Skip to main content

View Diary: Golden Spike to shoot for the moon by 2020 (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, I don't think "speculation" is the problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with GS - if they don't have a real plan to generate revenue and build up to the capability they want, then there's no risk at all because they're guaranteed not to go anywhere.  PR has a real plan to evolve their desired capability from off-the-shelf technology, and they have the backing to deal with the inevitable setbacks of a substantive innovation process - they're covered from both ends, and they're in a position to both fall back on more secure revenue streams when they hit barriers and launch ahead with big investments when they see a clear path to a big forward step.  

    GS doesn't sound like they've got either base covered: They need billions of dollars just to begin, and all they've got so far is money for feasibility studies.  And once this really does become feasible, the people with the resources are just going to launch their own operations, not invest in some press release group that by then has been puttering around for years making promises they can't keep and panhandling for money to do more studies.  It just sounds like a lose-lose to me.    

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

    by Troubadour on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:20:27 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      was thinking about that VTL point, that's a good point. The LEM made it look easy but dang, they were lucky as shit with the LEMs. I almost wonder if they think they anticipate a solution on the horizon. If they do, it's not one that's been reported, not as far as I know.

      •  Throw enough money at a thing (0+ / 0-)

        and you can almost - almost - guarantee that it will work once.  That's what the LMs were, and really the entire Apollo infrastructure: They weren't made out of metal - they were made out of money.  No expense was spared to ensure short-term success, and unfortunately that meant a guarantee of long-term failure.  So I don't fault today's rocket builders at all: They're aiming for reusability and economy, and they're achieving it - ever so gradually.  I just don't know what a company like Golden Spike can possibly achieve, since they bring nothing to the table but press releases.

        In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

        by Troubadour on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:50:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Heh, sounds just like Tesla (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pete Cortez

      before Elon Musk got involved. Funny thing, they were able to attract him and his funding. Now Tesla is a profitable enterprise that actually sells marketable products. But it all started with an engineer, a dream, and not much else...ok a somewhat working prototype too. These guys don't have that but they do have the know-how.

      On the other hand it also sounds a lot like EESTOR, which pretty much followed the pattern you layed out. So I'm thinking it could go either way.

      "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

      by Phil In Denver on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 11:08:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What is this "real plan?" (0+ / 0-)

      How is PR evolving their capability from off-the-shelf technology any different from GS...well...evoling their capability from off-the-shelf technology?  The real difference seems to be that a third party group of investors that includes some billionaires. is behind PR.  GS doesn't appear to have similar backing at this time.

      And let's not forget that Eric Anderson "panhandled" for years before scoring big by netting Perot Jr., Page and Schmidt.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site