Re: commercial uses of the Dtick and the Heavy Lifter

On 4 Oct 2005 06:50:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
<edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

>> Do note that unless it has a *lot* more payload than commercial launchers,
>> or is unique in some other significant way, it is illegal for NASA to
>> attempt to market it commercially or to subsidize an attempt by a NASA
>> contractor to do so. NASA is specifically forbidden, by post-Challenger
>> law, to compete with commercial launch providers (even for its own needs,
>> never mind on the open market).
>
>NASA couldn't do it, but the agency could probably
>"commercialize" the system by handing it off to a
>commercial operator. Sure, its development would
>have been subsidized, and it would be easy to argue
>that its operation was at least partially subsidized
>(NASA would have to charge a fee for use of launch
>facilities), but show me a commercial GTO launch
>vehicle that isn't or hasn't been subsidized (front
>or back door) in some way.

If Falcon IX flies, we'll be able to.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: commercial uses of the Dtick and the Heavy Lifter
    ... > Do note that unless it has a *lot* more payload than commercial launchers, ... > attempt to market it commercially or to subsidize an attempt by a NASA ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: commercial uses of the Dtick and the Heavy Lifter
    ... >>> attempt to market it commercially or to subsidize an attempt by a NASA ... >>> law, to compete with commercial launch providers (even for its own needs, ... The military payloads that we know ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: commercial uses of the Dtick and the Heavy Lifter
    ... >>> attempt to market it commercially or to subsidize an attempt by a NASA ... >>> law, to compete with commercial launch providers (even for its own needs, ... Even Falcon IX benefits from a government preference. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading