[ExI] Written for another list
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 30 17:19:04 UTC 2012
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:37 PM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com
> Demonstrate it at lower cost with existing technology
> first, even if you have to accept a much, much slower
> rate of payback at first.
Or even no payback. It could just be a proof of concept that doesn't even break even, but merely shows it can be done at such and such a price and gives good clues to what it would be like to operate the thing and what might happen at larger scales. Also, in this case, you're not blowing all your resources on a gigantic project that might fail, but a very small one where a failure is far less costly and you can more easily recover from it to try again.
> If what you say is true, then it should be possible to
> achieve profitability in several years with chemical
> propulsion alone, even assuming the amount you're
> squirreling away for R&D on the better-cheaper laser
> propulsion gets wasted.
Agreed. It would also using off the shelf launch technology -- reducing risk in one area. And costs might come down if one shops around for launchers rather than making specialized ones integral to the project.
> If it is not, then the rest of your model is probably bogus.
> That is what most investors will tell you.
I wouldn't say "bogus," but it's certainly how things would play out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat