posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by subject x
On the other hand, Virgin could send up a ship full of people, the ship explodes, and Virgin Spaceport is out of business, with $200million in
tax dollars sitting abandoned in the desert.
That's part of the risk of any contract building the government does.
I can't say I would be too wild about spending that kind of money on a private company, either... but at the same time, I am also a realist. I would
be willing to bet that $200M was something of a bid made to help sway the decision of where to build. Nevada may have offered up another value -
Arizona, another.
Again - if I'm a state representative and looking at this... $200M over a few years is not -all- that much, and the potential for success this
business has is, at this point, mostly determined by their internal structure and the actual market demand for their service (as they are the
exclusive provider). I would have a hard time shrugging and saying: "sure, let Texas have them."
The existence of that space port is not just in the interest of the company - it is in the interest of all who live in and around it. Airports,
factories, and other large businesses trigger an absolutely massive amount of economic activity around them. Fast food is particularly popular around
factories as you have 'lunch break' flood the local area (the smarter companies stagger their breaks from the local norm so their employees can
actually eat their food, rather than inhale it after sitting in the drive-thru for 20 minutes). Hotels and restaurants make up much of the economy
surrounding airports.
So, there is really a lot of potential, there. I -would- want a space port nearby, and would be somewhat disappointed if my state/local government
did not compete.
Again - ideologically, I agree with you - the government should distance itself from the business world. However - things like this are the
exception. Not every business is 'worth' competing over - but landscape-changers like this are.