I wonder if this guy is making any money on these domains? They seem overpriced to me.

One of the most amusing lessons of the Original Internet Bubble was how insignificant domain names mostly wound up being, I'd say primarily thanks to Google. In the end a memorable name (Google, Amazon, Snapfish) is more useful than a plainly descriptive name.

And won't the really sexy space-related domain names have a TLD like .L5 or .moon (.lun)?

PS I remember seeing many years ago, an April Fool's RFC that laid out the TLDs all of the planets and major moons in the solar system. Anyone else familiar with that?

Seems to be a lot of space mining related domains. For some reason I think space mining might be paid for by terrestrian mining companies that already have name recognition and the cash to push the space mining ventures and control the mineral wealth that could cause the value of their other ventures to plummet.

Beyond that the name I'd always consideres SpaceRock.com for a mining venture was missed entirely.

Doesn't it feel good to have a business plan?

It's not an April Fools.

Nobody has claimed SpacelySpaceSprockets.com yet.

I almost expect Bill White to appear and say we should colonize the Moon with the proceeds from domain names. :-)

Well, if you can get the cost to orbit low enough...

Nah.

This domain name stuff is Lame-Oh with a capital "L" even if some of the names are kinda cool.

What I propose is that NewSpace SELL media and marketing opportunties which in turn promote NewSpace memes within the larger American meme-o-sphere. Create a self reinforcing upwards spiral of attention and money.

BUYING meme-space is a fool's game.

And remember, a space tourist may very well spend X dollars to fly, generating X dollars of revenue for the NewSpace provider. A space tourist wearing a logo flight suit will generate revenue of X + Y.

> What I propose is that NewSpace SELL media and marketing opportunties

No, Bill, what you propose (over and over again) is that NewSpace sell media and marketing opportunties *to generate enough money to colonize the Moon, using Atlas rockets.*

There's a significant difference.

> A space tourist wearing a logo flight suit will generate revenue of X + Y.

No one disputes that, Bill. What we dispute is your fixed idea that Y would be large enough to buy all those Atlas rockets and other things you'd need to colonize the Moon.

Ed, find me a quote where I say what you say I say, okay?

Media and marketing probably cannot close a business case, today. Okay, what other non-taxpayer revenue stream can?

Media and marketing probably cannot close a business case, today. Okay, what other non-taxpayer revenue stream can?

Bill, you've been told this many times before. Are you having early onset of Alzheimers? ;-)

People who want to go into space, paying to go into space. If you think that "media and marketing" is bigger than that market, you understand very little about either market.

> Ed, find me a quote where I say what you say I say, okay?

Why, have you lost a quote? :-) Try reading your last 300 or so posts on this blog.

> Media and marketing probably cannot close a business case, today.

No, they can close a lot of business cases. But they can't close any business case that calls for colonizing the Moon/Mars/Alpha Centauri without doing anything to reduce the cost of space transportation.

> Okay, what other non-taxpayer revenue stream can?

None. Which is why no one will go to the Moon without a government revenue stream until we reduce the cost of space transportation.

That's why private enterprise is working to reduce the cost launch, instead of doing the immediate "Moon Rush" you want.

Of course, it's hypocritical of you to pretend you're opposed to government revenue streams while you're asking taxpayers to shell out hundreds of billions for ESAS. You're already asking for a huge government revenue stream. The only thing you oppose is using that revenue stream to support anything useful (beyond a tiny, underfunded COTS program).

Without a business case, who will fund the R&D needed to lower launch costs?

And who is spending more than a pittance on lowering launch costs?

Elon Musk is one answer but his costs per kg will still be higher than the Russians are today,

Bigelow is another but because he is creating a destination worth going to. The sooner that LEO hotel gets up there the better. And selling logo space on the sides of a Sundancer hotel will help Bigelow get it up there sooner.

The others? Desperately seeking financing is my assessment.

People who want to go into space, paying to go into space. If you think that "media and marketing" is bigger than that market, you understand very little about either market.

Yup, and if we start the groundwork needed to set up marketing deals, we will reach affordable ticket prices that much sooner.

Lets see, $200,000 to fly suborbital with no logos on your flight suit or $200,000 less $XYZ if you agree to market some products. Getting $XYZ as large as possible is in everyone's interest.

> Without a business case, who will fund the R&D needed to lower launch costs?

Poor Bill. You oppose any change in government policy that would help create a business case, then you whine that there's no business case.

Are we supposed to feel sorry because you cry crocodile tears?

If there's no business case, it's because you got just the policy you wanted.