Wired dot com article on this year's most audacious private space plans

[mrmandias]

I have high hopes for Golden Spike, but my guess is that the funding probably won't be there at the end of the day.  Planetary Resources, on the other hand, has a quite feasible actual business plan involving their Arkyds.

But my opinion doesn't matter any more than any of yours.  Or any less, for that matter, since its all irrelevant.  Can Platt and his antagonists please avoid a knock-down drag-out battle on this?

[Warren Platts]

I have high hopes for Golden Spike, but my guess is that the funding probably won't be there at the end of the day.  Planetary Resources, on the other hand, has a quite feasible actual business plan involving their Arkyds.

If there's one flaw in the GSC business plan, it is that it is still too expensive. If they could cut their costs and prices by a factor of 3 ($2.5B DDT&E, $500M/mission), I think would be a price point that would draw a lot more customers and investors.

As for PRI's depending on their Arkyd telescopes, they may be able to make some money in the remote sensing business, but they won't be generating the world's first trillionaire's out of telescopes.

[Robotbeat]

I have high hopes for Golden Spike, but my guess is that the funding probably won't be there at the end of the day.  Planetary Resources, on the other hand, has a quite feasible actual business plan involving their Arkyds.

If there's one flaw in the GSC business plan, it is that it is still too expensive. If they could cut their costs and prices by a factor of 3 ($2.5B DDT&E, $500M/mission), I think would be a price point that would draw a lot more customers and investors.

As for PRI's depending on their Arkyd telescopes, they may be able to make some money in the remote sensing business, but they won't be generating the world's first trillionaire's out of telescopes.

Agreed on all accounts. But I am a fan of the "get you foot in the door" of starting small but with SOME kind of revenue generation activity.