Re: commercial uses of the Dtick and the Heavy Lifter

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:39:29 -0400, Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:02:52 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:55:55 -0400, in a place far, far away, Josh
>>Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>>such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>>On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:33:53 GMT, henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1128364904.375605.23280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>Ed Kyle <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>A closer look shows that the two-stage Stick would
>>>>>only be able to do a bit more than 7 tonnes to GTO
>>>>>(I came up with 7.2 tonnes)...
>>>>
>>>>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).
>>>
>>>Which once seemed to me a sensible prohibition, but now seems to me
>>>foolish, since it reduces utilization.
>>
>>So NASA should once again wreck the commercial lauch industry by
>>competing against it with taxpayer-subsidized systems?

The commercial launch industry is already competing against
taxpayer-subsidized systems from Russia, China, and the EU, and with
the handicap of a manipulated exchange rate.

--
Josh

"It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity
and incumbency." - George W. Bush
.