5), walk, times 2.
I could save about $2 by taking the bus instead of a taxi - then it would take 1.5 hours instead...
The problem with this idea is twofold - first, I am now limitted in my options so there is a loss from my perspective. Second, I have to change transportation methods 4 times - that's why there is such a disparity in the times - which means that I do not get uninterrupted thinking time, I get busy work time.
Besides, donating time to my job - even though it is a great job - is not my intention.
You know, I used to think that also when I lived out west - but then I came to a place where they have a 45 mile per hour limit on a 12 lane expressway. Really, what is the point of that? They do it because when it snows they don't want people going 75 on the highway... but during normal weather someone going 45 in any but the right lane would be a serious road hazard, since everyone else is going 75.
I'm not sure what the real answer is, unless we can get realtime updates to speed limit signs (or less foolish humans).
Really, why, in North America, are we so fixated on the automobile for personal transport?
Because of the time value of money (heh, actually the money value of time...). I live in downtown Chicago. I recently bought a car - before that I had to use public transportation. I used to spend $15 each time I had to go to this one weekly meeting - and it took 50 minutes to get there, and 50 minutes to get back. Now I drive - it takes 15 minutes to get there, 15 minutes back - and costs about $1.00. If I was a college student, wasting 2 hours a day would have an opportunity cost of $10. According to work, the wasted 2 hours has a cost of >$200 - it doesn't take long to make a car the better option.
That said, I still have only put 1500 miles on the car in 4 months. Chicago is great, you can walk almost anywhere you want to go!
Over the years I have come to realize that we really needs the weirdos on the far right fighting the weirdos on the far left - the constant turmoil prevents complacency, and lets us adapt to new situations more quickly.
It is a real pain sometimes, agreed. (Although of course you and I would differ on which group does more damage...)
Slashdot Mirror
A Monty Python sketch comes to mind, some about castles and swamps...
My first startup was a failure - and the end results could only be described as disasterous. My second one was mostly a failure, in that we did not accomplish our objectives but we were able to sell the result for a tiny profit (basically we made back our salaries as college kids). (At this point the startups overlap, since I decided I better have more than one going at a time. Chronology is based on company incorporation date) The third one was wildly sucessfull, and is still going strong. The fourth one was partially successfull, and was sold (but I didn't really have much stake in it). The fifth one was funded, work started, and then 9/11 killed it dead (Airlines were a big part of the business plan, and our investors backed out). The fifth one was profitable, but closed eventually due to clients drying up (and I wanted my life back at that point!). The sixth one has been successfull so far, and hopefully will provide the highest return yet.
And the sixth one stood up! And that's what you'll get lad - the strongest castle in these here isles!
My advice is to make sure you have a plan for if (when) it falls apart. If you have that plan, you will make better choices and negotiate better, because you will know "I don't have to accept this offer, I can always XXXX."
Good luck! (As for it being slavery, it's not really. It's just hard work!)
All I can really say is that I disagree. I think that what you say is true of large companies in general, but it has always been true of them. I think the economy is built by small companies, and large companies exploit the returns. I think top heavy large companies get replaced by smaller companies, employees get only their replacement value - just like the managers.
I have used this knowlege to position myself to take advantage of the larger companies weakness - and to put me in a position to replace their functionality. I have gone from the lowest income bracket to one of the highest - with no monetary assistance from anyone. I am disabled, but the government did not bail me out - and that made me stronger. I am not bragging, but I really do think the world would be a better place if more of us stepped up and started small companies. And those that do will reap the benefits.
Giving people money always ends up hurting them. Look at past examples: welfare families, lottery winners, etc. It puts you in the wrong mindset. (Mind you, I understand what you are saying - when I was bedridden and the givernment refused to help me I was pretty mad!)
It is interesting that you mention globalization. I grew up living in various countries, and as you say "globalization is leveling the playing field." What I have noticed, though, is that the other countries are starting to become competitive with the US (to the enormous benefit of their populace), not that the US is getting weaker. It is not a zero sum game - and the more people we pull to the top with us the better off we all are!
I guess as I have dealt with businesses, and seen how corporations work at the highest levels, it has made me realize that the people at the top are just people, for the most part just trying to do the best that they can. Of course all you see in the press are the bad apples - but there are over a million companies in the US, so there will always be something bad to talk about. You just have to realize that the view the media gives you is very one sided. (Whenever the media reports something, think this: How could that man (or woman) be a good man that is being taken advantage of by the media?)
The only other thing I want to say is this: business deals are built on trust. There is always a way to wiggle out of a contract. There is always a way to stiff your partner. The reason the economy works is because people are good for the most part, and so you can trust them. Something that worked extremely well for me was to find someone outside my area of expertise (he was a businessman, I was an engineer) and befriend him. He saw things differently than I did - and my friendship allowed me to understand where he stood, which got me to where I am today. (Wonderful apartment on the 54th floor of a high-rise with my daughter crawling all over me!)
Do what is best for you! I wish you all the luck in the world!
Sorry. That is, of course, 30 uninvolved persons deaths. It doesn't count if you kill yourself - that is perfectly fine...
I agree that their are problems, but I disagree that they are as widespread as you seem to beleive. To put it simply - those companies go out of business, and the CEO no longer makes that much money. To me, that is the market working propperly. If money were taken away from managers and "given" to employees, fewer people would become managers. (You agree there, right?) Without managers, there are fewer positions for workers. So by "fairly" spreading profits and not paying managers the market value, you change the economy so that instead of having almost everyone employed for what the market will bear, you have less people employed for higher wages.
The most useful person in our present society is someone that can derive excess value from the work of others - managers. Good managers are exceptionally rare - so rare that most managers are doing jobs that they are not qualified for. I beleive that is the real problem.
We need more managers, we need more people that can create value from jobs. Otherwise, we can only play a zero sum game...
More than that - start your own company! It is really hard, but that hard work is what makes this economy work - and the rewards are matched to the effort.
That's why I said ease, not profits, because the word profits seems to confuse people. Since you asked, I'm going to keep spouting my ideas - you may feel free to ignore me if you want.
Management (especially building a new company) is a lot harder to get right than most people think - and it is far more valuable to society than any other endevour I can think of. Thats why the rewards for successfull management are so large. But to get back to the split of "ease":
The worker gets a certain percentage of the profits directly - they are paid. In addition, since society as a whole is better off (and they are a member of society), they receive an additional compensation. The manager almost always gets a larger payment. Since, as I stated earlier, money is the way society evaluates value added - it is apparent that the manager has done something worth a lot more. You probably don't believe me here, but ask yourself these questions:
If the worker decided to leave, what is the cost it would take to replace them?
If the manager decided to leave, what is the cost to replace him/her?
You would have to agree that there is a difference in price. Ask yourself why that difference exists. What is the value created from an additional laborer in the workforce? What is the value created from an additional company in the economy? The ratio of good managers to management required is lower than the ratio of good workers to workers required - so there is a (large) incentive to get people to stop being workers and start being managers.
Society is using money to tell you what it needs - but all you see is that someone else is getting the money. Become what society needs! We need more entrepenours! Do it!
If you do it (to help society, not to get cash), you will get rich in all senses of the word. But you will also learn that it is amazingly hard work, high risk, and worht every penny society pays for it.
Then you can be like me and try to pull up those that follow...
Oh, and on that note, I've noticed a sad lack of appreciation for technical matters on thew part of the so-called business people. The last time I looked, I'm sure the founding fathers meant for the economy to serve us, not the other way around.
Interesting comment. Would it be fair to say that there is also a "sad lack of appreciation for business matters on the part of the so-called technical people." It is one of the most interesting things that I learned from my marriage is that different people have different viewpoints, and that both viewpoints are valid. By trying to see the other viewpoint, we can learn about ourselves.
As for the economy serving us or them, the economy is a machine - it serves anyone that knows how to use it. In the US, that machine doesn't even require a password (nobility, born into the right family, etc.). Those that believe that the economy should be serving them do not understand how that machine works - and therefore only minimally profit from its existence.
For example, what is money? Money is not a source of power, money is not a tool, money is not the root of evil - money is a device used by society to measure the relative value of objects, plans, and effort. This can be abused, of course, but that is the basic idea. If someone else is making more money than you, what that person is doing is (at least locally) more valuable to society. Don't try to tear that person down, try to get yourself to that position - do what they do. The way the economy works it that I make your life easier and we share the difference in ease. (The same statement as you make my life easier and we share the difference in ease.)
I could go on for hours, but you really didn't want to hear any of this, ne? Sorry!
You have to understand that NASA is not in the business of providing space access - they provide science and research. If NASA had a rocket that could fly to the moon and back for $0.20, you would not be allowed to go in it. Only astronauts (and senators, apparently) would be allowed (though if it really was that cheap, friends would sneak on board and be overlooked).
The problem is that NASA, as a government entity, would not be allowed to take you even if they wanted to. Private industry would have to step in.
BTW, the problem is not an engineering one - those are solved, and have been for some time. The problem is a business problem - and a technical writer would almost certainly be useful there!
My point still stands =) The majority of the cost is in the logistics and engineering of the thing.
;-)
/.
Ah, I see - sorry, I thought you were talking about unit creation engineering, not R&D.
Just curious, any more info on this company you are starting up?
Unfortunately no, other than that it will be cool!
I have to get all the proof of concept and legal work done before I can talk about it. Maybe it will be the first site I submit to
One of the cool differences between my engineering stats class and my management stats class was the way statistics were explained. In engineering, they said pretty much what you just said...
But in management, they said "You have to weigh three factors: your experience, the gravity of the decision, and the statistics. The propper way to interpret a statistic is: The data, all by itself, makes me XXXXX suspicious." You replace XXXXX with a little (70%), somewhat (85%), very (90%), extremely (95%). I think this is a cool way to look at it - and it allows us to Bash MS with bad data, based on historical information...
The true badness of a nuke going off in space is that the Xrays (I think) ionize everything they hit - including metal sattellite skins, wiring traces, etc. The resulting surge of "static" electricity kills the entire electrical system.
I don't think humans would be bothered too much - we are pretty much transparent to Xrays - though they probably wouldn't survive too long afterwards with no electronics...
You can harden electronics against this of course.
You are talking about simple risk handling. USA launch permits require that the probability of death be less than 30 deaths per million launches.
This is not hard stuff - their are similar requirements for terrestrial reactors.
Heh, I seem to remember a chemical Isp in the 850s - something amazingly nasty like flourine - ozone - lithium - Hydrogen.
Of course, you could do one better with radioactive ozone (it's lighter) - that way when your rocket explodes you could spread radioactive goodness all over the launch area!
True, my costs are probably too low in my case - I was using incremental cost, while you make a good argument for total cost. To me, the car and parking are sunk costs (insurance is negligible after those two).
Of course, I have fewer options than most - I am partially disabled, so riding a bike is out, as is walking "too far" - which changes on a daily baises... I wish public transportation was better in my area - a subway right next to my building would be nice...
Don't get me wrong, CTA is great! But once you graduate, your time value vs money value will shift drastically - I would pay >$100/hour to have more time in the day!
;-}
BTW - I think we are supposed to hate each other or something - I am getting my EMBA at Kellogg (Northwestern)
You say that it is engineering and logistics, but the problem is deeper. As you point out, the direct costs of fuel are miniscule (about $10-$20 per pound), but all that fuel has to be carried in a tank. And the tank cannot weigh more than 1-5% of the fuel weight. And the engine cannot weigh more than 1-2% of the fuel weight. Etc, etc, etc.
Then you have to think about what happens when this rocket crashes or goes off course. You are carrying so much fuel and oxidizer that you will make a spectacular explosion - so you have to get all sorts of government clearances to launch. On top of that, you need insurance - if your payload costs $1B, and you can only prove a 90% safety record, your insurance will be at least $100M.
Of course all this added together only reaches about $1500 per pound, while current launches cost $5000 per pound. The single largest contributer to launch cost is vehicle R&D. Because it is so hard to make a rocket work, rockets are extremely expensive to design. I am sure you have heard how most rockets cost billions of dollars in R&D - well, spread that over 100 launches. You say "Hey, thats only $10M per launch! What gives?
The time value of money raises it's ugly head. If you launch twice a year, then you must earn the amount of money a similar investment (say in the stock market) would have made - otherwise your investors don't give you their money, they invest it in stocks (duh!). So assume really low risk (which isn't really true unless you are doing government launches), so you need a 10% return. Say we spent $2B in R&D. 10% is $200M - over 2 flights, $100M per flight!
The only way around this is a higher flight rate - but there is no market for that. (Remember, your business plan has to deal with the current reality, not a perfect world where everyone comes and uses your rocket!)
And yes, I think I have solved these problems...
It simply amazes me how we have so many business geniuses, but not one of them has even considered space as the next new continent. What ever happened to good old American ingenuity and initiative, eh? Why have we apparently just given up our collective dreams of space exploration and development? Any one care to explain?
I am currently working on this - so perhaps I can give you some insights. The main problems are conflicting visions for the future, and people having problems basing business plans in the present.
For example - it makes no sense to start an aerospace company right now. There are more aerospace companies than there are payloads to orbit (literally - there are 50 orbital flights a year, and hundreds of little space startups). Even if you have "special sauce" that makes you 10x better than your competition, making others believe your rocket is reliable enough to launch their billion dollar payload will take a lot of planning, flights, and sales dollars. Not to mention that you are competing in a government controlled industry, where the winners have already been chosen to a large extent. Progress is being made, but it is slow.
Additionally, the comercial launch people (who are the most likely to be on your side) also have a conflict of interest - they have already launched billion dollar satellites. What happens when you suddenly launch their competition at 1/10 the price? Suddenly they lose a couple billion of their balance sheet. (To be honest, this won't stop them - but it effects them psychologically at least!)
The last major problem is that everything you can think of in rocket design has been thought up and patented or made public. Even though the patents have expired, it means that a startup company that makes a cheap rocket has no IP protection - so the second to market gets to use their IP without having to fund the development, so they would wipe the floor with them. Making information on your super rocket design public is a sure way to kill it. And just to make sure you know, rocket design is still hard! The rocket has to be 80-95% fuel. The engine has to operate at temperatures far higher than the melting point of any possible material - even diamond or tungsten. The engine has to be nearly 100% efficient (except exhaust losses), because it can't weigh much but has several GigaWatts flowing through it!
All of these problems must be addressed in your business plan - and remember, your business plan needs to be convincing enough that your wife would be willing to invest. That's why I am taking it slowly, spending two years finalizing my business plan - making sure that I have covered all the angles. I need to talk to all the stakeholders, and make sure that they will not fight against the project. Hopefully, in one year the public will hear about it. (Of course, the fact that I get my EMBA at that point is also convinient.)
I am optomistic though - the plan has a 10x return in the first 2 years (high risk), 2x return in the next year (medium risk), and a somewhat normal return for the remaining years (almost no risk).
Of course, I could also have answered your question with this line:
What are you waiting for? If you think it will work, why don't you do it? Startups are what make our economy work!
Yep - that's what they did out west, dual speed limit signs. Out here, everyone just speeds...
I am taking 3 people from Streeterville (about Erie and Lakeshore) to Logan Square. The nearest subway is about half a mile away - so it is walk ($0), taxi ($5-7), wait, train ($5), walk, times 2.
I could save about $2 by taking the bus instead of a taxi - then it would take 1.5 hours instead...
The problem with this idea is twofold - first, I am now limitted in my options so there is a loss from my perspective. Second, I have to change transportation methods 4 times - that's why there is such a disparity in the times - which means that I do not get uninterrupted thinking time, I get busy work time.
Besides, donating time to my job - even though it is a great job - is not my intention.
I would pay good money for that time - and in fact I did pay money for that time.
Hm. I make more than my psychiatrist - so it my mental health worth less than my time?
You know, I used to think that also when I lived out west - but then I came to a place where they have a 45 mile per hour limit on a 12 lane expressway. Really, what is the point of that? They do it because when it snows they don't want people going 75 on the highway... but during normal weather someone going 45 in any but the right lane would be a serious road hazard, since everyone else is going 75.
I'm not sure what the real answer is, unless we can get realtime updates to speed limit signs (or less foolish humans).
Really, why, in North America, are we so fixated on the automobile for personal transport?
Because of the time value of money (heh, actually the money value of time...). I live in downtown Chicago. I recently bought a car - before that I had to use public transportation. I used to spend $15 each time I had to go to this one weekly meeting - and it took 50 minutes to get there, and 50 minutes to get back. Now I drive - it takes 15 minutes to get there, 15 minutes back - and costs about $1.00. If I was a college student, wasting 2 hours a day would have an opportunity cost of $10. According to work, the wasted 2 hours has a cost of >$200 - it doesn't take long to make a car the better option.
That said, I still have only put 1500 miles on the car in 4 months. Chicago is great, you can walk almost anywhere you want to go!
I do realize that you were joking, but...
Over the years I have come to realize that we really needs the weirdos on the far right fighting the weirdos on the far left - the constant turmoil prevents complacency, and lets us adapt to new situations more quickly.
It is a real pain sometimes, agreed. (Although of course you and I would differ on which group does more damage...)